The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has landed in appeals court to see through a case which hopes to expose the US government’s anti-encryption tactics.
On Wednesday, the civil rights group asked the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to unseal documents relating to a ruling made by a judge to prevent the US Department of Justice (DoJ) from forcing Facebook to purposely break Facebook Messenger encryption protocols.
The case (.PDF), in which the EFF, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and Stanford cybersecurity expert Riana Pfefferkorn are taking on the DoJ, asks that documents are unsealed which are keeping the details of the legal dispute between the DoJ and Facebook secret.
Last year, the DoJ asked the social media giant to break encryption standards and therefore grant access to voice conversations made through Facebook Messenger. The request was made due to an investigation into the international MS-13 gang.
The demand is believed to have been made under the Wiretap Act, which allows US law enforcement to intercept oral communications in some cases, but considering the law has not kept up with the development of electronic communication, interpretation of this legislation in today’s world can be a murky affair.
See also: Facebook harvested 1.5 million user email contacts without permission
Facebook protested and after denying the DoJ’s demand, the department attempted to hold Facebook in contempt of court.
The judge in the original case denied the DoJ’s wishes, but as everything has been kept under seal, the EFF says “the public has no way of knowing how the government tried to justify its request or why the judge turned it down — both of which could impact users’ ability to protect their communications from prying eyes.”
EFF, ACLU, and Pfefferkorn argue that US citizens have First Amendment and common law rights to access court records relating to the rules that govern them, and in Facebook’s case, the vast amount of personal data the company holds makes transparency even more crucial.
CNET: US Customs and Border Protection says traveler images were taken in cyberattack
A previous motion to unseal the documents failed, leading to the EFF’s new appeal.
If Facebook was forced to break its own encryption standards and place what could be considered a deliberate backdoor into its own products, not only would the company have yet-another privacy and security disaster on its hands, but there would be implications for other companies, too.
Law enforcement agencies in the US and beyond have been fighting the implementation of encryption in communication services for years. While these agencies often argue that encryption can prevent successful criminal investigations and prosecutions, critics say that implanting weaknesses in these systems opens the door not only for government snooping but for cyberattackers, too.
TechRepublic: LaLiga facing €250k fine for GDPR violations in app used to spy on users
“The government should not be able to rely on a secret body of law for accessing encrypted communications and surveilling Americans,” said EFF Staff Attorney Aaron Mackey. “We are asking the court to rule that every American has a right to know about rules governing who can access their private conversations.”
The current situation brings to mind the 2016 battle between the FBI and Apple, in which the former attempted to force the iPad and iPhone maker to break the lock on an iPhone belonging to a shooter involved in the San Bernardino attack.
Apple refused, and the FBI eventually gained access to the device without the company’s help.
Previous and related coverage
Have a tip? Get in touch securely via WhatsApp | Signal at +447713 025 499, or over at Keybase: charlie0
Phish Fight: Securing Enterprise Communications
Yes, much of the world may have moved on from email to social media and culturally dubious TikTok dances, yet traditional electronic mail remains a foundation of business communication. And sadly, it remains a prime vector for malware, data leakage, and phishing attacks that can undermine enterprise protections. It doesn’t have to be that way.
In a just released report titled “GigaOm Radar for Phishing Prevention and Detection,” GigaOm Analyst Simon Gibson surveyed more than a dozen enterprise-focused email security solutions. He found a range of approaches to securing communications that often can be fitted together to provide critical, defense-in-depth protection against even determined attackers.
Figure 1. GigaOm Radar for Email Phishing Prevention and Detection
“When evaluating these vendors and their solutions, it is important to consider your own business and workflow,” Gibson writes in the report, stressing the need to deploy solutions that best address your organization’s business workflow and email traffic. “For some it may be preferable to settle on one comprehensive solution, while for others building a best-of-breed architecture from multiple vendors may be preferable.”
In a field of competent solutions, Gibson found that Forcepoint, purchased recently by Raytheon, stood apart thanks to the layered protections provided by its Advanced Classification Engine. Area 1 and Zimperium, meanwhile, are both leaders that exhibit significant momentum, with Area 1 boosted by its recent solution partnership with Virtru, and Zimperium excelling in its deep commitment to mobile message security.
A mobile focus is timely, Gibson says in a video interview for GigaOm. He says companies are “tuning the spigot on” and enabling unprecedented access and reliance on mobile devices, which is creating an urgent need to get ahead of threats.
Gibson’s conclusion in the report? He singles out three things: Defense in depth, awareness of existing patterns and infrastructure, and a healthy respect for the “human factor” that can make security so hard to lock down.
When Is a DevSecOps Vendor Not a DevSecOps Vendor?
DevOps’ general aim is to enable a more efficient process for producing software and technology solutions and bringing stakeholders together to speed up delivery. But we know from experience that this inherently creative, outcome-driven approach often forgets about one thing until too late in the process—security. Too often, security is brought into the timeline just before deployment, risking last minute headaches and major delays. The security team is pushed into being the Greek chorus of the process, “ruining everyone’s fun” by demanding changes and slowing things down.
But as we know, in the complex, multi-cloud and containerized environment we find ourselves in, security is becoming more important and challenging than ever. And the costs of security failure are not only measured in slower deployment, but in compliance breaches and reputational damage.
The term “DevSecOps” has been coined to characterize how security needs to be at the heart of the DevOps process. This is in part principle and part tools. As a principle, DevSecOps fits with the concept of “shifting left,” that is, ensuring that security is treated as early as possible in the development process. So far, so simple.
From a tooling perspective, however, things get more complicated, not least because the market has seen a number of platforms marketing themselves as DevSecOps. As we have been writing our Key Criteria report on the subject, we have learned that not all DevSecOps vendors are necessarily DevSecOps vendors. Specifically, we have learned to distinguish capabilities that directly enable the goals of DevSecOps from a process perspective, from those designed to support DevSecOps practices. We could define them as: “Those that do, and those that help.”
This is how to tell the two types of vendor apart and how to use them.
Vendors Enabling DevSecOps: “Tools That Do”
A number of tools work to facilitate the DevSecOps process -– let’s bite the bullet and call them DevSecOps tools. They help teams set out each stage of software development, bringing siloed teams together behind a unified vision that allows fast, high-quality development, with security considerations at its core. DevSecOps tools work across the development process, for example:
- Create: Help to set and implement policy
- Develop: Apply guidance to the process and aid its implementation
- Test: Facilitate and guide security testing procedures
- Deploy: Provide reports to assure confidence to deploy the application
The key element that sets these tool sets apart is the ability to automate and reduce friction within the development process. They will prompt action, stop a team from moving from one stage to another if the process has not adequately addressed security concerns, and guide the roadmap for the development from start to finish.
Supporting DevSecOps: “Tools That Help”
In this category we place those tools which aid the execution, and monitoring, of good DevSecOps principles. Security scanning and application/infrastructure hardening tools are a key element of these processes: Software composition analysis (SCA) forms a part of the development stage, static/dynamic application security testing (SAST/DAST) is integral to the test stage and runtime app protection (RASP) is a key to the Deploy stage.
Tools like this are a vital part of the security layer of security tooling, especially just before deployment – and they often come with APIs so they can be plugged into the CI/CD process. However, while these capabilities are very important to DevSecOps, they can be seen in more of a supporting role, rather than being DevSecOps tools per se.
DevSecOps-washing is not a good idea for the enterprise
While one might argue that security should never have been shifted right, DevSecOps exists to ensure that security best practices take place across the development lifecycle. A corollary exists to the idea of “tools that help,” namely that organizations implementing these tools are not “doing DevSecOps,” any more than vendors providing these tools are DevSecOps vendors.
The only way to “do” DevSecOps is to fully embrace security at a process management and governance level: This means assessing risk, defining policy, setting review gates, and disallowing progress for insecure deliverables. Organizations that embrace DevSecOps can get help from what we are calling DevSecOps tools, as well as from scanning and hardening tools that help support its goals.
At the end of the day, all security and governance boils down to risk: If you buy a scanning tool so you can check a box that says “DevSecOps,” you are potentially adding to your risk posture, rather than mitigating it. So, get your DevSecOps strategy fixed first, then consider how you can add automation, visibility, and control using “tools that do,” as well as benefit from “tools that help.”
High Performance Application Security Testing
This free 1-hour webinar from GigaOm Research. It is hosted by an expert in Application and API testing, and GigaOm analyst, Jake Dolezal. His presentation will focus on the results of high performance testing we completed against two security mechanisms: ModSecurity on NGINX and NGINX App Protect. Additionally, we tested the AWS Web Application Firewall (WAF) as a fully managed security offering.
While performance is important, it is only one criterion for a Web Application Firewall selection. The results of the report are revealing about these platforms. The methodology will be shown with clarity and transparency on how you might replicate these tests to mimic your own workloads and requirements.
Register now to join GigaOm and sponsor NGINX for this free expert webinar.
This holiday, check your old phone for a fat battery
I found something in a junk drawer this week that was at first exciting, then alarming. In the drawer was...
Review: Fatman’s concept is better than its execution, but it’s still kinda fun
Enlarge / Mel Gibson plays Chris Cringle, a disillusioned Christmas shopkeeper in North Peak, Alaska. There’s a fine line between...
2020 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray C8 Convertible Review – Heritage only goes so far
Heritage can be a lodestar or it can be a crippling anchor holding you back, and few cars illustrate that...
Volvo created the “ultimate driving simulator” using the latest gaming tech
Engineers at Volvo have created what they call the ultimate driving simulator. The driving simulator wasn’t created for fun. Rather...
We test Herman Miller’s $1,499 gaming chair: All business—to a fault
Enlarge / The Herman Miller x Logitech Embody chair. Sam Machkovech Recently, our coverage of the work-from-home universe expanded to...
Social10 months ago
CrashPlan for Small Business Review
Gadgets2 years ago
A fictional Facebook Portal videochat with Mark Zuckerberg – TechCrunch
Mobile2 years ago
Memory raises $5M to bring AI to time tracking – TechCrunch
Social2 years ago
iPhone XS priciest yet in South Korea
Cars2 years ago
What’s the best cloud storage for you?
Security2 years ago
Google latest cloud to be Australian government certified
Cars2 years ago
Some internet outages predicted for the coming month as ‘768k Day’ approaches
Social2 years ago
Apple’s new iPad Pro aims to keep enterprise momentum