How email attacks are affecting organizations!
CIOREVIEW >> Security >> NEWS

How email attacks are affecting organizations!

CIO Review

As the ‘alphabets of the English language’ transformed into ‘0s’ and ‘1s’, along came the Email epoch! However, little did technology pioneers know that threat would be embedded at the flipside of this coin! Malicious software or malware broke havoc in the technology world. Freights of data started getting leaked. Target, Sony Inc., all were at the receiving end!

Even creators of the technology didn’t get spared. 2 months ago, millions of Gmail, Hotmail and Yahoo email account details were stolen in a huge cyber attack. How can these frequent attacks be minimized? Let’s discuss!

Stay ahead of the industry with exclusive feature stories on the top companies, expert insights and the latest news delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe today.

Error 0x00AEM001489: Malware detected!

While email has made life easier for organizations, it has also given ingress cards to hackers for circumventing an organization’s network and breaking havoc. By leveraging the email protocols as tunnels, networks can easily be infiltrated by the hackers. Trojans can be installed specifically and confidential information can be seeped out easily. Also, these malwares can be used to obtain control over the servers. Also labeled as “instructive viruses” or “spy viruses” by some security spearheads, malwares can thus be quite dangerous for the integrity of the data which an organization holds.

The insider threat

If organizations believe that only by barring crackers and hackers operating from the outside network, they can prevent their data getting breached, then they are not entirely correct. Various studies have shown how employees use email to send out confidential corporate information. The reasons can be many: Revenge, no or partial salary hike, disappointment about a particular issue. The data which was officially supposed to remain in-house gets leaked due to diminutive negligence being shown by the firm.

Raising the cautionary tickets

Organizations need to work on their detection and prevention systems in order to avoid breach of confidential data affecting their integrity and reputation. Identity Detection System and Identity Prevention System (IDS & IPS) measures can be employed to raise alarms in case of an intrusion in a firm’s servers. Firms can take numerous precautions to ensure that they get the right intrusion information at the right time.

Putting breaks on Macros

A macro is a series of written instructions or recorded keystrokes and mouse actions which eliminate wasted time and the risk of error that typically occur when performing repetitive tasks. Though advantageous, Macros can be disastrous for a firm as hackers typically use this mechanism to carry out email attacks. Users are egged on by hackers through email attachments to switch on this application, and leave a window opened for them to exploit. In order to mitigate this loophole, organizations must upgrade their Office suite to at least Office 2013 which uses protected view to shield users and the data they hold.

Only installing necessary applications

Users have the tendency to install any application which they feel can be helpful in their day-to-day activities and roles. This is where the IT team needs to intervene! The source code of the application may not be verified by the users before installing the app, leaving potential vulnerabilities. The IT team has to monitor whether the applications installed are downloaded from legitimate sources. They have to monitor that the users are not installing any unnecessary apps.

Enabling Sandboxing

Cyber criminals have adept techniques to obfuscate malware download URLs within the email attachments. But the organizations still lack in employing content analysis and anti-malware scanning methods that can restrict these malwares. Sandboxing the email attachments is the best-possible method that a firm can carry out to minimize the threat from malicious attachments. This process flags and blocks any activity performed by the attachment to download an ‘.exe’ executable file or ‘.msi’ software.

Gateway control

The only predicament that rises while using sandboxing technique is that many server resources may get involved, which in-turn may cause the IT cost to rise. Firms looking to evade this expense must consider stripping out all the active code in the document at the gateway. The employee still receives the file with almost no delay, and in a safe format with no active code. This method denies hackers in leveraging the attachment to use against the organization and gives them gateway control.

Bridge the knowledge gap

Email security might be incomplete without tools, technology, and process, but it also requires competent human resource to carry out all these elements in tandem. Recent research from Mimecast shows the lack of confidence in 67 percent of organization leaders that their employees would spot the macro-based attacks. The main reason behind this is deemed as inadequate and irregular training sessions. Firms must understand that for the continual development of their employees’ technical knowledge, it is necessary to organize regular training sessions and workshops .

Mirage or a polestar?

Information security checklist involves a great bit of things; advanced processes and technologies, counterintelligence technique skill-sets, valid technique, and above all the top management buy-in. With disrupting technologies, the threats are also becoming more potent and sophisticated. There is a need to update the existing risk mitigation technologies and think from a hacker point of view. Emails are the safest bet that hackers can play! One wrong press on the bait attachment, and wooosssshhh!! All confidential data will be gone in a few seconds.

The outdated email security measures have been working as a mirage for the industry. It is high time now that industry leaders sit together and device methods and techniques that can not only detect malwares but also prevent them. There is a need for the industry to turn up and employ measures that can work as a polestar.

More in News

AI agents are exposing a problem that conventional workflow software has rarely solved. Many enterprises run essential work across SaaS platforms, integration tools, local scripts and shared spreadsheets. Agents are then expected to work across all of them, gather enough context and make safe decisions. The difficulty lies in the gap between what an agent can infer and what the business can actually control. Point-to-point integrations move data but do not preserve the history of a process. iPaaS platforms connect systems, yet long-running work can still end up scattered across queues, callbacks, approvals and exceptions. For buyers, introducing agents is only part of the challenge. They also need a process that can show exactly what happened. Workflow orchestration can provide that structure when it carries context along with the work instead of simply routing it from one system to another. Agents still need room to exercise judgment, but that judgment needs boundaries. A model might classify an email, interpret intent, retrieve missing context and recommend what should happen next. It should not have to work out the refund procedure or customer verification process from scratch every time a request comes in. Repeatable steps are less expensive to execute through deterministic logic and easier to audit. The agent can then handle the parts that require interpretation while established actions remain within versioned process logic. “Agents can make decisions where judgment is required while the workflow handles repeatable actions.” That separation is useful only if the business can see what happened in each workflow. Executives need a way to inspect the process template, runtime history, agent decision and failure path in one place. Once APIs, agents, human reviewers and external events are involved, ordinary system logs do not provide the whole picture. Buyers need to know which action ran, what data moved, what decision was made and what happened when a step timed out or had to be retried. Keeping that information with the process also makes automation easier to improve because performance data remains connected to the work that produced it. The amount of engineering required to get there matters too. An orchestration platform has limited practical value if a company needs to build a large specialist team before it can put a useful process into production. Existing services and SaaS APIs should be composable into business logic that people can understand and change without rebuilding the entire integration map. A code-first approach is useful when software teams get version control, business reviewers can see the workflow as a visual graph, auditors can trace what happened and agents have a stable process map to work within. The larger issue is ownership of the process, not simply how many tasks can be automated. Long-running workflows need to retain state, and agent decisions need to remain visible without requiring a model call at every step. Once the process is running, event-driven feedback can show where it needs improvement. The platform also has to work for organizations with different levels of software maturity. One team may be coordinating a large collection of microservices, while another needs custom workflow logic around ERP, CRM, field-service and workforce systems without having to wait for a vendor to add the functionality to its roadmap. LittleHorse takes this approach with Saddle Command Center and its Business-as-Code model for building workflows across microservices, SaaS platforms, agents and human-in-the-loop steps. Agents can make decisions where judgment is required while the workflow handles repeatable actions. Individual instances remain traceable, and workflow event data can be published to Apache Kafka for analysis. Support for Java, Python, Go and C# also allows engineering teams to maintain the business logic without having to adopt a specialist workflow language. For enterprises working across disconnected SaaS environments or complex microservice estates, LittleHorse provides a practical way to give AI agents room to make decisions while keeping the surrounding process visible and controlled. ...Read more
Sage migration decisions often begin with a contradiction. Finance and IT teams want the subscription feel of SaaS, yet the applications they rely on still carry custom workflows, connected databases, reporting routines and partner-managed changes. A generic cloud host can move the server, but it may leave the business managing every handoff when access breaks or latency appears during a critical task. Month-end close, warehouse workflows, payroll access and reporting cycles leave little room for cloud experiments that behave well only under ideal conditions. The weak point is usually not migration itself. It is the support chain that follows. Servers sit somewhere, a hosting provider manages the platform, the software publisher owns the application, a Sage consultant handles business logic and the internal team is left to coordinate the room. A single interruption then becomes a routing problem. Executives should favor a hosting model that reduces escalation layers without stripping away control over the ERP. Control matters because Sage environments rarely behave like standard SaaS tenants. Updates, integrations, VPN links, reporting tools and adjacent applications may need business-specific treatment. Shared resources can look efficient until they limit troubleshooting or change windows. Dedicated virtual environments, network isolation, clear backup design and documented availability standards give leadership a firmer basis for risk decisions. The point is not more infrastructure for its own sake. It is a service model that keeps customization possible while making ownership clearer. Ransomware risk and phishing exposure have changed the due diligence standard for hosted ERP. Sage access cannot be separated from identity controls, recovery routines, monitoring practices and response authority. A provider that only hosts the application may still leave security teams stitching together evidence after an incident. Before renewal terms are signed, buyers should test how backup frequency, network segmentation, disaster recovery design and incident escalation work in practice. Cloud economics create a second trap. Public cloud flexibility can turn into variable outlay when workloads are poorly matched to the platform. Licensing shifts and Microsoft choices make architecture a finance issue as much as an IT issue. Lowest monthly price can be misleading when internal staff must manage exceptions or pull multiple suppliers into every problem. A stronger decision weighs contract predictability, application performance, recovery posture and the cost of internal coordination. Sage projects also require a provider that can work alongside ERP partners rather than displace them. Against that buying logic, Cloud at Work is a premier choice for Sage cloud hosting. It model is built around Sage end users and fewer support handoffs, then extended that base into Azure and managed technology services where the customer environment demands it. Its portfolio spans Virtual Private Cloud, Infrastructure as a Service, Desktop as a Service, Managed Services and Managed Cybersecurity, giving buyers a path from hosted Sage to broader cloud management without changing accountability every time the environment expands. Dedicated resources, virtual firewalls, backup design and Sage-aware support match the pressures that matter most. For leaders who want Sage to feel closer to a managed service while preserving customization, Cloud at Work warrants serious consideration. ...Read more
Digital transformation remains a priority for organizations across Canada, but for many leaders, the challenge is no longer deciding whether to modernize. It is figuring out how to do it without disrupting the systems the business relies on every day. Many organizations are operating in a mixed environment where old and new technologies must work side by side. Core applications that were implemented years ago still support critical operations. ERP and commercial off-the-shelf platforms have been customized over time to fit unique business processes. Data often lives in multiple systems and cybersecurity concerns continue to grow as organizations expand their use of cloud services, mobile applications and external partners. The result is a level of complexity that can make modernization feel risky, even when change is clearly needed. This is why successful digital transformation rarely starts with technology. It starts with understanding the business. Leaders need a clear picture of which systems continue to deliver value, where inefficiencies exist and which investments will have the greatest impact. Organizations often spend too much money replacing systems that still serve an important purpose or implementing new solutions before fully understanding the long-term costs. The most effective transformation partners help organizations make informed decisions rather than pushing change for its own sake. The same practical approach applies to emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence. While AI continues to attract attention, its success depends heavily on the quality of the data behind it. Organizations that struggle with fragmented information, inconsistent processes or weak governance often find it difficult to unlock meaningful value from AI investments. Data modernization, cybersecurity and system modernization are closely connected. Progress in one area often depends on getting the others right. Security has become another defining factor in successful transformation initiatives. Whether operating in healthcare, education, municipal government or the private sector, Canadian organizations face increasing expectations around privacy, access management and accountability. Security cannot be treated as a separate project that follows modernization efforts. It needs to be built into planning and decision-making from the beginning. Strong governance, clear documentation and defined responsibilities help organizations reduce risk while giving leadership teams confidence that projects remain on track. Execution is equally important. Many transformation initiatives struggle not because the strategy is wrong but because employees are left behind during the process. New systems, workflows and technologies only create value when people understand how to use them and why the changes matter. Clear communication, realistic timelines and strong change management are often the difference between a successful implementation and an expensive disappointment. For organizations operating across different regions of Canada, bilingual communication and local stakeholder engagement can further influence outcomes. For organizations looking to modernize in a practical and manageable way, IPSG Technology offers an approach grounded in business realities rather than technology trends. The company combines custom application development, website modernization, cloud services, cybersecurity, data optimization and change enablement to help organizations navigate complex transformation initiatives with confidence. Its strength lies in helping clients modernize ERP and COTS environments without unnecessary replacement, align AI initiatives with data readiness and incorporate security from the outset. By focusing on clarity, governance and measurable outcomes, IPSG Technology helps organizations move forward without losing sight of operational continuity, budget control and long-term business value. ...Read more
Mid-sized companies often reach a point where data volume has outgrown the reporting habits built around it. Sales systems, finance platforms, customer records and workforce tools accumulate information, yet decision-makers still wait for manually assembled reports or rely on partial views. The buying problem is rarely a shortage of software. It is the cost and coordination burden of connecting systems, preparing reliable data and turning it into useful action without building a large specialist team. Platform selection should begin with the data foundation. Dashboards and AI models cannot compensate for inconsistent definitions, missing records or poorly governed pipelines. Executives need to know how a platform profiles and cleans data while preserving traceability from source to output. Integration also matters beyond the initial connection. A workable platform must support existing databases and business applications while reducing the amount of custom code required to keep those links current. Migration demands, refresh frequency and access controls deserve scrutiny before implementation begins. The next pressure is time to proof. Many firms cannot justify a large upfront investment in engineers and data scientists before a use case has shown credible returns. A platform should let a business test a narrow problem and measure model accuracy before committing to broader deployment. Low-code workflow design can shorten that cycle, but ease of configuration must not remove oversight. Buyers should examine how knowledge bases and semantic layers are managed when model outputs affect staff decisions or customer-facing processes. Access to insight presents a separate test. Static reports remain useful for recurring review, yet business leaders increasingly need answers that were not anticipated when a dashboard was built. Natural-language querying can reduce dependence on report backlogs, provided the platform grounds responses in governed company data and shows enough context for users to judge the result. Predictive functions should be assessed in the same manner. Forecasts are valuable only when teams can understand the inputs and monitor performance before connecting a prediction to a defined next step. The final buying concern is service depth. Mid-sized firms may adopt a capable platform and still lack the people to design data models or maintain AI workflows. A provider should be able to supply targeted support without turning every change into a consulting project. Subscription or usage-based pricing can lower the entry barrier, though buyers should compare consumption controls and support terms carefully. The strongest fit will combine self-service tools with practical help around implementation and model tuning, backed by ongoing maintenance when internal capacity is limited. Aidas Technologies  is a premier choice for firms that need this combination without assembling separate platforms and specialist teams. Its AI-powered data and analytics platform brings data preparation, reporting, predictive modeling and workflow automation into one environment through low-code tools. The company also offers professional services for setup and custom development, plus model support and continued maintenance, allowing buyers to test focused use cases before scaling. A usage-based subscription model further suits mid-sized organizations that need tighter control over upfront cost. For executives prioritizing faster proof and guided adoption, Aidas Technologies merits serious consideration. ...Read more