Phishing Banks: Tactics and Implications
- Date:November 15, 2018
- Author(s):
- Sean Sposito
- Report Details: 23 pages, 16 graphics
- Research Topic(s):
- Cybersecurity
- Fraud & Security
- PAID CONTENT
Overview
Over the past two decades, it’s become increasingly difficult to find vulnerabilities in software that can be effectively leveraged to create exploits that penetrate the networks of financial institutions. Meanwhile, in large part because of the ubiquity of computing and the widespread use of email, it’s become easier to exploit people with access to some of the most sensitive information inside FIs.
In part, that is because of our broad inability to digitally discern between the people we interact with and the services we rely on and impersonators. Online, it’s hard to flag content that’s meant to dupe executives and directors out of their company’s most sensitive details. That leaves FIs looking to shift their liability and have underwriters insure their risks. This report examines the concerns and attitudes of financial institutions regarding this crime of virtual deceit. It also highlights and explores the solutions that FIs believe are most helpful in the fight against phishing.
Key questions discussed in this report:
- What are the chief concerns of compromise among FIs whose security teams are most worried about phishing?
- What security tools do FIs find most effective in the fight against phishing?
- How effective do security professionals inside those FIs find those tools?
- What authentication methods are FIs deploying to remote employees and workers?
Companies Mentioned: Agari, Area 1 Security, Cofense (formerly Phishme), Dell (Data Guardian), Duo Security, (Recently Acquired by Cisco), Entrust Datacard, Ionic Security, Ironscales, Pindrop, PreVeil, Proofpoint, Vera
Methodology
Javelin conducted a series of interviews involving industry and vendor executives, attorneys and other relevant stakeholders to gain an understanding of the topic. Interviewees represented a variety of organizations.
Data in this report is based on information collected in a random-sample panel of 800 information technology security decision-makers, 200 of whom work in financial services. For questions answered by all 800 survey respondents, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3.46 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. For questions answered by all 200 financial services respondents, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±6.93 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. The maximum margin of sampling error is higher for questions answered by segments of respondents.
Book a Meeting with the Author
Related content
States of Uncertainty: How Cyber-Threat Intel Reduces Digital Transactional Risk
Digital identity standards, privacy laws, and verification tools vary across states, so financial institutions have gaps that cybercriminals are quick to exploit. Leading organizat...
2026 Direct-to-Consumer Identity Protection Services Vendor Scorecard
Gen Digital, provider of Norton 360 with LifeLock Ultimate Plus, took Best in Class in overall identity theft protection sold directly to consumers, followed by Equifax, provider o...
2026 Direct-to-Consumer Identity Protection Services Overview: Gains, Gaps, and Opportunities for Industry Growth
Javelin Strategy & Research’s biennial assessment of direct-to-consumer identity theft protection services (IDPS) vendors finds that they are expanding their services. They are off...
Make informed decisions in a digital financial world