This is a story that James Patterson should be writing.
The FBI says that it is investigating a major breach at Citigroup with ties to a Russian cybercriminal organization which spanned several months to a year. Protecting information assets is difficult when the attackers are organized criminals.
Citigroup, whose Citibank subsidieary was the alleged victim of the attack, says the attack didn't happen. Joe Petro, managing director of Citigroup's security and investigative services told the Wall Street Journal: "We had no breach of the systems and there were no losses, no customer losses, no bank losses."
The details of the purported breach are consistent with attacks by Eastern European gangs: the intruders understand their target, how it does business and how the business sytems are organized. These attackers are sophiticated enough to challenge enterprise security management systems and professionals.
But the disturbing inconsistency is that Citigroup denies all allegations of a breach and the FBI won't comment. What's going on here? Could it be that with the federal government holding a 27% stake in Citigroup that protecting the already battered stock price might be limiting fair disclosure. Will the new cybersecurity czar, Howard Schmidt, be looking into this story? Is the FBI trying to avoid laying off investigators by making busy work? Is there a plot against Citi by an FBI agent who's credit limit was cut just before the holiday? Will the investigating agents get a hike in their credit card interest rates?
Oh wait- that's happening to everyone - not just FBI investigators. Maybe I should leave the fiction to James Patterson. Only two days left in 2009.
How would James Patterson write the ending to this story?
The FBI says that it is investigating a major breach at Citigroup with ties to a Russian cybercriminal organization which spanned several months to a year. Protecting information assets is difficult when the attackers are organized criminals.
Citigroup, whose Citibank subsidieary was the alleged victim of the attack, says the attack didn't happen. Joe Petro, managing director of Citigroup's security and investigative services told the Wall Street Journal: "We had no breach of the systems and there were no losses, no customer losses, no bank losses."
The details of the purported breach are consistent with attacks by Eastern European gangs: the intruders understand their target, how it does business and how the business sytems are organized. These attackers are sophiticated enough to challenge enterprise security management systems and professionals.
But the disturbing inconsistency is that Citigroup denies all allegations of a breach and the FBI won't comment. What's going on here? Could it be that with the federal government holding a 27% stake in Citigroup that protecting the already battered stock price might be limiting fair disclosure. Will the new cybersecurity czar, Howard Schmidt, be looking into this story? Is the FBI trying to avoid laying off investigators by making busy work? Is there a plot against Citi by an FBI agent who's credit limit was cut just before the holiday? Will the investigating agents get a hike in their credit card interest rates?
Oh wait- that's happening to everyone - not just FBI investigators. Maybe I should leave the fiction to James Patterson. Only two days left in 2009.
How would James Patterson write the ending to this story?
Powered by Compendium Blogware
Comments for Citigroup says NO BREACH