JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Sunday, March 30, 2025

Dig­i­tal an­thro­pol­o­gist Daren Dho­ray:

‘Cybercrime likely to keep surging’

by

Andrea Perez-Sobers
395 days ago
20240229

Cy­ber­crime is ex­pect­ed to surge in the next four years, ris­ing from US$9.22 tril­lion this year to US$13.82 tril­lion by 2028, ac­cord­ing to a re­port by Sta­tista’s Mar­ket In­sights that tracks such at­tacks world­wide.

It’s against this back­ground that em­pha­sized how im­por­tant it is to have prop­er cy­ber­se­cu­ri­ty aware­ness train­ing in the work­place to min­imise the risk of at­tacks.

Dho­ray told the Busi­ness Guardian that based on these fig­ures, cy­ber­crime seems to be a lu­cra­tive crim­i­nal ac­tiv­i­ty, and some of the ma­jor breach­es are con­duct­ed in a very so­phis­ti­cat­ed man­ner with pay­ment/ran­som be­ing re­quest­ed in un­trace­able cryp­tocur­ren­cy (bit­coin) trans­ac­tions. As such, Dho­ray said it leaves lit­tle rea­son to doubt why the pro­ject­ed fig­ures are so high.  

He said cy­ber-at­tacks re­sult in fi­nan­cial im­pact to the or­gan­i­sa­tion, which in­clude ran­somware at­tacks where com­pa­nies are faced with pay­ing a ran­som to the cy­ber­crim­i­nal to re­gain ac­cess to their sys­tems.  

Dho­ray said ran­somware at­tacks may al­so come in the form of phish­ing at­tacks where em­ploy­ees them­selves may end up be­ing tricked in­to pay­ing for a (fake) ser­vice or prod­uct, which of­ten re­sults in cred­it cards be­ing com­pro­mised.  

He not­ed that a 2021 re­port from PCH Tech­nolo­gies pro­vid­ed an es­ti­mate of the av­er­age loss per com­pa­ny based on size:

• ↓Small com­pa­nies (1-49 em­ploy­ees) lost an av­er­age of US$24,000;

• ↓Medi­um-sized com­pa­nies (50-249) lost an av­er­age of US$50,000;

• ↓Large com­pa­nies (250-999) lost an av­er­age of US$133,000; and

• ↓En­ter­prise Lev­el (1000+ em­ploy­ees) lost an av­er­age of US$504,00.

These fig­ures he said would have on­ly in­creased over the years.

Asked how many com­pa­nies and agen­cies with­in the re­gion have fall­en vic­tim to cy­ber­at­tack­ers be­tween 2020 to now, Dho­ray said un­like the Unit­ed States and the Unit­ed King­dom, there isn’t any leg­is­la­tion that man­dates crit­i­cal in­fra­struc­ture com­pa­nies such as en­er­gy, fi­nan­cial, com­mu­ni­ca­tions, gov­ern­ment etc. to re­port cy­ber­se­cu­ri­ty in­ci­dents.

 In March 2022, he said the US Se­cu­ri­ties and Ex­change Com­mis­sion pro­posed a rule to re­quire pub­licly list­ed com­pa­nies to al­so re­port their cy­ber­se­cu­ri­ty in­ci­dents.  

“For the Caribbean, a man­u­al cu­ra­tion of a few in­ci­dents that have been pub­lished would be the on­ly way to ac­quire such fig­ures.”

Dho­ray said this te­dious work was re­cent­ly com­plet­ed by Shi­va Paras­ram and Alex Samm of Com­put­er Foren­sics and Se­cu­ri­ty In­sti­tute (CF­SI) and Tier 10 Tech­nolo­gies re­spec­tive­ly who com­piled and launched the Ran­somware Ware­house pub­li­ca­tion on Feb­ru­ary 18, 2024.  

He dis­closed that this doc­u­ment pro­vid­ed a re­gion­al overview of cy­ber­at­tacks with­in Cari­com and the wider Caribbean. Of the da­ta shared, the re­port in­di­cat­ed that in 2022 there were 32 re­port­ed cy­ber­at­tacks and da­ta-leaks com­ing from Do­mini­ca, Puer­to Ri­co, Do­mini­can Re­pub­lic, Trinidad and To­ba­go, Ja­maica, Mar­tinique, An­tigua and Bar­bu­da, Aru­ba, Be­lize, Cu­ra­cao, Guyana, Haiti and the Ba­hamas.

As it per­tains to some of the in­dus­tries that were at­tacked in 2023, Dho­ray said Shi­va and his team were al­so able to doc­u­ment some of the 2023 at­tacks that hap­pened in T&T, such as man­u­fac­tur­ing-food bev­er­age, telecom­mu­ni­ca­tions, in­sur­ance, oil and gas and re­tail.  

On what could have been done dif­fer­ent­ly with re­spect to the Telecom­mu­ni­ca­tions Ser­vices of Trinidad and To­ba­go (TSTT) cy­ber­breach the dig­i­tal an­thro­pol­o­gist said, based  on the in­ter­im re­port filed with the Par­lia­ment’s Joint Se­lect Com­mit­tee in­ves­ti­gat­ing TSTT’s han­dling of the breach, there are a few things to note:

• Pass­words to a user ac­count were not redact­ed when up­loaded to an ex­ter­nal plat­form. This ex­ter­nal plat­form (Git­Lab) seems to have been a key source of in­for­ma­tion that aid­ed in the hack­ers’ at­tempt to gain ac­cess to a TSTT file serv­er. Redact­ing pass­words or san­i­tiz­ing or re­moval of pass­words is of­ten a com­mon prac­tice when back­ing up or stor­ing doc­u­men­ta­tion or source code, par­tic­u­lar­ly on an ex­ter­nal or cloud-based provider;

• This user ac­count had el­e­vat­ed priv­i­leges and was used to ini­ti­ate a wider at­tack on TSTT’s sys­tems. While in­for­ma­tion is lim­it­ed about what sys­tems or ap­pli­ca­tions the ac­count was used to ac­cess, one pos­si­ble mit­i­ga­tion strat­e­gy would be to have alerts in the form of email mes­sages or be­ing writ­ten to a log (that is reg­u­lar­ly re­viewed) no­ti­fy­ing an ad­min or ac­count own­er when a cer­tain type of ac­tiv­i­ties is ex­e­cut­ed by that ac­count. In this case, it was re­port­ed that the ac­count at­tempt­ed to cre­ate mul­ti­ple rogue ac­counts on the net­work. This could have been one of the flags that could be used to alert oth­er ad­mins with­in TSTT, which could have led to pre­vent­ing or re­duc­ing the over­all im­pact of the breach; and

• Last­ly, it was al­so re­port­ed that an­oth­er user ac­count from a deal­er store may have at­tempt­ed to gain ac­cess to the Git­Lab repos­i­to­ry. Satel­lite lo­ca­tions may of­ten be left be­hind when it comes to the adop­tion of the core com­pa­ny cy­ber­se­cu­ri­ty poli­cies. If this is the case, then it would be the re­spon­si­bil­i­ty of TSTT to en­sure that all ‘ex­ter­nal’ ven­dors are forced to meet a min­i­mum cy­ber­se­cu­ri­ty pos­ture be­fore be­ing al­lowed to in­ter­act with the main com­pa­ny’s sys­tems.

With the cy­ber­at­tacks on the in­crease, Dho­ray was asked to es­ti­mate how much mon­ey was lost by the com­pa­nies preyed up­on. He said there isn’t a fig­ure that can be quot­ed which pro­vides a prop­er es­ti­mate to all com­pa­nies. But he said some re­cent stats which would help to pro­vide some in­sight in­clude in­ter­na­tion­al IBM Se­cu­ri­ty, which re­port­ed that the av­er­age cost of a da­ta breach glob­al­ly in 2020 was US$3.86 mil­lion. This would be most­ly at­trib­uted to phish­ing and ran­somware type of at­tacks.  

“The range for these types of breach­es is quite wide and varies by in­dus­try. Hack­ers of­ten do their home­work and know their vic­tims well enough to de­cide on what as­pect of their sys­tems or da­ta is most valu­able and al­so know well in ad­vance how much they think a client would be will­ing to pay to re­cov­er that da­ta,” he re­vealed.  

How­ev­er, he said this varies de­pend­ing on the in­dus­try and one ex­am­ple from the 2020 IBM Se­cu­ri­ty re­port high­light­ed Ama­zon.com which was down for just un­der an hour in 2020 due to a de­nial-of-ser­vice at­tack and lost some­where in the vicin­i­ty of US$75 mil­lion in sales.

Asked to pro­vide ad­vice to so­cial me­dia per­sons, com­pa­nies, and agen­cies to pro­tect them­selves from hacks, Dho­ray said: “Guard ac­cess to your on­line ac­counts in the same way you guard ac­cess to your phys­i­cal as­sets eg ve­hi­cle, apart­ment, or house. We would of­ten go to ex­tra lengths to en­sure our phys­i­cal safe­ty but of­ten just stay with the ba­sics when it comes to on­line safe­ty. No longer is just hav­ing a strong pass­word suf­fi­cient to stay safe on­line.”

He stat­ed in the same way peo­ple in­vest in se­cu­ri­ty cam­eras and re­mote mon­i­tor­ing ser­vices to pro­tect one’s home and per­sons.  

“Al­so, one needs to em­ploy ad­di­tion­al steps in pro­tect­ing their on­line as­sets. This would in­clude set­ting up mul­ti-fac­tor au­then­ti­ca­tion on all your on­line ac­counts. Hav­ing a pass­word re­fresh pol­i­cy means chang­ing your pass­word on a sched­uled ba­sis – for some types of ac­counts eg on­line bank­ing you may want to con­sid­er a quar­ter­ly re­fresh.

“Con­duct­ing se­cu­ri­ty au­dits on your ac­counts e.g. re­view lo­gin ac­tiv­i­ty and see if you no­tice any strange lo­gins. Re­view and lim­it ac­cess – this should no longer be based on con­ve­nience but on need. Back­ups and re­cov­ery ac­counts are crit­i­cal in the event any­thing goes wrong,” Dho­ray added.


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored