mastodontech.de ist einer von vielen unabhängigen Mastodon-Servern, mit dem du dich im Fediverse beteiligen kannst.
Offen für alle (über 16) und bereitgestellt von Markus'Blog

Serverstatistik:

1,4 Tsd.
aktive Profile

#incidentreponse

0 Beiträge0 Beteiligte0 Beiträge heute
Josh Lemon<p>This is a timely reminder to ensure any third-parties with access to your systems follow the same cyber policies you'd expect your internal staff to follow.</p><p><a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/ScatteredSpider" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ScatteredSpider</span></a> are particularly good at <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/SocialEngineering" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>SocialEngineering</span></a> their way via a third-party to other victims.</p><p>For clarity, <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/ScatteredSpider" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ScatteredSpider</span></a> are considered the initial access group, <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/DragonForce" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>DragonForce</span></a> <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/ransomware" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ransomware</span></a> is the malware deployed once <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/ScatteredSpider" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ScatteredSpider</span></a> are inside your network.</p><p><a href="https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/mands-confirms-social-engineering-led-to-massive-ransomware-attack/" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://www.</span><span class="ellipsis">bleepingcomputer.com/news/secu</span><span class="invisible">rity/mands-confirms-social-engineering-led-to-massive-ransomware-attack/</span></a></p><p><a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/IncidentReponse" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>IncidentReponse</span></a> <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/DataBreach" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>DataBreach</span></a> <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/CSIRT" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>CSIRT</span></a></p>
Dissent Doe :cupofcoffee:<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://infosec.exchange/@amvinfe" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>amvinfe</span></a></span> <span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://noc.social/@AAKL" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>AAKL</span></a></span> <span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://infosec.exchange/@brett" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>brett</span></a></span> <span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://ioc.exchange/@jgreig" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>jgreig</span></a></span> </p><p>It seems pretty clear from what BianLian has posted that there were TWO unrelated attacks, but Akumin has only disclosed the first attack -- even though it has issued updates since the time of the second attack.</p><p>That said: if the second attack was in November, as it allegedly was, then Akumin is still within a 60-day window from discovery to when it must notify HHS and affected patients. </p><p>But if an entity issues a press release or update that discloses one data breach but is silent on the fact that there was a second breach, too, resulting in the theft of patient data, is that a deceptive or unfair act under Section 5 of the FTC Act?</p><p><a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/transparency" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>transparency</span></a> <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/incidentreponse" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>incidentreponse</span></a> <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/extortion" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>extortion</span></a> <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/healthsec" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>healthsec</span></a> <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/databreach" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>databreach</span></a></p>
Dissent Doe :cupofcoffee:<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://infosec.exchange/@brett" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@<span>brett</span></a></span> I don't know if I missed something or forgot anything, but have we seen any real statement from the hospitals or TransForm about whether they had recent and usable backups?</p><p><a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/databreach" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>databreach</span></a> <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/HealthSec" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>HealthSec</span></a> <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/backups" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>backups</span></a> <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/restoration" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>restoration</span></a> <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/incidentreponse" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>incidentreponse</span></a> <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/infosec" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>infosec</span></a> <a href="https://infosec.exchange/tags/ransomware" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>ransomware</span></a></p>