Tag Archive for: Cover

Russians using mobile crematorium to cover ‘their tracks’: Ukrainian officials

/in


The Mariupol City Council alleged that Russian forces are using a mobile crematorium to cover up their actions in the southeastern port city of Ukraine.

Mariupol possesses strategic importance to Russia because it is situated between the Crimean Peninsula, which has been occupied by Moscow since 2014, and the breakaway Ukrainian regions in the eastern part of the country that has a pro-Russian separatist faction. As a result, the city has faced some of the most brutal Russian war tactics since the invasion began on Feb. 24.

“The killers are covering their tracks,” the council said in social media posts on Wednesday, adding that they are utilizing “mobile crematoriums.”

FORMER MARIUPOL RESIDENT ‘CAN’T DESCRIBE THE HORROR’ SHE WITNESSED IN UKRAINE

“Russia’s top leadership ordered the destruction of any evidence of crimes committed by its army in Mariupol,” the council added, referencing the widespread condemnation after the report of hundreds of civilians being buried in a mass grave and others being shot and killed with their wrists tied in Bucha. The reports sparked an outcry of war crimes allegations.

A senior U.S. defense official could not confirm the council’s allegations.

Prior to the reporting of the massacre in Bucha, Russian forces shelled a maternity hospital in Mariupol, bombed a Mariupol theater that had been serving as a shelter, even though inhabitants had spelled out the word “children” in Russian in the front and back of the facility, and bombed a school that was housing hundreds of people in the city.

As of Tuesday, more than 1,560 civilians have been killed in Ukraine, whereas more than 2,200 have been wounded, according to the United Nations, though it warns that the death toll is likely “considerably higher,” considering the difficulty of wartime casualty tallying.

It’s unclear how much higher the toll could be, but a spokesperson for Mariupol’s Mayor Vadym Boichenko said late last month that nearly 5,000 people, including about 210 children, have been killed in the city alone since Russia’s invasion.

There are investigators in…

Source…

FTC to fine CafePress for cover up of massive data breach

/in


Data breach

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) wants to slap the former owner of the CafePress custom t-shirt and merchandise site with a $500,000 fine for failing to secure its users’ data and attempting to cover up a significant data breach impacting millions.

As the consumer protection watchdog explained, CafePress’ former owner, Residual Pumpkin Entity, stored its customers’ Social Security numbers and password reset answers in plain text, and their data longer than necessary.

“As a result of its shoddy security practices, CafePress’ network was breached multiple times,” the FTC said today.

“The Commission’s proposed order requires the company to bolster its data security and requires its former owner to pay a half million dollars [PDF consent order here] to compensate small businesses.”

Per the proposed settlement, Residual Pumpkin and PlanetArt (CAfePress’ new owner) will be required to implement multi-factor authentication, minimize the amount of collected and retained data, encrypt Social Security numbers stored on its servers.

The massive February 2019 data breach

Following a February 2019 breach of CafePress’ servers, unknown attackers accessed and later put up for sale on the dark web a throve of information belonging to 23,205,290 users, including:

  • millions of email addresses and passwords with weak encryption; 
  • millions of unencrypted names, physical addresses, and security questions and answers; 
  • more than 180,000 unencrypted Social Security numbers; 
  • and tens of thousands of partial payment card numbers and expiration dates.

CafePress purportedly tried to cover up this massive data breach and did not inform any of the impacted customers until September 2019, one month after BleepingComputer reported the breach.

At the time, CafePress did not respond to BleepingComputer’s queries and did not issue a statement regarding the incident. The only indication that something was wrong was that users were forced to reset their password when logging in (with no mention of the breach).

Failures to report breaches and investigate attacks

CafePress was also aware that it had data security problems even before the 2019 data breach. According to FTC’s complaint, the company…

Source…

Explained: Who gets VIP security cover, and how?

/in


Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim has been provided Z plus category security by the Haryana government. The decision of the state government has generated considerable interest as Ram Rahim is serving a 20-year sentence for raping two women, and was released on furlough days ahead of the elections in Punjab on February 20.

Also, the Centre recently provided central security cover to 25 BJP politicians from UP and Punjab until the end of the ongoing elections. Among the beneficiaries are the BJP candidate from Karhal constituency in UP’s Mainpuri, SPS Baghel, who is up against Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav, and several Congress turncoats in Punjab.

Earlier, after the West Bengal Assembly elections, the Centre had provided central security cover to all 77 BJP MLAs amid reports of political violence in the state.

So, who gets protection from the government, either at the Centre or in a state?

Protection is generally given to someone who holds a position of consequence either in the government or in civil society — hence the informal description “VIP security”.

But the Centre is usually not keen to give protection to individuals — and therefore, a large number of even “important people” whose lives are deemed to be in danger, are provided security by state police forces based on assessments made by the state government.

Who decides the level of security protection an individual needs from the Centre or a state?

The level of security is decided by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in the case of the Centre, and by the state government in the case of states.

The assessment is based on inputs received from intelligence agencies, which include the Intelligence Bureau and the Research and Analysis Wing at the level of the Centre, and the state intelligence department in the case of the state government.

Agencies give a broad subjective assessment of the threat to life or injury to a person from terrorists or any other group based on information generated from their sources. This information can include intercepts of phone conversations, human intelligence, or a credible analysis of an open threat.

By reason of the positions they hold in the government,…

Source…

Does Your Cyberinsurance Policy Cover Cyberwar?

/in


Despite your best efforts to prevent it, you get hit by a massive cyberattack. Maybe it’s a data breach; maybe a ransomware attack or maybe a supply chain disruption. You engage a forensics team, work with law enforcement entities and find out that the likely perpetrators were hackers in Russia; possibly working with the Russian government. You file a claim against your comprehensive cyberinsurance policy for the damages, losses and restoration costs covered by the policy. Pretty typical.

But the insurer refuses to pay.

They cite language in your overall property damage insurance policy which excludes from coverage any “hostile or warlike action from any nation-state or their agency.” A data breach or cyberattack is certainly hostile, and the origin of the attack was likely an agent of a nation-state. So, does the language preclude coverage?

War [Exclusions]. Hunh. What Are They Good For?

The war exclusion, like similar exclusions in insurance policies for acts of terrorism and certain acts of God, are intended to divide claims into ordinary claims and risks and extraordinary claims which are not covered by the policy. Extraordinary costs, resulting from extraordinary risks—like war and terrorism—are generally not the subject of insurance, but rather are considered a government problem.

The problem is that most cyberattacks are a hybrid. Russian hackers may be using tools or techniques that are the same as those used by state-sponsored attackers, even when they aren’t working for the state. The truth is, while state-sponsored attacks may be more sophisticated or disruptive, to a victim there is often little difference between a state-sponsored attack and one that is independent of a state actor.

In June of 2017, New Jersey-based pharmaceutical giant Merck was hit with a massive malware attack (a NotPetya attack) which spread to more than 40,000 computers and caused approximately $1.4 billion in losses (including lost revenues). The company had cyberinsurance policies with a number of carriers—including Chubb, AIG, Zurich and Liberty Mutual—and eight reinsurers—including Hannover Re, Munich Re and Generali. Merck had what are called all-risk insurance policies which…

Source…