Firms target of e-mail scams

November 23, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Law firms are being warned that they are the target of “spear phishing” e-mails. The FBI sent out an advisory last week which said that it believed hackers were targeting U.S. law firms and public relations firms.

The hackers are spear phishing – sending unwanted e-mails that appear to be from someone the recipient knows. Traditional phishing e-mails are usually easily identified because they are from names you don’t recognize, or even random characters strung together.

By doing this, it’s more likely for someone to open the message and then click on the links attached. Of course, we know it’s the links that are the dangerous part of phishing scams and the FBI says clicking on the link or opening the attachment will launch a self-executing file. That file, “through a variety of malicious processes,” will attempt to download another file, according to the advisory. The attachments aren’t always .exe files, which are typically some kind of software or program, but may appear to be zip files or photos.

The FBI doesn’t say what info the hackers are looking for or how badly a firm’s computer system and information could be compromised. In fact, there’s apparently no reliable way to know whether the incoming message is a scam.

The lesson for firms: if you are unsure of the e-mail, better safe than sorry in clicking on any links or opening attachments. Perhaps a phone call to the alleged sender would also help clear up any confusion.

Also, how much is too much information put on computer networks? With the push to reduce paperwork, information that was once housed in the firm is now potentially available to anyone with the means of hacking into the system. Law firms contain a mountain of personal information – both on employees and clients. Breaking into a firm’s data system could be a hacker’s dream.

Any firms here in Indiana receive these spear phishing e-mails? How often do you receive scam e-mails and how can you tell if they are real?
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT