search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
viewpoint cybersecurityeurope PAGE O8


EDITOR’S VIEW


Cyber security governance is now part of your organisation’s corporate social responsibility; failure to fi x it is like colluding with the criminals.


RUN THE PHRASE ‘CYBER CRIME’ PAST MANY EUROPEAN EXECS, AND


they’ll likely assume that you’re referring to digital felonies like hacking, malware and denial-of-service attacks. Other types of illegal Internet-based activity, meanwhile, have tended to be classifi ed under the heading of ‘online criminal activity’. They include drug traffi cking, the laundering of cryptocurrencies, and e-payment fraud. Such crimes are less likely to get headline media coverage than big brand data hacks, but their damage to our economic and societal stability should not be underrated. Several subcategories of crime are labeled electronic payment fraud – most acutely for senior executives being Business Email Compromise and Email Account Compromise. These are cleverly orchestrated scams. Both involve teams who compromise legitimate business email accounts through social engineering or computer intrusion techniques to cause unauthorised transfers of company funds.


As European businesses rely more on global commerce, BEC/EAC risks grow commensurately. GDPR further revealed the threats scale that European organisations face from cyber crime. Good cyber security governance increasingly means testing and fi xing in situ infrastructure as it does


Leaving any organisation’s security vulnerable is tantamount to aiding and abetting the bad people.


ensuring security investments keep up with new threats. Organisations that build and maintain their own security IT must gain awareness of their growing responsibilities. A failure to confi gure their IT infrastructure


eff ectively against attack exposes them to the suggestion that to leave their systems vulnerable is tantamount to aiding and abetting the bad people.


James Hayes REACH OUT FEEDBACK TO CYBER SECURITY EUROPE


Cyber Security Europe is committed to engagement with its readership: if you have feedback on this issue, I would be very pleased to receive it – see right.


CONTACT DETAILS Contact the editorial team via the Managing Editor: | james.hayes@cseurope.info


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53