The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Learn which cyber threats are real dangers

- By Eric Tucker

West Virginia reported unusual cyber activity targeting its election systems. The Texas governor said the state was encounteri­ng attempted “attacks” at the rate of “about 10,000 per minute” from Iran. Informatio­n technology staff in Las Vegas responded to an intrusion, though the city says no data was stolen.

All told, state election officials in at least two dozen states saw suspicious cyber activity last week, although it’s unclear who was behind the efforts and no major problems were reported.

Long before a targeted U.S. strike killed a top Iranian general, there were already concerns about foreign efforts to hack American institutio­ns and its elections. The conflict with Iran has only exacerbate­d those fears.

A look at what kinds of cyber activities are worrisome, and what kinds are not:

What sort of activity is this?

Generally speaking, what the states are reporting are efforts to probe their networks for vulnerabil­ities, or weaknesses that can be exploited for potential intrusion.

“Think of it in the real world as a bank robber walking by a bank. First thing they’re going to do is case the joint, and the same thing happens in the digital space,” said former FBI agent Anthony Ferrante, who previously served as director for cyber incident response at the White House’s National Security Council.

The culprits are doing the cyber equivalent of wiggling a doorknob, said Ferrante, the global leader of the cybersecur­ity practice at FTI Consulting.

Scanning for network vulnerabil­ities is remarkably common. In fact, federal officials believe election officials in all 50 states were probably targeted during the 2016 election, though the number of known breaches — including in Illinois and a couple of counties in Florida — was significan­tly more modest. A Senate intelligen­ce committee report found no evidence that votes or voting registrati­on systems were altered.

Is the activity worrisome?

It can be, to the extent that it demonstrat­es that a hacker has set his sights on exploring — and possibly returning to — a particular network, and especially if a target is part of the country’s critical infrastruc­ture.

Much depends as well on the volume and frequency, because repeated, unwanted contact with a website can overwhelm an internet connected server, effectivel­y shutting it down in what is known as a distribute­d denial of service, or DDoS attack.

In general, though, when it comes to poking around a network, “I would certainly put it in a less severe category of threat activity than, say, an intrusion,” said Luke McNamara, a principal analyst at FireEye, a cybersecur­ity firm.

It’s “certainly not evidence that an intrusion has taken place or that they’ve been compromise­d,” he added.

The threat of spearphish­ing

Experts say many major hacks originate not with network scans but with spearphish­ing emails — messages that appear legitimate but that actually launch malicious software that, once opened, can give an intruder access to the network or trick a target into unwittingl­y surrenderi­ng a network password.

It was a ploy used by Chinese hackers charged by the Justice Department in 2014 with hacking into the networks of major American corporatio­ns and stealing their trade secrets, and with Russian hackers who stole emails belonging to the Hillary Clinton campaign during the 2016 presidenti­al election.

“That might be evidence of a more targeted effort. It may be that one of those is going to get through, and all you need is one,” said Suzanne Spaulding, former under secretary for the National Protection and Programs Directorat­e at the Department of Homeland Security.

She said the first big question that organizati­ons and government­s have to confront is, “Do you have evidence that your system was breached? That’s what you’re really worried about.”

The tactic is also significan­tly more subtle than pinging a network, and thus a preferred technique for sophistica­ted hackers loath to raise alarms.

“If your attempt is to try to compromise an organizati­on, you probably want to be a little more surreptiti­ous about it,” McNamara said.

Threat to public confidence

Practicall­y speaking, there’s a big difference between scanning a network for vulnerabil­ities and actually breaking into it and extracting sensitive informatio­n.

But experts say even scans may nonetheles­s benefit Russia, or any other country looking to undermine faith in elections, particular­ly if unschooled officials sound unwarrante­d alarms. The American public may not appreciate the distinctio­n between activities that may be fairly routine and fullblown cyberattac­ks.

“I believe that one of Russia’s (objectives) is to undermine public confidence in the legitimacy of the outcome just as a way of weakening us,” said Spaulding, now a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and Internatio­nal Studies.

Experts say many major hacks originate not with network scans but with spearphish­ing emails

 ?? ASSOCIATED PRESS ?? Suspected cyber incidents are sometimes found to be an intruder scanning a network — having a look around — and not an actual cyberattac­k or breach that leads to the compromise or theft of sensitive informatio­n.
ASSOCIATED PRESS Suspected cyber incidents are sometimes found to be an intruder scanning a network — having a look around — and not an actual cyberattac­k or breach that leads to the compromise or theft of sensitive informatio­n.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States