Business email compromise (BEC) schemes
Estimated reading time: 7 minutes
Over the years, scammers have stolen millions of dollars from businesses by compromising their official email accounts and using them to request fraudulent wire transfers . Technically these schemes, which are in effect scams, are called Business Email Compromise .
There has been an increase in cyber intrusions related to Business Email Compromise schemes, involving scammers posing as executives . Contact is made by sending phishing e-mails from seemingly legitimate sources and then wire transfers to fraudulent accounts are requested. These methods ultimately lead to intrusion and unrestricted access to their victims’ credentials.
What is meant by Business Email Compromise?
The FBI defines Business Email Compromise (BEC) as a sophisticated scam that targets companies that work with foreign suppliers and companies that regularly make payments by wire transfer. Formerly known as Man-in-the-Email scams, these schemes compromise official corporate email accounts to conduct unauthorized funds transfers.
According to the FBI, victims lost more than $ 750 million and affected more than 7,000 people between October 2013 and August 2015. Globally, cybercriminals defrauded more than $ 50 million from victims in non-American countries.
How does it work?
BEC scams often start with an attacker compromising a business executive’s email account or any publicly listed business email. This is usually done using a keylogger or phishing methods , where attackers create a domain that is similar to the corporate one they are targeting. In other cases, a spoofed email tricking the target into providing account details is sufficient.
After monitoring the compromised email account, the scammer will try to determine who initiates the wire transfers and who requests them . Scammers often carry out a fair amount of research, looking for a company that has had a leadership change in the financial function management, where executives are on the road, or conducts conference calls for investors. Attackers use these as opportunities to execute the pattern.
At this point, the attack can be done in several ways.
Version 1: The bogus invoice
This release, which has also been called “ The Bogus Invoice Scheme “, “ The Supplier Swindle “, and “ Invoice Modification Scheme “usually involves a company that has a stable relationship with a supplier . The scammer asks to transfer the funds for the payment of the bill to an alternative and fraudulent account by e-mail, telephone or fax.
Version 2: CEO Fraud
In this version, scammers identify themselves as senior executives (CFO, CEO, CTO, etc.), lawyers or other types of legal representatives and claim to handle confidential matters or urgent and require you to make a wire transfer to an account they control. In some cases, the fraudulent wire transfer request is sent directly to the financial institution with instructions to urgently send the funds to another institution. This scam is also known as “ CEO Fraud “, “ Business Executive Scam “, “ Masquerading “, and “ Financial Industry Wire Frauds “.
Version 3: Account Compromise
Similar to the other two versions, an employee email account is hacked and then used to make requests for payment of bills to bank accounts controlled by scammers . Messages are sent to multiple vendors identified from the employee’s contact list. The company may not be aware of the scheme until their suppliers perform checks on the invoice payment status.
Version 4: The fake lawyer
In this version, the cybercriminal contacts employees and / or the CEO of the company and identifies himself as a lawyer or representative of a law firm, claiming to handle confidential and urgent matters. This contact, typically made by phone or email, prompts the contacted party to act quickly or covertly in handling the transfer of funds.
This type of Business Email Compromise pattern can be scheduled to occur at the end of the day or work week, when employees are preparing to quit and therefore are particularly sensitive to a situation. emergency.
Version 5: Data theft
This scheme involves emails from employees with specific roles in the company used to send requests . This time, however, the requests are not for transfers of funds but for personally identifiable information of other employees and executives . This variant can therefore serve as a starting point for more elaborate and malicious BEC attacks against the company.
The scam is primarily social engineering and generally does not need sophisticated system penetration . Unlike phishing scams, emails used in BEC scams are not sent in bulk to avoid being reported as spam . Victims are tricked into making transfers, usually instructed to act quickly and confidentially when transferring funds.
Some known cases
In March 2016, an increasing number of companies and businesses suffered damage from BEC schemes. Companies like Seagate and Snapchat have been among the victims of email scams using the same modus operandi . At the end of the same month, San Francisco-based Pivotal Software was hacked through a phishing scheme that leaked an unknown amount of employee tax information .
The breach was initiated by an email that appeared to come from company CEO Rob Mee, requesting information about the company’s personnel. This resulted in the delivery of the employee information W-2 . This information included addresses, previous year’s income details, social security numbers and individual taxpayer identification numbers. The recipient of the data, needless to say, was not authorized to request or receive data of this nature.
Not long after this incident, similar schemes were used to obtain personal information in the education sector. W-2 information of 3,000 employees at Tidewater Community College, Virginia was leaked. The event was sparked by a request message from the principal of Kentucky State University, received by one of the school staff members. The request prompted staff to forward a list of employees and students along with W-2 information.
Scams involving the theft of personal information via phishing emails have proven to be an inexhaustible source of data. The stolen data could be sold and also used to stage future attacks or identity theft. As seen in recent and previous tax scams, email scams have become one of the fastest ways to fool unwitting users.
How to defend yourself?
The advice is always the same: stay vigilant and educate employees on how to avoid being victims of BEC scams and other phishing attacks .
It’s important to know that cybercriminals don’t care about the size of your company. Indeed, usually, the more victims there are, the better. These types of scammers don’t need to be highly technical as they can find tools and services that meet all levels of technical proficiency in the deep web . As the world relies more and more on cloud services and in general linked to each other, a single compromised account is all it takes to obtain large amounts of money or data from a company .
- Review all emails carefully. Be wary of emails sent by company executives, as they are often used to trick employees into taking urgent action. Review emails requesting funds transfer to determine if requests are irregular.
- Educate and train employees . While employees are a company’s greatest asset, they are usually also the weakest link when it comes to security . Make a commitment to train employees according to the best practices of the company. Remind them that adhering to company policies is one thing, but developing good safety habits is another. For this we offer a ethical phishing service geared towards education against Business Email Compromise schemes and phishing in general.
- Stay up to date with customer habits , including details and reasons for payments.
- If you suspect that you have been the victim of a BEC email, < strong> immediately report the incident to the police. Also, alert your company so they can raise their guard and tighten controls.
SOD can help you train your employees. Find out how by contacting us, we will be happy to answer any questions.
- NIST Cybersecurity Framework
- “Left of boom” and “right of boom”: having a winning strategy
- Smishing: a fraud similar to phishing
- Network Traffic Analyzer: an extra gear for the Next Gen SIEM
- The importance of Cyber Threat Intelligence
- Red Team, Blue Team and Purple Team: what are the differences?
- Magecart attack: what it is and how to protect yourself
- 9 reasons why you should consider using a VPN
- Backup as a Service (2)
- Cloud Conference (3)
- Cloud CRM (1)
- Cloud Server/VPS (20)
- Conferenza Cloud (4)
- ICT Monitoring (4)
- Log Management (2)
- News (18)
- ownCloud (4)
- Privacy (7)
- Secure Online Desktop (14)
- Security (14)
- Web Hosting (15)
- New Normal Demands New Security Leadership Structure August 2, 2021At the inaugural Omdia Analyst Summit, experts discuss where the past year has created gaps in traditional security strategy and how organizations can fill them.
- Multiple Zero-Day Flaws Discovered in Popular Hospital Pneumatic Tube System August 2, 2021"PwnedPiper" flaws could allow attackers to disrupt delivery of lab samples or steal hospital employee credentials, new research shows.
- 8 Security Tools to be Unveiled at Black Hat USA July 28, 2021Security researchers and practitioners share a host of new cyber tools for penetration testing, reverse engineering, malware defense, and more.
- Biden Administration Responds to Geopolitical Cyber Threats July 23, 2021In response to growing concerns regarding the recent uptick in large-scale, nation-state-backed ransomware attacks on critical infrastructure, the Biden administration is taking new action to tackle the evolving challenges posed by ransomware attacks.
- 7 Hot Cyber Threat Trends to Expect at Black Hat July 22, 2021A sneak peek of some of the main themes at Black Hat USA next month.
- Law Firm for Ford, Pfizer, Exxon Discloses Ransomware Attack July 19, 2021Campbell Conroy & O'Neil reports the attack affected personal data including Social Security numbers, passport numbers, and payment card data for some individuals.
- US Accuses China of Using Criminal Hackers in Cyber Espionage Operations July 19, 2021DOJ indicts four Chinese individuals for alleged role in attacks targeting intellectual property, trade secrets belonging to defense contractors, maritime companies, aircraft service firms, and others.
- How Gaming Attack Data Aids Defenders Across Industries July 19, 2021Web application attacks against the video game industry quadrupled in 2020 compared to the previous year, but companies outside entertainment can learn from the data.
- NSO Group Spyware Used On Journalists & Activists Worldwide July 19, 2021An investigation finds Pegasus spyware, intended for use on criminals and terrorists, has been used in targeted campaigns against others around the world.
- When Ransomware Comes to (Your) Town July 19, 2021While steps for defending against a ransomware attack vary based on the size of the government entity and the resources available to each one, rooting out ransomware ultimately will come down to two things: system architecture and partnerships.
- Backdoor.Win32.Nbdd.bgz / Remote Stack Buffer Overflow July 27, 2021Posted by malvuln on Jul 26Discovery / credits: Malvuln - malvuln.com (c) 2021 Original source: https://malvuln.com/advisory/6fab73bf104c6a9211b94f9559faa134.txt Contact: malvuln13 () gmail com Media: twitter.com/malvuln Threat: Backdoor.Win32.Nbdd.bgz Vulnerability: Remote Stack Buffer Overflow Description: NetBot_Attacker VIP 5.9 on initial startup listens on port 8080 and on subsequent restarts port 80. Third-party attackers who can reach an infected system […]
- Backdoor.Win32.Bifrose.acci / Local Stack Buffer Overflow July 27, 2021Posted by malvuln on Jul 26Discovery / credits: Malvuln - malvuln.com (c) 2021 Original source: https://malvuln.com/advisory/611dbff0d68df777c6d6881e00440143.txt Contact: malvuln13 () gmail com Media: twitter.com/malvuln Threat: Backdoor.Win32.Bifrose.acci Vulnerability: Local Stack Buffer Overflow Description: Bifrost doesn't properly validate the IP address when importing Bifrost settings (.set) files. The IP address offset is located after a NULL byte which […]
- Backdoor.Win32.PsyRat.b / Remote Denial of Service July 27, 2021Posted by malvuln on Jul 26Discovery / credits: Malvuln - malvuln.com (c) 2021 Original source: https://malvuln.com/advisory/5817183894cb513239f6aef28895130c_B.txt Contact: malvuln13 () gmail com Media: twitter.com/malvuln Threat: Backdoor.Win32.PsyRat.b Vulnerability: Remote Denial of Service Description: The PsyRAT 1.02 malware listens by default on TCP port 9863. Third-party attackers who can reach infected systems can send a specially crafted command […]
- Backdoor.Win32.PsyRat.b / Unauthenticated Remote Command Execution July 27, 2021Posted by malvuln on Jul 26Discovery / credits: Malvuln - malvuln.com (c) 2021 Original source: https://malvuln.com/advisory/5817183894cb513239f6aef28895130c.txt Contact: malvuln13 () gmail com Media: twitter.com/malvuln Threat: Backdoor.Win32.PsyRat.b Vulnerability: Unauthenticated Remote Command Execution Description: The PsyRAT 1.02 malware listens by default on TCP port 9863, but can be changed when building backdoor servers. Third-party attackers who can reach...
- Backdoor.Win32.Agent.cu / Unauthenticated Remote Command Execution July 27, 2021Posted by malvuln on Jul 26Discovery / credits: Malvuln - malvuln.com (c) 2021 Original source: https://malvuln.com/advisory/ce1963d3fd6a8e1383aac40a1f1c4107_C.txt Contact: malvuln13 () gmail com Media: twitter.com/malvuln Threat: Backdoor.Win32.Agent.cu Vulnerability: Unauthenticated Remote Command Execution Description: The malware listens on TCP ports 10426, 56185. Third-party attackers who can reach infected systems can execute commands made available by the backdoor....
- Backdoor.Win32.Agent.cu / Port Bounce Scan (MITM) July 27, 2021Posted by malvuln on Jul 26Discovery / credits: Malvuln - malvuln.com (c) 2021 Original source: https://malvuln.com/advisory/ce1963d3fd6a8e1383aac40a1f1c4107_B.txt Contact: malvuln13 () gmail com Media: twitter.com/malvuln Threat: Backdoor.Win32.Agent.cu Vulnerability: Port Bounce Scan (MITM) Description: The malware listens on TCP ports 10426, 56185, its FTP component accepts any username/password credentials. Third-party attackers who successfully logon can abuse the...
- Backdoor.Win32.Agent.cu / Authentication Bypass RCE July 27, 2021Posted by malvuln on Jul 26Discovery / credits: Malvuln - malvuln.com (c) 2021 Original source: https://malvuln.com/advisory/ce1963d3fd6a8e1383aac40a1f1c4107.txt Contact: malvuln13 () gmail com Media: twitter.com/malvuln Threat: Backdoor.Win32.Agent.cu Vulnerability: Authentication Bypass RCE Description: The malware listens on TCP ports 10426, 56185. Third-party attackers who can reach infected systems can logon using any username/password combination. Intruders may then...
- Backdoor.Win32.Mazben.me / Unauthenticated Open Proxy July 27, 2021Posted by malvuln on Jul 26Discovery / credits: Malvuln - malvuln.com (c) 2021 Original source: https://malvuln.com/advisory/6681d5e4b68abd21a14c704edf9e2ff5.txt Contact: malvuln13 () gmail com Media: twitter.com/malvuln Threat: Backdoor.Win32.Mazben.me Vulnerability: Unauthenticated Open Proxy Description: The malware listens on random TCP ports like 3515, 7936, 3972. Third-party attackers who can connect to the infected system can relay requests from the […]
- Backdoor.Win32.Hupigon.aaur / Unauthenticated Open Proxy July 27, 2021Posted by malvuln on Jul 26Discovery / credits: Malvuln - malvuln.com (c) 2021 Original source: https://malvuln.com/advisory/16d598c01f7b391986c8c19eded005b1.txt Contact: malvuln13 () gmail com Media: twitter.com/malvuln Threat: Backdoor.Win32.Hupigon.aaur Vulnerability: Unauthenticated Open Proxy Description: The malware listens on TCP port 8080. Third-party attackers who can connect to the infected system can relay requests from the original connection to the...
- ATLASSIAN - CVE-2020-36239 - Jira Data Center and Jira Service Management Data Center July 27, 2021Posted by Atlassian on Jul 26This email refers to the advisory found at https://confluence.atlassian.com/adminjiraserver/jira-data-center-and-jira-service-management-data-center-security-advisory-2021-07-21-1063571388.html CVE ID: * CVE-2020-36239 Products: Jira Data Center, Jira Core Data Center, Jira Software Data Center, and Jira Service Management Data Center. Affected Versions - Jira Data Center, Jira Core Data Center, and Jira Software Data Center: 6.3.0
Estimated reading time: 6 minutes Quando si parla di sicurezza informatica e ci si trova dalla parte degli attacc… https://t.co/lYBxdVIxTi
Estimated reading time: 6 minutes When it comes to cyber security and is on the side of the attackers, we often… https://t.co/8o43bo6riu
Estimated reading time: 6 minutes Every day we hear about some new technology threats or vulnerabilities. Latel… https://t.co/YyZZPgyV6h
Estimated reading time: 6 minutes Every day we hear about some new technology threats or vulnerabilities. Latel… https://t.co/uV5QZuvPVS
Tempo di lettura stimato: 6 minuti Ogni giorno sentiamo parlare di qualche nuova minaccia o vulnerabilità in ambi… https://t.co/nlHWBfE6QU