The Global Internet Security Software Market focuses on the various developments activities such as technological advancement, new product launch and upgradation in the current product, innovation and opportunities for the new companies is also taken into consideration while defining the future growth of the market.

The GlobalInternet Security Software Market2020 report implement in-depth research of the industry with a focus on the current market trends future prospects. The GlobalInternet Security Software Marketreport aims to provide an overview ofInternet Security Software Marketplayers with detailed market segmentation by product, application and geographical region.

It also provides market share and size, revenue forecast, growth opportunity. The most recent trending report WorldwideInternet Security Software MarketEconomy by Manufacturers, Regions, kind and application, forecast to 2025 provided byMarket Research Reportis an educational study covering the marketplace with detailed analysis.

The report projects the market size by the end of 2025 at an exponential CAGR, by analyzing the historical data for the time period of 2018. The prime objective of this report is to determine Global Internet Security Software Market status, forecast, growth opportunity, and market size by studying classification such as key players, regional segments type and application.

Report: http://www.market-research-reports.com/contactme=1051666

The important regions, considered to prepare this report are North America (United States, Canada and Mexico), Europe (Germany, France, UK, Russia and Italy), Asia-Pacific (China, Japan, Korea, India and Southeast Asia), South America (Brazil, Argentina, Colombia), Middle East and Africa (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa). The region wise data analyses the trend, market size of each regions Internet Security Software Market.

It also helps to determine the market share, growth prospects and challenges at the regional level. As per the report, the Asia-Pacific will vouch for more market share in following years, emphasizing more in China.

India and Southeast Asia regions will also record considerable growth. North America, especially The United States, will still play a significant role up to an extent that changes in United States market might affect the development trend of Internet Security Software Market Industry.

Europe will hold a vital contribution too with impressive CAGR till 2025.

Other than the aforementioned parameters which Internet Security Software Market report focuses on, another imperative objective of the report is to present the Internet Security Software Market development across the globe especially in North America, Europe, China, Japan, Southeast Asia, India and Central and South America. In the report, the market has been categorized into manufacturers, type, application and regions.

Market OverviewThe global Internet Security Software market size is expected to gain market growth in the forecast period of 2020 to 2025, with a CAGR of 6.3% in the forecast period of 2020 to 2025 and will expected to reach USD 13560 million by 2025, from USD 10620 million in 2019.

The Internet Security Software market report provides a detailed analysis of global market size, regional and country-level market size, segmentation market growth, market share, competitive Landscape, sales analysis, impact of domestic and global market players, value chain optimization, trade regulations, recent developments, opportunities analysis, strategic market growth analysis, product launches, area marketplace expanding, and technological innovations.

Market segmentationInternet Security Software market is split by Type and by Application. For the period 2015-2025, the growth among segments provide accurate calculations and forecasts for sales by Type and by Application in terms of volume and value.

This analysis can help you expand your business by targeting qualified niche markets.

By Type, Internet Security Software market has been segmented into: Linux Macintosh OS Microsoft Windows

By Application, Internet Security Software has been segmented into: Individual Users Enterprise Users Government Users

Regions and Countries Level AnalysisRegional analysis is another highly comprehensive part of the research and analysis study of the global Internet Security Software market presented in the report. This section sheds light on the sales growth of different regional and country-level Internet Security Software markets.

For the historical and forecast period 2015 to 2025, it provides detailed and accurate country-wise volume analysis and region-wise market size analysis of the global Internet Security Software market.

The report offers in-depth assessment of the growth and other aspects of the Internet Security Software market in important countries (regions), including: North America (United States, Canada and Mexico) Europe (Germany, France, UK, Russia and Italy) Asia-Pacific (China, Japan, Korea, India, Southeast Asia and Australia) South America (Brazil, Argentina, Colombia) Middle East and Africa (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa)

Competitive Landscape and Internet Security Software Market Share AnalysisInternet Security Software competitive landscape provides details by vendors, including company overview, company total revenue (financials), market potential, global presence, Internet Security Software sales and revenue generated, market share, price, production sites and facilities, SWOT analysis, product launch. For the period 2015-2020, this study provides the Internet Security Software sales, revenue and market share for each player covered in this report.

The major players covered in Internet Security Software are:SymantecFortinetAVGMcAfeeBitdefenderTrend MicroG DATA SoftwareESETAvast SoftwareF-SecureQuick HealRisingAviraAhnLabComodoPanda SecurityQihoo 360Cheetah MobileMicrosoftKaspersky

Report: http://www.market-research-reports.com/contactme=1051666

This report studies the Internet Security Software Marketstatus and outlook of Global and major regions, from angles of players, countries, product types and end industries; this report analyzes the top players in global market, and splits the Internet Security Software Marketby product type and applications/end industries. These details further contain a basic summary of the company, merchant profile, and the product range of the company in question.

The report analyzes data regarding the proceeds accrued, product sales, gross margins, price patterns, and news updates relating to the company.

Thus, this report can be a guideline for the industry stakeholders, who wished to analyze the Internet Security Software Market and understand its forecast of till 2025. This report helps to know the estimated market size, market status, future prospects, growth opportunity, and main challenges of Internet Security Software Market by analyzing the segmentations.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Original post:
Internet Security Software Market investigated in the latest research - WhaTech Technology and Markets News

A Pennsylvania man who operated one of the Internets longest-running online attack-for-hire or booter services was sentenced to five years probation today. While the young mans punishment was heavily tempered by his current poor health, the defendants dietary choices may have contributed to both his capture and the lenient sentencing: Investigators say the onetime booter bosss identity became clear after he ordered a bacon and chicken pizza delivered to his home using the same email address he originally used to register his criminal attack service.

David Bukoski, 24, of Hanover Township, Pa., pleaded guilty to running Quantum Stresser, an attack-for-hire business also known as a booter or stresser service that helped paying customers launch tens of thousands of digital sieges capable of knocking Web sites and entire network providers offline.

The landing page for the Quantum Stresser attack-for-hire service.

Investigators say Bukoskis booter service was among the longest running services targeted by the FBI, operating since at least 2012. The government says Quantum Stresser had more than 80,000 customer subscriptions, and that during 2018 the service was used to conduct approximately 50,000 actual or attempted attacks targeting people and networks worldwide.

The Quantum Stresser Web site quantumstress[.]net was among 15 booter services that were seized by U.S. and international authorities in December 2018 as part of a coordinated takedown targeting attack-for-hire services.

Federal prosecutors in Alaska said search warrants served on the email accounts Bukoski used in conjunction with Quantum Stresser revealed that he was banned from several companies he used to advertise and accept payments for the booter service.

The governments sentencing memorandum says Bukoskis replies demanding to know the reasons for the suspensions were instrumental in discovering his real name. FBI agents were able to zero in on Bukoskis real-life location after a review of his email account showed a receipt from May 2018 in which hed gone online and ordered a handmade pan pizza to be delivered to his home address.

When an online pizza delivery order brings FBI agents to raid your home.

While getting busted on account of ordering a pizza online might sound like a bone-headed or rookie mistake for a cybercriminal, it is hardly unprecedented. In 2012 KrebsOnSecurity wrote about the plight of Yuriy Jtk Konovalenko, a then 30-year-old Ukrainian man who was rounded up as part of an international crackdown on an organized crime gang that used the ZeuS malware to steal tens of millions of dollars from companies and consumers. In that case, Konovalenko ultimately unmasked himself because he used his Internet connection to order the delivery of a Veggie Roma pizza to his apartment in the United Kingdom.

Interestingly, the feds say their examination of Bukoskis Internet browsing records showed he knew full well that running a booter service was punishable under federal law (despite disclaimers published on Quantum Stresser stating that the sites owners werent responsible for how clients used the service).

The defendants web browsing history was significant to investigators for a number of reasons, including the fact that it shows that the defendant browsed an article written by a prominent security researcher referencing both the defendants enterprise along with a competing service, including a link provided by the researcher in the article to an advisory posted by the FBI warning that the operation of booter services was potentially punishable under federal law, reads the sentencing memo from Assistant U.S. Attorney Adam Alexander.

Thats interesting because the article in question was actually a 2017 KrebsOnSecurity story about a mobile app tied to a competing booter service that happened to share some of the same content as Quantum Stresser.

That 2017 story referenced an FBI advisory that had just been issued warning the use of booter services is punishable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and may result in arrest and criminal prosecution.

Bukoski was sentenced to five years of probation and six months of community confinement. The government suggested a lenient sentence considering the defendants ongoing health complications, which include liver failure.

Tags: Assistant U.S. Attorney Adam Alexander, David Bukoski, Quantum Stresser

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 4th, 2020 at 6:05 pmand is filed under DDoS-for-Hire, Ne'er-Do-Well News.You can follow any comments to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.You can skip to the end and leave a comment. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Originally posted here:
Booter Boss Busted By Bacon Pizza Buy - Krebs on Security

In the highly technical age with are living in, scams and cyberattacks are sadly the norm.. We have a good idea of what we should be suspect of online, we know what emails or links we shouldn't be clicking on, but this new "formjacking" attack has me all kinds of worried.

Dennis Horton of the Better Business Bureau recently wrote an article for the Rockford Register Star detailing what "Formjacking" is, and what we can do to avoid falling victim to it:

Crooks are now hijacking online forms. The hackers are injecting code into forms on legitimate websites that allows scammers to gather important personal and financial information entered on the forms.

This is another form of cyberattack. Even though formjacking has been around for at least a couple of years, there has been a dramatic increase in activity. Recent reports show more than 4,800 websites are attacked each month.

The crime is used mainly to steal credit card information; the hackers then sell the stolen data on the dark web. There, web traders post it for resale to anyone who wants it.

Theft of card info is not all that the scammers are after formjacking also has been discovered in online job application forms.

So what do we do? How can we possibly know which online forms have been "injected" with these phishing codes and which ones are safe to enter our info into?!?

Dennis Horton suggests to always pay close attention to your credit card statements and to frequently check your credit report for starters. He also recommends to "freeze your credit records with the big three agencies. This will stop anyone who has your details from opening new lines of credit in your name",and to always keep your internet security up to date.

Catch Lil Zim on Q98.5 Mornings with Lil Zim & JBonQ98.5 from 5:00 a.m. to 10 a.m. Follow her onTwitter,Instagram,andFacebook

Here is the original post:
'Formjacking' Is the New Internet Scam We Need to Watch Out For - q985online.com

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) wants the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to push agencies harder on cybersecurity directives, and to engage stakeholders earlier.

DHS issues mandatory cybersecurity directives for most federal agencies. For example, one directive requires agencies to better secure their websites and email systems. If the actions specified in these directives are not addressed, agency systems can remain at risk.

A GAO review has found that these directives have often been effective in strengthening federal cybersecurity. However, agencies and DHS didnt always complete the directives actions on time. DHS also did not consistently ensure that agencies fully complied with the directives.

Since 2015, DHS has issued directives that instruct agencies to mitigate critical vulnerabilities discovered by DHS through its scanning of agencies internet-accessible systems; address urgent vulnerabilities in network infrastructure devices identified by DHS; and better secure the governments highest value and most critical information and system assets.

DHS has established a process for developing and overseeing the implementation of binding operational directives, as authorized by theFederal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014(FISMA). The process includes DHS coordinating with stakeholders early in the directives development process and validating agencies actions on the directives. GAOs review found that when implementing this process, DHS did not coordinate with stakeholders early enough and did not consistently validate agencies self-reported actions.

In addition to being a required step in the directives process, FISMA requires DHS to coordinate with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to ensure that the directives do not conflict with existing NIST guidance for federal agencies. However, NIST officials told GAO that DHS often did not reach out to NIST on directives until one to two weeks before the directives were to be issued, and then did not always incorporate the NIST technical comments. DHS and NIST have recently started regular coordination meetings to discuss directive-related issues earlier in the process.

Regarding the validation of agency actions, GAO found that DHS has done so for selected directives, but not for others. GAOs February 4 report said DHS is not well-positioned to validate all directives because it lacks a risk-based approach as well as a strategy to check selected agency-reported actions to validate their completion.

Directives implementation often has been effective in strengthening federal cybersecurity. For example, a 2015 directive on critical vulnerability mitigation required agencies to address critical vulnerabilities discovered by DHS cyber scans of agencies internet-accessible systems within 30 days. This was a new requirement for federal agencies. While agencies did not always meet the 30-day requirement, their mitigations were validated by DHS and reached 87 percent compliance by 2017. DHS officials attributed a recent decline in percentage completion to a 35-day partial government shutdown in late 2018/early 2019. Nevertheless, for the 4-year period under review, agencies mitigated within 30 days about 2,500 of the 3,600 vulnerabilities identified.

Federal civilian agencies have made many significant improvements in cybersecurity by implementing the directives requirements. However, an important performance metric for addressing vulnerabilities identified by high value asset (HVA) assessments does not align with the process DHS has established.

GAO said DHS has only completed about half of the required assessments for fiscal year 2019. In addition, DHS does not plan to issue the guidance, standards, and methodologies on Tier 2 and 3 systems until at least the end of fiscal year 2020. Given these shortcomings, DHS has been reassessing key aspects of the HVA program. However, GAOs review found there was no schedule or plan for completing the HVA reassessment and for addressing the outstanding issues on completing the required assessments, identifying needed resources, and finalizing guidance for Tier 2 and 3 systems.

Without effective schedules and plans, agencies may continue to face increased and prolonged cyber threats. To help address these vulnerabilities, GAO has made four recommendations to DHS.

Determine when in the directive development processfor example, during early development and at directive approvalcoordination with relevant stakeholders, including NIST and GSA, should occur.

Develop a strategy to independently validate selected agencies self-reported actions on meeting binding operational directive requirements, where feasible, using a risk-based approach.

Ensure that the binding operational directive performance metric for addressing vulnerabilities identified by HVA assessments aligns with the process DHS has established.

Develop a schedule and plan for completing the HVA program reassessment and addressing the outstanding issues on completing the required HVA assessments, identifying needed resources, and finalizing guidance for Tier 2 and 3 HVA systems.

DHS agreed with the recommendations and described steps planned or already underway to address them. For example, DHS is working to formalize a risk-based strategy to validate agency results with an estimated completion date of September 30, 2020. The department is also working with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to address the need for independent validation.

While figures for 2019 are yet to be released, OMB announced in September that more than 31,000 cyber incidents hit federal agencies in 2018, including phishing attacks and breaches resulting from errors made by authorized users. Threat actors continue to employ persistent and increasingly sophisticated techniques to attack and compromise information systems, and federal agencies and their systems are prime targets. With the added concern this year of election security, it is imperative that DHS works quickly to close gaps in order to strengthen the federal cyber base.

Read the full report at GAO

(Visited 44 times, 45 visits today)

Read this article:
GAO: DHS and Agencies Must Work to Improve Cybersecurity - HSToday

In collaboration with several other certificate authorities, DigiCert has proposed 4 enhancements to the EV SSL validation processes

On the Internet, nobody knows youre a dog.

Cartoonist Peter Steiner penned those words in a cartoon strip all the way back in 1993. The cartoon was funny and made a lot of people laugh, but it was highlighting a serious issue that was just developing back thenhow easy it was to trick people via the anonymity of the internet. Unfortunately, Peter nailed it! Today, that problem is even bigger than anyone even Peter could have imagined1 in 25 branded emails is actually a phishing email.

So, why is online identity so important? How will DigiCertsproposal help consumers?

Lets hash it out.

The internet is flooded with unknown actors, and a lot oftimes theyre up to nefarious activitiesphishing, bullying, catfishing, scamming,preying on children, swatting, and more. Thats why most internet users tend tobe suspicious of interactions with people, websites, and companies they dontknowtypically, we want to know the real-world identity of the individuals andcompanies we interact with online.

What would you think if you went to your local shoppingcenter and saw a shop with no business name, like this?

Youd be intrigued but you probably wouldnt trust that company. Youd certainly have some questions! Customers dont trust anonymity they want to know who theyre doing business with.

The same thing is true online customers want to know who theyre buying from. At your local mall, its pretty easy to tell who youre buying from theres a physical store with signage and staff right in front of you. Online, though, identity can be slippery. As Steiner pointed out, you can be a dog, a scammer, or a predator and nobody will know until its too late.

In an environment saturated with anonymous trouble-makers, EV SSL is a great tool consumers can use to confidently see who runs a website, helping them decide whether to trust the website owner or not. Thats why we strongly support making EV SSL as strong and usable as possible people want/need what it can provide. And thats why were excited to see DigiCert leading the charge to update and enhance EV SSL.

DigiCert is proposing four specific ways to update and enhance the CA/B Forum standards for EV SSL certificates. These enhancements will make EV SSL stronger and satisfy some weaknesses pointed out by security researchers. Lets go through each of them, and see how theyll help improve online identity for all:

A CAA record is a DNS entry that lets website managers restrict which CAs may issue certificates for their domain. Its a great tool for fighting shadow IT certificates ensuring that an organizations certificates are centrally managed and authorized.

But currently CAA records can only specify certificateauthorities. DigiCert is proposing expanding CAA records so domain admins can controlor restrict the validation level of certificates that can be issued for theirdomain. For example, a website admin could restrict their domain to only issue EVSSL certificates from a certain CA.

Why This Is Beneficial:

Lets look at a hypothetical scenario. Lets say example.com hires a freelance web designer to update their blog with a fresh, new design for 2020. That designer isnt authorized to issue SSL certificates for the domain. But lets say the website designer installs a WordPress file editor plugin, so they can complete domain control validation and get an SSL certificate issued. Example.com now has an SSL certificate issued by an unauthorized party they dont control the certificate or the private key, which is a significant security issue. What happens when the certificate expires?

If example.com had implemented a CAA record that restrictedthe domain to EV certificates from DigiCert CA only, the web designer wouldnthave been able to get that certificate issued because any attempt to get acertificate type not identified in the CAA record would fail.

If youve got a feeling of dj vu right now, it might be because we mentioned this idea back in October 2019. TL;DR:

LEIs are Legal Entity Identifiers, they were created in the aftermath of the financial crisis that occurred a decade ago. They are numerical codes recognized by 150 different countries. The entire system is overseen by a Swiss non-profit called GLEIF. An LEI can help prevent collisions and confusion. Now, I can already hear the objections percolating, that, like confusing organizational names, people wont know what to do with an LEI number. But there are several workarounds for that. For one, the browser could just use the LEI code and generate the associated information. Granted that might require an additional call, which may be anathema to browsers but its an option. You could also make it easy to click on the LEI number and follow it to a database with the information. This would require the user to take an action, but some might find it useful. But more than anything, it could send up a red flag when an eCommerce website or some other organization that transacts in valuable data DOESNT have an LEI.

Why This Is Beneficial:

Adding LEIs to EV SSL certificates offers two key benefits:

If you look up a company in the LEI database, youll get areport with a lot of details about the organization. Starting with basic info:

And even including information about subsidiaries and parentcompanies:

In the end, this info is ripe for being used as another datapoint to solve any corporate identity assurance use case. Like EV SSL, theinfrastructure is already in place, why not use it (or at least consider it) forresolving such an apparent problem?

Under the current EV guidelines, each certificate authority decides what data sources they will use for validation of organization details in EV SSL certificates. (Keeping in mind that theyre validating organizations across hundreds of countries, there can be a lot of variation in the quality of data sources being used from country to county.) DigiCert is proposing that the CA/B forum specify a standardized list of acceptable data sources to use in the EV validation process.

Why This Is Beneficial:

Using standardized data sources will offer several benefits:

Since EV SSL certificates are all about showing customersthe verified identity of the organizations theyre interacting with, trademarksare a logical add-on. As DigiCerts Dean Coclin explains:

Trademarks are well known, understood, unique and can be validated. Consumers recognize them and so if a browser wanted to include the trademark in their UI, they could do so with confidence that it had been properly validated. If they dont, thats fine, but it would be in the cert for any relying party to examine.

Why This Is Beneficial:

Trademarks are another way for consumers to be sure theyre interacting with the company they think they are. For example, Windex is a trademark owned by the SC Johnson company. But many consumers probably dont know the Windex brand is actually owned by SC Johnson. The current EV guidelines state that it can only say SC Johnson. However, if their EV SSL certificate displayed the Windex trademark, that might help a consumer be more confident that theyre on the official and intended website.

Manage Digital Certificates like a Boss

14 Certificate Management Best Practices to keep your organization running, secure and fully-compliant.

Ultimately, for EV SSL certificates to reach their fullpotential in helping users, the browsers need to research, identify andintroduce a more effective interface for displaying identity information tousers. (Incidentally, the browsers identity interface wouldnt have to belimited to data from EVit could contain data from other verified sources toprovide consumers all the data they need to make an informed decision.)

Since Chrome and Firefox removed the old green address bardue to concerns that it wasnt effective, the onus is on the browsers todevelop a new UI that helps users understand who is running the websitestheyre interacting with. In my opinion, removing EV without replacing it witha viable alternative did the world a huge disservice. EV may not have helped 100%of internet users, but it certainly helped more than 0%. It wasnt perfect, butit was all the internet had. Its like saying, since automobile accidents stillhappen at intersections, get rid of all traffic lights until we think ofsomething better. For some reason, logic just seemed to go out the window onthis one.

It doesnt seem like too big of an ask for the browsercommunity to seriously come together and help create a universal display thatwill help consumers with the identity of websites that they interact with. Ithink if browsers put their users interests first, the answer will come veryeasily.

I took 15 minutes with my team and came up with a half-bakedidea that seems to make quick sense. One of the big things that the EVnaysayers harped on was that the green address bar needed education tounderstand what it actually meant. They believed that it should require notraining or education and that it should just be immediately understood. Well,in minute three of our discussion, we realized that all of the social media channelsover the past decade have already educated the world on this exact problem. Thesocial media eco-system recognized issues with identity and addressed ithead-on years ago by introducing the verified account status symbol. A verifiedaccount status is reserved for high-profile accounts of companies, brands orindividuals that are especially vulnerable to impersonation.

For obvious reasons, fake accounts that are used toimpersonate a popular user on a social media platform could easily causeirreparable brand damage to both the real account holder and the platformsbusiness model. Thats specifically why the verified account status and symbolexist. Well, since the social media channels have already done the educatingand have fully conditioned users at scale to look for verified account symbolswhen consuming content, why not adopt that developed behavior to work inbrowser environments? It can quickly be used to address online identity on awider scale than just social media. Seems like the logical next step. Does it somehowgo against browser business models?

Below is what we came up with over a cup of coffee. For DVSSL, since the lock doesnt mean what it used to, simply hide it. Then letsintroduce two, or maybe just one, verified website symbol. Id bet that if youdid a study, users would immediately understand what this means. Withouteducation. With conviction.

Mousing over the verified icon could display a tooltipshowing more specifics on what the icon means.

If you click on it, something like this could display. Itsvery similar to what used to be displayed, but with a few tweaks.

Just to reiterate, this idea would be after the EV guidelines have been enhanced. Im sure there are more things worth consideration, but this took us 15 minutes in an informal meeting setting. I wonder what a group of browser security experts and security researchers could come up with if they tried to solve online identity head on for the sake of Internet users. At the least, its worthy of a real discussion where all parties come together to really solve a larger issue for the greater good of society. Not just go through the motions.

On the Internet, nobody knows youre a legit website.DigiCert is trying to do something about it. Browsers, youre up.

*** This is a Security Bloggers Network syndicated blog from Hashed Out by The SSL Store authored by Bill Grueninger. Read the original post at: https://www.thesslstore.com/blog/digicert-leads-initiative-to-enhance-ev-ssl-certificates/

Here is the original post:
DigiCert Leads Initiative to Enhance EV SSL Certificates - Security Boulevard