During an investigation, an analyst discovers the following rule in an executive's email client: IF * TO <executive@anycompany.com> THEN mailto: <someaddress@domain.com> SELECT FROM sent' THEN DELETE FROM <executive@anycompany.com> The executive is not aware of this rule.
Which of the following should the analyst do FIRST to evaluate the potential impact of this security incident?
Click on the arrows to vote for the correct answer
A. B. C. D.A.
In this scenario, an analyst has discovered a potentially unauthorized email rule in an executive's email client that redirects emails sent to the executive to another email address and then deletes the email from the executive's inbox. The analyst needs to evaluate the potential impact of this security incident to determine the extent of the unauthorized access and the potential harm that could be caused by the rule.
The FIRST step that the analyst should take is to preserve the evidence by taking a screenshot or other form of documentation of the email rule. This will help to ensure that the evidence is not lost or destroyed and can be used in any subsequent investigation or legal action.
After preserving the evidence, the analyst should then consider the various options for evaluating the potential impact of the incident. The options listed in the answer choices are:
A. Check the server logs to evaluate which emails were sent to <someaddress@domain.com> B. Use the SIEM to correlate logging events from the email server and the domain server C. Remove the rule from the email client and change the password D. Recommend that management implement SPF and DKIM.
Option A involves checking the server logs to determine which emails were sent to the redirected email address. This would provide information about the content of the emails that were intercepted and could be useful in determining whether any sensitive information was compromised. However, it does not provide information about who set up the rule or whether there were any other unauthorized changes made to the executive's email client.
Option B involves using a Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) tool to correlate logging events from the email server and the domain server. This would provide a more comprehensive view of the activity related to the email rule and could help to identify any other unauthorized access or changes made to the email system. However, this option requires the analyst to have access to a SIEM tool and the necessary logs.
Option C involves removing the rule from the email client and changing the password. This would prevent any further unauthorized access to the executive's email account and could help to mitigate the impact of the incident. However, it does not provide any information about who set up the rule or whether there were any other unauthorized changes made to the email system.
Option D involves recommending that management implement Sender Policy Framework (SPF) and DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) to help prevent similar incidents in the future. SPF and DKIM are email authentication protocols that can help to verify the authenticity of email messages and prevent spoofing and phishing attacks. While this is a useful recommendation, it does not address the immediate impact of the incident or provide any information about who set up the rule.
In summary, the FIRST step that the analyst should take is to preserve the evidence by taking a screenshot or other form of documentation of the email rule. After preserving the evidence, the analyst should consider the various options for evaluating the potential impact of the incident, such as checking server logs, using a SIEM tool, removing the rule and changing the password, or recommending the implementation of SPF and DKIM. The best option will depend on the specific circumstances of the incident and the available resources and tools.