Connect with us

Security

Amendments to Australia’s encryption laws stranded before election

Published

on


(Image: ParlView screenshot by Josh Taylor/ZDNet)

Eventually, one would think that the Australian Labor Party would be tired of being owned over and over again by the nation’s conservative parties, but here we are in the extremely likely final week of the 45th Parliament, and once again the ALP has been outmanoeuvred by the Coalition.

At every step in the process to the rush the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act into being, Labor has been played like a harp from hell.

The coup de grâce is the admission by shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus that the amendments that Labor has pinned its hopes on when it capitulated in December, were going to stall in the Parliament.

“Labor tried to begin that work during this term of Parliament by introducing amendments in the Senate on the 14th of February 2019,” Dreyfus said. “A majority of the Senate voted for those amendments but the government, which still maintains that this rushed legislation is perfect, has shut down debate on those amendments, and so, regrettably, we will not be able to pass them before the election.”

A mere three recommendations that included calling for more reviews and the proper resourcing of the oversight bodies for Australia’s encryption laws — Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, Commonwealth Ombudsman, and Independent National Security Legislation Monitor — were issued by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) in a report delivered on Wednesday evening.

To add to the review by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, as well as the statutory review PJCIS is due to complete into the encryption and data retention laws, which Labor also helped vote into existence, Dreyfus said a Shorten Labor government would create an inquiry into the economical impact of the laws.

“Following that assessment, a Labor government would work to move any amendments that are required to reduce unnecessary impacts on Australian businesses,” Dreyfus said.

Dreyfus also said Labor would pursue its now stranded amendments in government, as well as require authorisation from a judicial officer in order to issue Technical Assistance Notices or a Technical Capability Notices.

In February, Dreyfus said the government’s amendments that were agreed to and passed by Labor in December were inadequate.

“It is not tenable to argue, as the government continues to argue, that its amendments largely implemented the committee’s 17 recommendations. No reasonable person accepts that,” Dreyfus said.

“This fiasco of lawmaking is what a job well done looks like to this chaotic government.”

That fiasco will continue to be the law of the land in Australia, and depending on the result of the upcoming election, could remain so for some time.

The dosage could be repeated before Parliament rises, as Labor is reportedly set to wave through the latest round of rushed legislation from the government that could potentially see social media executives jailed of their platforms are used to stream violent criminal acts.

In lieu of finding its spine, as it momentarily threatened to for a few brief hours last year, Labor at least didn’t get wedged on national security, as it attempts to plot a wedgeless path to the Lodge and power.

The local tech industry would do well to remember this process and how it was sold down the river, much like the data retention process before it, should a Labor government come a-knocking promising to make everything better in the coming months.

Related Coverage

AFP concerned about approving state police usage of Australia’s encryption laws

Concerns over a federal body overseeing the operations of state and territory authorities.

Australia’s encryption laws will fall foul of differing definitions

A cryptographer’s rebuttal to a GCHQ interception concept highlights how participants in the encryption-busting debate are talking past each other. What even is a “systemic weakness”, anyway?

Australia’s encryption laws are a cyber cane toad: Husic

Shadow Minister for the Digital Economy Ed Husic continues to state problems with the Bill his party rolled over on and passed.

Here we go again: PJCIS opens review of Australia’s encryption laws

The Joint Committee will follow its rushed inspection of Australia’s encryption laws with a rushed review of the amendments made on Parliament’s last day of 2018.

Australian encryption laws sent off to Nat Sec Legislation Monitor for review

Independent National Security Legislation Monitor due to report back by March 1, 2020.

Australia’s encryption laws are ‘highly unlikely’ to dragoon employees in secret

Relax, developers, the Assistance and Access Act is ‘highly unlikely’ to force employees to deceive their bosses by creating secret backdoors. Nor does it breach Europe’s GDPR digital privacy laws.

What’s actually in Australia’s encryption laws? Everything you need to know

The controversial Assistance and Access Bill was 176 pages long, then 67 pages of amendments were rushed through in the final hours of debate. This is what we’ve ended up with.



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Security

Security Tools Help Bring Dev and Security Teams Together

Published

on

Software development teams are increasingly focused on identifying and mitigating any issues as quickly and completely as possible. This relates not only to software quality but also software security. Different organizations are at different levels when it comes to having their development teams and security teams working in concert, but the simple fact remains that there are far more developers out there than security engineers.

Those factors are leading organizations to consider security tooling and automation to proactively discover and resolve any software security issues throughout the development process. In the recent report, “GigaOm Radar for Developer Security Tools,” Shea Stewart examines a roundup of security tools aimed at software development teams.

Stewart identified three critical criteria to bear in mind when evaluating developer security tools. These include:

  • Vendors providing tools to improve application security can and should also enhance an organization’s overall security posture.
  • The prevailing “shift-left” mindset doesn’t necessarily mean the responsibility for reducing risk should shift to development, but instead focusing on security earlier in the process and continuing to do so throughout the development process will reduce risk and the need for extensive rework.
  • Security throughout the entire software development lifecycle (SDLC) is critical for any organization focused on reducing risk.

Figure 1. How Cybersecurity Applies Across Each Stage of the Software Development Lifecycle *Note: This report focuses only on the Developer Security Tooling area

Individual vendors have made varying levels of progress and innovation toward enhancing developer security. Following several acquisitions, Red Hat, Palo Alto Networks, and Rapid7 have all added tooling for developer security to their platforms. Stewart sees a couple of the smaller vendors like JFrog and Sonatype as continuing to innovate to remain ahead of the market.

Vendors delving into this category and moving deeper into “DevSecOps” all seem to be taking different approaches to their enhanced security tooling. While they are involving security in every aspect of the development process, some tend to be moving more quickly to match the pace of the SDLC. Others are trying to shore up existing platforms by adding functionality through acquisition. Both infrastructure and software developers are now sharing toolsets and processes, so these development security tools must account for the requirements of both groups.

While none of the 12 vendors evaluated in this report can provide comprehensive security throughout the entire SDLC, they all have their particular strengths and areas of focus. It is therefore incumbent upon the organization to fully and accurately assess its SDLC, involve the development and security teams, and match the unique requirements with the functionality provided by these tools. Even if it involves using more than one at different points throughout the process, focus on striking a balance between stringent security and simplifying the development process.

Read more: Key Criteria for Evaluating Developer Security Tools, and the Gigaom Radar for Developer Security Tool Companies.

The post Security Tools Help Bring Dev and Security Teams Together appeared first on Gigaom.

Continue Reading

Security

Key Criteria for Evaluating User and Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA)

Published

on

Cybersecurity is a multidisciplinary practice that not only grows in complexity annually but evolves nearly as quickly. A survey of the security landscape today would reveal concerns ranging from the classic compromised servers to the relatively new DevSecOps practices aimed at securing the rapid deployment of new code and infrastructure. However, some things remain constant no matter how much change is introduced. While technology evolves and complexity varies, there is almost always a human component in
risks presented to an organization.

User Behavior Analysis (UBA) was designed to analyze the actions of users in an organization and attempt to identify normal and abnormal behaviors. From this analysis, malicious or risky behaviors can be detected. UBA solutions identify events that are not detectable using other methods because, unlike classic security tools (an IDS or SIEM for example), UBA does not simply pattern match or apply rule sets to data to identify security events. Instead, it looks for any and all deviations from baseline user activity.

As technology advanced and evolved, and the scope of what is connected to the network grew, the need to analyze entities other than users emerged. In response, entity analysis has been added to UBA to create UEBA or User and Entity Behavior Analysis. The strategy remains the same, but the scope of analysis has expanded to include entities involving things like daemons, processes, infrastructure, and so on.

How to Read this Report

This GigaOm report is one of a series of documents that helps IT organizations assess competing solutions in the context of well-defined features and criteria. For a fuller understanding consider reviewing the following reports:

Key Criteria report: A detailed market sector analysis that assesses the impact that key product features and criteria have on top-line solution characteristics—such as scalability, performance, and TCO—that drive purchase decisions.

GigaOm Radar report: A forward-looking analysis that plots the relative value and progression of vendor solutions along multiple axes based on strategy and execution. The Radar report includes a breakdown of each vendor’s offering in the sector.

Solution Profile: An in-depth vendor analysis that builds on the framework developed in the Key Criteria and Radar reports to assess a company’s engagement within a technology sector. This analysis includes forward-looking guidance around both strategy and product.

The post Key Criteria for Evaluating User and Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) appeared first on Gigaom.

Continue Reading

Security

GigaOm Radar for Developer Security Tools

Published

on

As we learned in the associated GigaOm report, “Key Criteria for Evaluating Developer Security Tools,” the most cost-effective method for reducing risk in software development is to identify and fix issues as close to the developer as possible. As the number of software developers continues to vastly outnumber the number of security professionals allocated to any software project, organizations need to invest in security tooling and automation that can help software developers consider and mitigate security risks in a proactive manner.

Add to this situation an appreciation for how the role of the developer has changed vastly over the last few years: Developers aren’t just responsible for software components; they can write infrastructure components, security controls, automations/integrations, and so forth. This has blended the worlds of the traditional software developers and the infrastructure and operations teams responsible for the environments that software components are deployed to. A much wider range of job titles can be incorporated into the developer role now, which requires the same security tooling and process oversight as does traditional software development.

As we consider how to evaluate vendors for developer security tools, we need to take these points into account:

  • All vendors involved in improving application security can contribute to an organization’s overall enhanced security posture.
  • “Shift-left” mindsets do not imply that the work of reducing risk is simply shifted to the developer, but rather that adding a focus on security early in the process will reduce risk and rework as software moves through the delivery pipeline.
  • Security throughout the entire software development lifecycle (SDLC) is key for any organization that is focused on reducing risk.

In this report we have identified a number of vendors that address the specific need to catch and remediate security issues earlier in the software development lifecycle, which we articulate in the report as table stakes, key criteria, and evaluation metrics. While we review 12 vendor solutions here, we ruled out many more, including several offering capabilities focused on runtime protection, which merit review in upcoming GigaOm Key Criteria and Radar Reports.

How to Read this Report

This GigaOm report is one of a series of documents that helps IT organizations assess competing solutions in the context of well-defined features and criteria. For a fuller understanding consider reviewing the following reports:

Key Criteria report: A detailed market sector analysis that assesses the impact that key product features and criteria have on top-line solution characteristics—such as scalability, performance, and TCO—that drive purchase decisions.

GigaOm Radar report: A forward-looking analysis that plots the relative value and progression of vendor solutions along multiple axes based on strategy and execution. The Radar report includes a breakdown of each vendor’s offering in the sector.

Solution Profile: An in-depth vendor analysis that builds on the framework developed in the Key Criteria and Radar reports to assess a company’s engagement within a technology sector. This analysis includes forward-looking guidance around both strategy and product.

The post GigaOm Radar for Developer Security Tools appeared first on Gigaom.

Continue Reading

Trending