Group items tagged

The key points of the plan closely mirror recommendations offered late last year by a bipartisan commission of computer security experts, which urged then president-elect Obama to set up a high-level post to tackle cyber security, consider new regulations to combat cyber crime and shore up the security of the nation's most sensitive computer networks. The strategy, as outlined in a broader policy document on homeland security priorities posted on the Whitehouse.gov Web site Wednesday, states the following goals: * Strengthen Federal Leadership on Cyber Security: Declare the cyber infrastructure a strategic asset and establish the position of national cyber advisor who will report directly to the president and will be responsible for coordinating federal agency efforts and development of national cyber policy. * Initiate a Safe Computing R&D Effort and Harden our Nation's Cyber Infrastructure: Support an initiative to develop next-generation secure computers and networking for national security applications. Work with industry and academia to develop and deploy a new generation of secure hardware and software for our critical cyber infrastructure. * Protect the IT Infrastructure That Keeps America's Economy Safe: Work with the private sector to establish tough new standards for cyber security and physical resilience. * Prevent Corporate Cyber-Espionage: Work with industry to develop the systems necessary to protect our nation's trade secrets and our research and development. Innovations in software, engineering, pharmaceuticals and other fields are being stolen online from U.S. businesses at an alarming rate. * Develop a Cyber Crime Strategy to Minimize the Opportunities for Criminal Profit: Shut down the mechanisms used to transmit criminal profits by shutting down untraceable Internet payment schemes. Initiate a grant and training program to provide federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies the tools they need to detect and prosecute cyber crime. *

To address important consumer privacy concerns associated with online behavioral advertising, the staff of the Federal Trade Commission today released a set of proposed principles to guide the development of self-regulation in this evolving area. Behavioral advertising is the tracking of a consumer's activities online - including the searches the consumer has conducted, the Web pages visited, and the content viewed - in order to deliver advertising targeted to the individual consumer"s interests. For more than a decade, the FTC has engaged in investigation, law enforcement, studies, and other privacy developments to protect consumers' privacy online. Concepts used to develop the principles emerged from the agency's longstanding privacy program and, more recently, from two conferences hosted by the FTC. In the fall of 2006, a three-day public hearing, "Protecting Consumers in the Next Tech-ade," examined technology developments that could raise consumer protection policy issues, including privacy, over the next decade. This past November, building on the Tech-ade hearings, the FTC hosted a Town Hall entitled "Ehavioral Advertising: Tracking, Targeting, and Technology," to focus in on privacy issues raised by behavioral advertising. "The purpose of this proposal is to encourage more meaningful and enforceable self-regulation to address the privacy concerns raised with respect to behavioral advertising. In developing the principles, FTC staff was mindful of the need to maintain vigorous competition in online advertising as well as the importance of accommodating the wide variety of business models that exist in this area," according to its proposal "Behavioral Advertising: Moving the Discussion Forward to Possible Self-Regulatory Principles." The proposal states that behavioral advertising provides benefits to consumers in the form of free content and personalized advertising but notes that this practice is largely invisible and unknown to consumers. To address the

The Air Force is seeking an entrepreneurial innovator to develop technology to analyze the conduct of insiders to determine if they pose a threat to government IT systems. In a call for proposals aimed at small businesses, posted on Tuesday, the Air Force is asking outside developers to "define, develop and demonstrate innovative approaches for determining 'good' (approved) versus 'bad' (disallowed/subversive) activities, including insiders and/or malware." For their initial efforts, the Air Force will pay up to $100,000. The proposal says current techniques that monitor illicit activities only address the most blatant violations of policy or the grossest deviations from accepted behavior. Most systems concentrate their resources on repelling attacks at the network borders with little attention devoted to threats that evade detection and/or emanate from within. The proposal states: "As such, there currently exists a great need across the federal, military and private sectors for a viable and robust means to provide near-real-time detection, correlation and attribution of network attacks, by content or pattern, without use of reactive previously-seen signatures. Many times, these trusted entities have detailed knowledge about the currently-installed host and network security systems, and can easily plan their activities to subvert these systems."

The federal U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines calculator was developed by an innovative lawyer who was looking to develop a tool to help lawyers do the calculation for their clients.

"This presentation contains statements of a forward-looking nature which represent our management's beliefs and assumptions concerning future events. Forward-looking statements involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions and are based on information currently available to us. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements due to many factors, including without limitation, the impact that the significantly unfavorable economic conditions confronting the United States may have on our business, the results and effects the security breach of our processing system may have on us, including the costs and damages we may incur in connection with the claims arising from such breach that have been made and may in the future be made against us, the extent of cardholder information compromised and the possibility that such security breach could cause us to lose customers or make it difficult for us to obtain new customers, the possibility that we may not be successful in developing and implementing an end to end encryption solution, the possibility that if we are successful in developing and implementing an end to end encryption solution it may not prevent future security breaches of our payment processing system, and additional factors that are contained in the Company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings, including but not limited to, the Company's annual report on Form 10- K for the year ended December 31, 2008. We undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances that may arise after the date of this presentation. Topics / Agenda - The Future of Electronic Payments * What Is The Problem? The Cybercrimes Arms Race * Who Is Heartland Payment Systems? * What Happened and What Has/Will It Cost? * What Did We Do About It and What Are We Doing Now? * Massive Quantity/Quality of Breaches Call for Enhanced Solutions * Our New Solution Called E3 -

The Department of Homeland Security's Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee has offered DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano 16 recommendations on how to best address privacy issues currently facing the department. The panel stressed that "the need to update the government's legal authority to protect and defend cyberspace in the U.S. classified intelligence systems raise specific and sometimes significant privacy issues, including the conflict between transparency and redress." The committee has asked that each DHS component - such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency and Office of Intelligence and Analysis - have a designated privacy officer that would report to the head of the section. The committee also "encourages DHS to continue to work toward policy and functional interoperability in the development of new systems and when making major modifications to existing systems," according to a letter from the committee hand delivered to Napolitano. Additionally, the panel said the 1974 Privacy Act has "not kept pace with the evolution of technology and developments in how data is collected, used, shared and stored. To the extent the Secretary is asked to submit recommendations to Congress for making the act more relevant and effective, the committee recommends that the secretary seek guidance from the Privacy Office staff, who are experts in applying the Act's provisions throughout the department." For more on the recommendations, read the committee's letter here.

Cloud services are now vulnerable to malicious use, a security company has suggested, after a techie worked out how Amazon's EC2 service could be used as a BitTorrent file harvester and host. Amazon's Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) is a web service software developers can use to access computing, compilation and software trialling power on a dynamic basis, without having to install the resources locally. Now a developer, Brett O'Connor, has come up with a step-by-step method for using the same service to host an open source BitTorrent application called TorrentFlux. Getting this up and running on Amazon would require some technical know-how, but would be within the reach of a moderately experienced user, right down to following O'Connor's command line low-down on how to install the public TorrentFlux app straight to Amazon's EC2 rather than a user's local machine. Finding an alternative way of using BitTorrent matters to hardcore file sharers because ISPs and admins alike are increasingly keen to block such bandwidth-eating traffic on home and business links, and O'Connor's EC2 guide was clearly written to that end - using the Amazon service would make such blocking unlikely. "I created a web-based, open-source Bittorrent 'machine' that liberated my network and leveraged Amazon's instead," says O'Connor. He then quips "I can access it from anywhere, uploading Torrent files from wherever, and manage them from my iPhone." However, security company GSS claims the guide shows the scope for possible abuse, using EC2 to host or 'seed' non-legitimate BitTorrent file distribution. "This means, says Hobson, that hackers and other interested parties can simply use a prepaid (and anonymous) debit card to pay the $75 a month fee to Amazon and harvest BitTorrent applications at high speed with little or no chance of detection," said David Hobson of GSS. "The danger here is that companies may find their staff FTPing files from Amazon EC2 - a completely legitimate domain -

Educating consumers about what behavioral targeting is and is not up to, deep within the cookies of their browser, seems to be a bit like alternative energy development. Pretty much everyone says the industry should be doing more about it, and yet it is hard to see where and with whom it starts. Most online materials related to BT are pitched to one end of the value chain, marketers. It's not clear to me that most of the companies in this space are even comfortable talking directly to consumers, let alone taking the time to develop an accessible language to describe their process. Specific Media controls the BehavioralTargeting.com domain and uses it to educate marketers about its methods. Even the Wikipedia entry for this field is really an explanation for advertisers. This is understandable, since most people who are familiar with the term likely come from the industry. But it seems to me the industry misses an opportunity to practice more often, and in more places, what it knows ultimately needs to be done. You guys need to find better, clearer, simpler ways to explain what it is you are doing in our browsers -- and why you are doing it. And what are the real benefits and risks a consumer incurs by tacitly agreeing to your presence? Isn't every possible point of contact with a suspicious consumer a teachable moment? In an earlier post, I recounted how I struck some retargeting gold when FetchBack tagged and remarketed me during my travels online. An opt-out option is clearly available at the front page of the FetchBack site. Unfortunately, from there you either opt-out (kick over to the Network Advertising Initiative site) or click into a long scrolling privacy policy that doesn't actually get around to explaining retargeting until a few screens down.

A Harvard University fellow has developed a browser extension that stops advertising networks from tracking a person's surfing habits, such as search queries and content they view on the Web. The extension, called Targeted Advertising Cookie Opt-Out (TACO), enables its users to opt out of 27 advertising networks that are employing behavioral advertising systems, wrote Christopher Soghoian, who developed it, on his Web site. Soghoian, a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard and a doctoral candidate at Indiana University, modified a browser extension Google released under an Apache 2 open-source license. Google's opt-out plugin for Internet Explorer and Firefox blocks cookies delivered by its Doubleclick advertising network. A cookie is a small data file stored in a browser that can track a variety of information, such as Web sites visited and search queries, and transmit that information back to the entity that placed the cookie in the browser. Google's opt-out plugin comes as the company announced plans last week to target advertisements based on the sites people visit. Targeted advertising is seen as a way for advertisers to more precisely find potential customers as well as for Web site publishers to charge higher advertising rates. But the behavioral advertising technologies have raised concern over how consumers get enrolled in the programs, what data is being tracked and how the data is protected.

From the Heartland data breach to the new Massachusetts data protection law, privacy is the hot topic in business and government. In an exclusive interview, Peter Kosmala, assistant director of the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), discusses: The top privacy topics in business and government; How organizations are tackling these issues; The potential impact of state and federal privacy legislation; The value of the Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP) credential. Kosmala oversees product management for the IAPP with specific oversight of distance learning products, privacy certifications and industry awards programs. He also manages business development efforts between the IAPP and peer organizations in the information security, information auditing and legal compliance arenas as well as organizations based in the Asia-Pacific region. The IAPP, based in York, Maine, was founded in 2000 with a mission to define, promote and improve the privacy profession globally. Kosmala oversees product management for the IAPP with specific oversight of distance learning products, privacy certifications and industry awards programs. He also manages business development efforts between the IAPP and peer organizations in the information security, information auditing and legal compliance arenas as well as organizations based in the Asia-Pacific region. The IAPP, based in York, Maine, was founded in 2000 with a mission to define, promote and improve the privacy profession globally.

The theft in 2006 of an employee laptop that contained personal information on millions of veterans taught the Veterans Affairs Department some hard lessons. VA became "the poster child of data breaches," said Kathryn Maginnis, the department's associate deputy assistant secretary for risk management and incident response. As a result of that incident and several breaches that followed, the department developed a comprehensive incident response program and incident resolution team that evaluates all serious exposures of sensitive data. "We have a culture of report, report, report," Maginnis said at the recent FOSE conference in Washington. The incident response program received a perfect score last year in the VA inspector general's Federal Information Security Management Act audit, and Maginnis said she expects to get another perfect score this year. The department developed two in-house online tools to help track and evaluate incidents, said Amanda Graves Scott, director of the incident resolution team. The Formal Event Review and Evaluation Tool uses a 56-question questionnaire to determine the risk category of a data breach, and the VA Incident Response Tracking System automates a manual tracking process for information technology incident response.

Here are five interesting factoids regarding information security culled from documents and statements accompanying President Obama's fiscal year 2010 budget: The current number of positions filled in the federal IT workforce totals 17,785, with 8,407 of them - or 47 percent - deemed IT security. The Department of Homeland Security seeks $75.1 million more in the coming year to develop and deploy cybersecurity technologies for the entire government to counter continuing, real-world national cyber threats and apply effective analysis and risk mitigation strategies to detect and deter threats. Homeland Security also seeks $37.2 million, a $6.6 million increase, to address critical capability gaps identified in the government's Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative. Specifically, says DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, this effort would seek and/or develop technologies to secure the nation's critical information infrastructure and networks. Nearly half of the federal workforce - 2.7 million individuals - have been issued credentials that provide for digital signature, encryption, archiving of documents, multi-factor authentication and reduced sign-on to improve security and facilitate information sharing. The total federal IT budget for 2010, including funds earmarked to secure data and systems, tops $75.8 billion, up $5.1 billion or 7.2 percent from the current fiscal year.

At last, my summer reading list is complete!

In what it described as an historic document, the National Institute for Standards and Technology issued a special report entitled Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations. Special Publication 800-53, Revision 3, is historic in nature. For the first time, and as part of a continuing initiative to develop a unified information security framework for the federal government and its contractors, NIST has included security controls in its catalog for national security and non-national security systems in its latest revision, No. 3, of Special Publication 800-53. "The important changes described (in the publication) are part of a larger strategic initiative to focus on enterprise-wide, near real-time risk management; that is, managing risks from information systems in dynamic environments of operation that can adversely affect organizational operations and assets, individuals, other organizations, and the nation," Ron Ross, NIST's Federal Information Security Management Act implementation project leader, said in a message incorporated into the 220-page report. According to the document, the updated security control catalogue incorporates best practices in information security from the Department of Defense, intelligence community and civilian agencies to produce the most broad-based and comprehensive set of safeguards and countermeasures ever developed for information systems.

Why Google isn't ready to be an Enterprise vendor

At the Google (NSDQ: GOOG) I/O developer conference this week, Google Inc. will host more than 80 technical sessions on all of the Google apps and platforms we've come to know -- Android, Chrome, App Engine, Web Toolkit, AJAX and others. When reviewing the Google I/O Schedule this morning, I was disappointed by what could not be easily found. The conference will run this week, May 28 to 29, in San Francisco, and Google is expecting more than 2,000 attendees. Unfortunately, a long perusal of the schedule shows plenty of tracks with Search, Scale, and Performance in the title -- but only one track with Security. What about Privacy? Well, there's no tracks highlighting data privacy, either. There is a session that covers federated identity management, Practical Standards-based Security and Identity in the Enterprise. And it looks promising, but federated authentication and authorization is more about making sure applications and people can interact securely, not that an application, itself, is inherently secure.

Six federal agencies issued a set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) today to help financial institutions, creditors, users of consumer reports, and issuers of credit cards and debit cards comply with federal regulations on identity theft and discrepancies in changes of address. The "Red Flags and Address Discrepancy Rules," which implement sections of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACT Act), were issued jointly on November 9, 2007, by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), and Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The rules require financial institutions and creditors to develop and implement written Identity Theft Prevention Programs and require issuers of credit cards and debit cards to assess the validity of notifications of changes of address. The rules also provide guidance for users of consumer reports regarding reasonable policies and procedures to employ when consumer reporting agencies send them notices of address discrepancy. The agencies' staff have jointly developed answers to these FAQs to provide guidance on numerous aspects of the rules, including which types of entities and accounts are covered; establishment and administration of an Identity Theft Prevention Program; address validation requirements applicable to card issuers; and the obligations of users of consumer reports upon receiving a notice of address discrepancy.

To assist small businesses and other entities, the Federal Trade Commission staff will redouble its efforts to educate them about compliance with the "Red Flags" Rule and ease compliance by providing additional resources and guidance to clarify whether businesses are covered by the Rule and what they must do to comply. To give creditors and financial institutions more time to review this guidance and develop and implement written Identity Theft Prevention Programs, the FTC will further delay enforcement of the Rule until November 1, 2009. The Red Flags Rule is an anti-fraud regulation, requiring "creditors" and "financial institutions" with covered accounts to implement programs to identify, detect, and respond to the warning signs, or "red flags," that could indicate identity theft. The financial regulatory agencies, including the FTC, developed the Rule, which was mandated by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA). FACTA's definition of "creditor" includes any entity that regularly extends or renews credit - or arranges for others to do so - and includes all entities that regularly permit deferred payments for goods or services. Accepting credit cards as a form of payment does not, by itself, make an entity a creditor. "Financial institutions" include entities that offer accounts that enable consumers to write checks or make payments to third parties through other means, such as other negotiable instruments or telephone transfers.

As protests in Iran last month drew the world's attention, the top executives at a large global industrial goods company held a teleconference to consider their options. The meeting was hastily called, but the participants were not starting from scratch. In fact, the events unfolding in the country were strikingly similar to a scenario that they had developed, along with a handful others, in a 2008 offsite meeting focused on potential changes in their competitive environment. The workshop, the output, and the eventual impact on decision making represents a perfect illustration of how so-called scenario planning techniques can be utilized to help managers navigate in complex and uncertain environments. In the meeting the industrial company held last year, executives had discussed each scenario they developed, the potential triggers for each of them, and how the company should respond to each of these situations if it were to arise. Pulling out the notes from these discussions, they already knew their options and had a view on how they would like to respond. In many ways, they were prepared -- and already one step ahead of some other companies.

Hackers will soon gain a powerful new tool for breaking into Oracle Corp's database, the top-selling business software used by companies to store electronic information. Security experts have developed an easy-to-use, automated software tool that can remotely break into Oracle databases over the Internet to simulate attacks on computer systems, but cybercrooks can use it for hacking. The tool's authors created it through a controversial open-source software project known as Metasploit, which releases its free software over the Web. Chris Gates, a security tester who co-developed the Metasploit tool, will unveil it next week at the annual Black Hat conference in Las Vegas, where thousands of security experts and hackers will gather to exchange trade secrets. "Anyone with no skill and knowledge can download and run it," said Pete Finnigan, an independent consultant who specializes in Oracle security and who advises large corporations and government agencies.

Burger King's wildly popular Facebook application "Whopper Sacrifice," which rewards you with a free Whopper when you drop 10 friends, has been shut down. Social networking just got healthier. Last week, Burger King announced it was teaming up with social networking powerhouse Facebook for a special promotion: If you removed 10 people from your network of friends, the fast-food company would reward you with a coupon for a free Whopper. The story became an Internet sensation, but it's only now getting meatier. As it turns out, a notification feature on the "Whopper Sacrifice" application that lets your friends know they have been replaced by a shot at a free hamburger violates Facebook's privacy policy. "We encourage creativity from developers and companies using Facebook platform, but we also must ensure that applications follow users' expectations and privacy," the company said in a statement. "After extensive discussions with the developer, we've made some changes to the application's behavior to assure that users' expectations of privacy are maintained. The application remains active on Facebook."

Burger King, through their insanely creative advertising agency Crispin Porter + Bogusky (see their recent Burger King perfume launch), launches a Facebook application that encourages users to remove Facebook friends. Sacrifice ten of them and you got a free Whopper. 233,906 friends were removed by 82,771 people in less than a week. Facebook is overjoyed, right? What a great example to show the Madison Avenue agencies on how a big brand can get real engagement from users. This is the future of advertising. Or it could have been, if Facebook hadn't shut it down, citing privacy issues: We encourage creativity from developers and brands using Facebook Platform, but we also must ensure that applications follow users' expectations of privacy. This application facilitated activity that ran counter to user privacy by notifying people when a user removes a friend. We have reached out to the developer with suggested solutions. In the meantime, we are taking the necessary steps to assure the trust users have established on Facebook is maintained. Did anyone talk to the sales department before pulling the trigger on this? All that happened is the user being dissed got a message telling them, which helps the application spread virally. Without that feature the app is far less powerful. There is no real privacy issue here, just a policy decision by Facebook that people shouldn't be notified when you remove them as a friend. Facebook consistently tell users they can't do things in the name of privacy, despite the fact that those users know full well what they are up to. Unless investor and partner Microsoft makes them do it, of course.