Comments
UK Banks Must Produce Backup Plans for Cyberattacks
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
7/9/2018 | 8:05:59 PM
Re: NIST analog?
@REISEN: Conversely, the NIST Cybersecurity Framework -- like any framework -- is not exactly perfect, and has its own weaknesses. At least it's something to get started with, however.
REISEN1955
50%
50%
REISEN1955,
User Rank: Ninja
7/9/2018 | 2:39:31 PM
Re: NIST analog?
Of more significance is that backup and restoration plans ARE PART of normal IT functionality and business purpose.  The data centers do not operate in a run-only vacuum.  There have to be plans to reconstruct and rebuild in any event, whether ransomware or hurricane, flood, loss of power, etc.  That it must be mandated by law is insane!  Good yes, but OMG this is It 101 basics folks!!!  
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
7/5/2018 | 2:26:12 PM
NIST analog?
On the surface, this sounds like pretty basic stuff already covered under the NIST Cybersecurity Framework in the US -- which effectively acts as "pseudo-law" for financial institutions in the US. Seems like the only financial institutions in the UK that might have issue are those that have not crossed the pond -- and, even then, given the dramatic increase in collaboration on security matters throughout the finance sector over the past few years, this should not be too terribly burdensome, I suspect.


What We Talk About When We Talk About Risk
Jack Jones, Chairman, FAIR Institute,  7/11/2018
Ticketmaster Breach Part of Massive Payment Card Hacking Campaign
Jai Vijayan, Freelance writer,  7/10/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-14084
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-16
An issue was discovered in a smart contract implementation for MKCB, an Ethereum token. If the owner sets the value of sellPrice to a large number in setPrices() then the "amount * sellPrice" will cause an integer overflow in sell().
CVE-2018-14085
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-16
An issue was discovered in a smart contract implementation for UserWallet 0x0a7bca9FB7AfF26c6ED8029BB6f0F5D291587c42, an Ethereum token. First, suppose that the owner adds the evil contract address to his sweepers. The evil contract looks like this: contract Exploit { uint public start; function swe...
CVE-2018-14086
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-16
An issue was discovered in a smart contract implementation for SingaporeCoinOrigin (SCO), an Ethereum token. The contract has an integer overflow. If the owner sets the value of sellPrice to a large number in setPrices() then the "amount * sellPrice" will cause an integer overflow in sell(...
CVE-2018-14087
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-16
An issue was discovered in a smart contract implementation for EUC (EUC), an Ethereum token. The contract has an integer overflow. If the owner sets the value of buyPrice to a large number in setPrices() then the "msg.value * buyPrice" will cause an integer overflow in the fallback functio...
CVE-2018-14088
PUBLISHED: 2018-07-16
An issue was discovered in a smart contract implementation for STeX White List (STE(WL)), an Ethereum token. The contract has an integer overflow. If the owner sets the value of amount to a large number then the "amount * 1000000000000000" will cause an integer overflow in withdrawToFounde...