Attacks/Breaches

9/21/2017
04:45 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

SEC Says Intruders May Have Accessed Insider Data for Illegal Trading

2016 breach of the Securities and Exchange Commission's EDGAR database dents its reputation as a federal cybersecurity enforcer.

The Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) credibility as an enforcer of cybersecurity requirements took a bit of beating this week after it disclosed a 2016 data breach that might have given intruders access to nonpublic information for illegal trading.

In brief comments buried in the middle of a long public statement on the agency's cybersecurity posture, SEC Chairman Jay Clayton tied the breach to a software vulnerability in the test filing component of the SEC's EDGAR system.

The breach was discovered and addressed at some unspecified time in 2016. But it wasn't until August 2017 that the SEC learned that the incident might have allowed the intruders to profit illegally through trading, Clayton said, without providing any additional details on how that might have happened. The vulnerability provided access to certain nonpublic information in EDGAR and was patched promptly after discovery, he noted.

EDGAR is an automated system for electronically collecting, validating, accepting, and forwarding disclosure documents from public companies that are required by US law to file with the SEC. On average, the EDGAR system receives and processes some 1.7 million electronic filings annually, a lot of which is publicly available data. Some of the typical data in EDGAR includes statements for IPOs and quarterly and annual reports. But some documents that companies might file voluntarily — such as the proposed sale of securities — may remain nonpublic.

"The EDGAR database contains or has the potential to contain the filings companies make that are labeled as private," says Chris Pierson, chief security officer and general counsel at Viewpost.

For instance, companies can make filings for mergers and acquisitions that they might want to keep private for a period of time. "These are the filings that a hacker would want to find and see as it indicates the intentions of a public company and can be translated into monetary reward," Pierson says.

The incident is the second one that the SEC has disclosed this year involving unauthorized access or misuse of its systems. In May, the SEC announced that it had filed fraud charges against a mechanical engineer who managed to make a fake regulatory filing on the agency's systems in an attempt to manipulate the prices of Fitbit's stock.

The almost complete lack of details surrounding the 2016 breach incident has resulted in some speculation over what might have happened and the true extent of the compromise.

The SEC's language surrounding the breach discovery and vulnerabilities sound intentionally vague, says Atiq Raza, CEO of Virsec Systems. "They are implying that as soon as the vulnerability was discovered, they patched it promptly using all due diligence," he says.

"But this begs more questions: discovered by whom and when?" he says. "It may well be that the SEC discovered an unpatched server that was being exploited, for an unknown, probably long period, and only then took steps to apply critical patches."

Ilia Kolochenko, CEO of Web security firm High-Tech Bridge, says the vagueness of the SEC's disclosure is sure to provoke speculation about nation-state involvement or actions by known cybercrime groups.

"In the financial world, even a press release can make you millions if you get it before everybody else does," Kolochenko says. "In the Equifax situation, victims may be attacked to steal a couple of hundreds of dollars on average, while in this breach smart attackers could potentially make huge amounts of money at the expense of unaware honest investors."

Clayton's disclosure pertaining to an incident that happened back in 2016 has also raised some questions about the SEC's own breach notification obligations.

But some executives such as Jeremiah Grossman, head of security strategy at cybersecurity firm SentinelOne, says the apparent lag is not all that surprising.

"There's no legal obligation I'm aware of for the SEC to ever disclose this kind of breach, or to notify the parties whose data was compromised," Grossman notes. "We're talking EDGAR data, not PII. That might be one possible explanation."

Related content:

 

Join Dark Reading LIVE for two days of practical cyber defense discussions. Learn from the industry’s most knowledgeable IT security experts. Check out the INsecurity agenda here.

Jai Vijayan is a seasoned technology reporter with over 20 years of experience in IT trade journalism. He was most recently a Senior Editor at Computerworld, where he covered information security and data privacy issues for the publication. Over the course of his 20-year ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
WebAuthn, FIDO2 Infuse Browsers, Platforms with Strong Authentication
John Fontana, Standards & Identity Analyst, Yubico,  9/19/2018
NSS Labs Files Antitrust Suit Against Symantec, CrowdStrike, ESET, AMTSO
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  9/19/2018
Turn the NIST Cybersecurity Framework into Reality: 5 Steps
Mukul Kumar & Anupam Sahai, CISO & VP of Cyber Practice and VP Product Management, Cavirin Systems,  9/20/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Are you sure this is how we get our data into the cloud?
Current Issue
Flash Poll
The Risk Management Struggle
The Risk Management Struggle
The majority of organizations are struggling to implement a risk-based approach to security even though risk reduction has become the primary metric for measuring the effectiveness of enterprise security strategies. Read the report and get more details today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2015-8298
PUBLISHED: 2018-09-24
Multiple SQL injection vulnerabilities in the login page in RXTEC RXAdmin UPDATE 06 / 2012 allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands via the (1) loginpassword, (2) loginusername, (3) zusatzlicher, or (4) groupid parameter to index.htm, or the (5) rxtec cookie to index.htm.
CVE-2018-14825
PUBLISHED: 2018-09-24
A skilled attacker with advanced knowledge of the target system could exploit this vulnerability by creating an application that would successfully bind to the service and gain elevated system privileges. This could enable the attacker to obtain access to keystrokes, passwords, personal identifiable...
CVE-2018-17437
PUBLISHED: 2018-09-24
Memory leak in the H5O_dtype_decode_helper() function in H5Odtype.c in the HDF HDF5 through 1.10.3 library allows attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) via a crafted HDF5 file.
CVE-2018-17438
PUBLISHED: 2018-09-24
A SIGFPE signal is raised in the function H5D__select_io() of H5Dselect.c in the HDF HDF5 through 1.10.3 library during an attempted parse of a crafted HDF file, because of incorrect protection against division by zero. It could allow a remote denial of service attack.
CVE-2018-17439
PUBLISHED: 2018-09-24
An issue was discovered in the HDF HDF5 1.10.3 library. There is a stack-based buffer overflow in the function H5S_extent_get_dims() in H5S.c. Specifically, this issue occurs while converting an HDF5 file to a GIF file.