Connect with us

Biz & IT

GDPR adtech complaints keep stacking up in Europe

Published

on

It’s a year since Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into force and leaky adtech is now facing privacy complaints in four more European Union markets. This ups the tally to seven markets where data protection authorities have been urged to investigate a core function of behavioral advertising.

The latest clutch of GDPR complaints aimed at the real-time bidding (RTB) system have been filed in Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Spain.

All the complaints argue that RTB entails “wide-scale and systemic” breaches of Europe’s data protection regime, as personal date harvested to profile Internet users for ad-targeting purposes is broadcast widely to bidders in the adtech chain. The complaints have implications for key adtech players, Google and the Internet Advertising Bureau, which set RTB standards used by other in the online adverting pipeline.

We’ve reached out to Google and IAB Europe for comment on the latest complaints. (The latter’s original response statement to the complaint can be found here, behind its cookie wall.)

The first RTB complaints were filed in the UK and Ireland, last fall, by Dr Johnny Ryan of private browser Brave; Jim Killock, director of the Open Rights Group; and Michael Veale, a data and policy researcher at University College London.

A third complaint went in to Poland’s DPA in January, filed by anti-surveillance NGO, the Panoptykon Foundation.

The latest four complaints have been lodged in Spain by Gemma Galdon Clavell (Eticas Foundation) and Diego Fanjul (Finch); David Korteweg (Bits of Freedom) in the Netherlands; Jef Ausloos (University of Amsterdam) and Pierre Dewitte (University of Leuven) in Belgium; and Jose Belo (Exigo Luxembourg).

Earlier this year a lawyer working with the complainants said they’re expecting “a cascade of complaints” across Europe — and “fully expect an EU-wide regulatory response” give that the adtech in question is applied region-wide.

Commenting in a statement, Galdon Cavell, the CEO of Eticas, said: “We hope that this complaint sends a strong message to Google and those using Ad Tech solutions in their websites and products. Data protection is a legal requirement must be translated into practices and technical specifications.”

A ‘bug’ disclosed last week by Twitter illustrates the potential privacy risks around adtech, with the social networking platform revealing it had inadvertently shared some iOS users’ location data with an ad partner during the RTB process. (Less clear is who else might Twitter’s “trusted advertising partner” have passed people’s information to?)

The core argument underpinning the complaints is that RTB’s data processing is not secure — given the design of the system entails the broadcasting of (what can be sensitive and intimate) personal data of Internet users to all sorts of third parties in order to generate bids for ad space.

Whereas GDPR bakes in a requirement for personal data to be processed “in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the personal data”. So, uh, spot the disconnect.

The latest RTB complaints assert personal data is broadcast via bid requests “hundreds of billions of times” per day — which it describes as “the most massive leakage of personal data recorded so far”.

While the complaints focus on security risks attached by default to leaky adtech, such a long chain of third parties being passed people’s data also raises plenty of questions over the validity of any claimed ‘consents’ for passing Internet users’ data down the adtech chain. (Related: A decision by the French CNIL last fall against a small local adtech player which it decided was unlawfully processing personal data obtained via RTB.)

This week will mark a year since GDPR came into force across the EU. And it’s fair to say that privacy complaints have been piling up, while enforcement actions — such as a $57M fine for Google from the French CNIL related to Android consent — remain far rarer.

One complexity with the RTB complaints is that the technology systems in question are both applied across EU borders and involve multiple entities (Google and the IAB). This means multiple privacy watchdogs need to work together to determine which of them is legally competent to address linked complaints that touch EU citizens in multiple countries.

Who leads can depend on where an entity has its main establishment in the EU and/or who is the data controller. If this is not clearly established it’s possible that various national actions could flow from the complaints, given the cross-border nature of the adtech — as in the CNIL decision against Android, for example. (Though Google made a policy change as of January 22, shifting its legal base for EU law enforcement to Google Ireland which looks intended to funnel all GDPR risk via the Irish DPC.)

The IAB Europe, meanwhile, has an office in Belgium but it’s not clear whether that’s the data controller in this case. Ausloos tells us that the Belgian DPA has already declared itself competent regarding the complaint filed against the IAB by the Panoptykon Foundation, while noting another possibility — that the IAB claims the data controller is IAB Tech Lab, based in New York — “in which case any and all DPAs across the EU would be competent”.

Veale also says different DPAs could argue that different parts of the IAB are in their jurisdiction. “We don’t know how the IAB structure really works, it’s very opaque,” he tells us.

The Irish DPC, which Google has sought to designate the lead watchdog for its European business, has said it will prioritize scrutiny of the adtech sector in 2019, referencing the RTB complaints in its annual report earlier this year — where it warned the industry: “the protection of personal data is a prerequisite to the processing of any personal data within this ecosystem and ultimately the sector must comply with the standards set down by the GDPR”.

There’s no update on how the UK’s ICO is tackling the RTB complaint filed in the UK as yet — but Veale notes they have a call today. (And we’ve reached out to the ICO for comment.)

So far the same RTB complaints have not been filed in France and Germany — jurisdictions with privacy watchdogs that can have a reputation for some of the most muscular action enforcing data protection in Europe.

Although the Belgian DPA’s recently elected new president is making muscular noises about GDPR enforcement, according to Ausloos — who cites a speech he made, post-election, saying the ‘time of sit back and relax’ is over. They made sure to reference these comments in the RTB complaint, he adds.

Veale suggests the biggest blocker to resolving the RTB complaints is that all the various EU watchdogs “need a vision of what the world looks like after they take a given action”.

In the meanwhile, the adtech complaints keep stacking up.

Source link



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Biz & IT

Mass exploitation of critical MOVEit flaw is ransacking orgs big and small

Published

on

Getty Images

Organizations big and small are falling prey to the mass exploitation of a critical vulnerability in a widely used file-transfer program. The exploitation started over the Memorial Day holiday—while the critical vulnerability was still a zeroday—and continues now, some nine days later.

As of Monday evening, payroll service Zellis, the Canadian province of Nova Scotia, British Airways, the BBC, and UK retailer Boots were all known to have had data stolen through the attacks, which are fueled by a recently patched vulnerability in MOVEit, a file-transfer provider that offers both cloud and on-premises services. Both Nova Scotia and Zellis had their own instances or cloud services breached. British Airways, the BBC, and Boots were customers of Zellis. All of the hacking activity has been attributed to the Russian-speaking Clop crime syndicate.

Widespread and rather substantial

Despite the relatively small number of confirmed breaches, researchers monitoring the ongoing attacks are describing the exploitation as widespread. They liken the hacks to smash-and-grab robberies, in which a window is broken and thieves grab whatever they can, and warned that the quick-moving heists are hitting banks, government agencies, and other targets in alarmingly high numbers.

“We have a handful of customers that were running MOVEit Transfer open to the Internet, and they were all compromised,” Steven Adair, president of security firm Volexity, wrote in an email. “Other folks we have talked to have seen similar.”

Adair continued:

I do not want to categorize our customers at this point since I do not know what all is out there in terms of who is running the software and give them away. With that said, though—it’s both massive and small organizations that have been hit. The cases we have looked into have all involved some level of data exfiltration. The attackers typically grabbed files from the MOVEit servers less than two hours after exploitation and shell access. We believe this was likely widespread and a rather substantial number of MOVEit Transfer servers that were running Internet-facing web services were compromised.

Caitlin Condon, a senior manager of security research who leads the research arm of security firm Rapid7, said normally her team reserves the term “widespread threat” for events involving “many attackers, many targets.” The attacks under way have neither. So far there’s only one known attacker: Clop, a Russian-speaking group that’s among the most prolific and active ransomware actors. And with the Shodan search engine indexing just 2,510 Internet-facing MOVEit instances when the attacks began, it’s fair to say there aren’t “many targets,” relatively speaking.

In this case, however, Rapid7 is making an exception.

“We aren’t seeing commodity threat actors or low-skill attackers throwing exploits here, but the exploitation of available high-value targets globally across a wide range of org sizes, verticals, and geo-locations tips the scale for us on classifying this as a widespread threat,” she explained in a text message.

She noted that Monday was only the only third business day since the incident became widely known and many victims may only now be learning they were compromised. “We expect to see a longer list of victims come out as time goes on, particularly as regulatory requirements for reporting come into play,” she wrote.

Independent researcher Kevin Beaumont, meanwhile, said on social media on Sunday night: “I’ve been tracking this—there are a double-digit number of orgs who had data stolen, that includes multiple US Government and banking orgs.”

The MOVEit vulnerability stems from a security flaw that allows for SQL injection, one of the oldest and most common classes of exploit. Often abbreviated as SQLi, these vulnerabilities usually stem from a failure by a Web application to adequately scrub search queries and other user input of characters that an app might consider a command. By entering specially crafted strings into vulnerable website fields, attackers can trick a Web app into returning confidential data, giving administrative system privileges, or subverting the way the app works.

Timeline

According to a post published by security firm Mandiant on Monday, the first signs of the Clop exploitation spree occurred on May 27. In some cases data theft occurred within minutes of the installation of a custom webshell tracked as LemurLoot, the researchers said. They added:

Mandiant is aware of multiple cases where large volumes of files have been stolen from victims’ MOVEit transfer systems. LEMURLOOT can also steal Azure Storage Blob information, including credentials, from the MOVEit Transfer application settings, suggesting that actors exploiting this vulnerability may be stealing files from Azure in cases where victims are storing appliance data in Azure Blob storage, although it is unclear if theft is limited to data stored in this way.

The webshell is disguised with filenames such as “human2.aspx” and “human2.aspx.lnk” in an attempt to masquerade as human.aspx, a legitimate component of the MOVEit Transfer service. Mandiant also said it has “observed several POST requests made to the legitimate guestaccess.aspx file before interaction with the LEMURLOOT webshell, indicating SQLi attacks were directed towards that file.”

On May 31, four days after the earliest attacks began, MOVEit provider Progress patched the vulnerability. Within a day, social media posts surfaced reporting that the vulnerability was under exploit by a threat actor who was installing a file named human2.aspx in the root directory of vulnerable servers. Security firms soon confirmed the reports.

Formal attribution that Clop is behind the attacks came on Sunday from Microsoft, which linked the attacks to “Lace Tempest,” the name that company researchers use to track a ransomware operation that maintains the extortion website for the Clop ransomware group. Mandiant, meanwhile, found that tactics, techniques, and procedures used in the attack matched those of a group tracked as FIN11, which has deployed Clop ransomware in the past.

Clop is the same threat actor that mass exploited CVE-2023-0669, a critical vulnerability in a different file-transfer service known as GoAnywhere. That hacking spree allowed Clop to fell data security company Rubrik, obtain health information for one million patients from one of the biggest hospital chains, and (according to Bleeping Computer) take credit for hacking 130 organizations. Research from security firm Huntress has also confirmed that the malware used in intrusions exploiting CVE-2023-0669 had indirect ties to Clop.

So far, there are no known reports of victims receiving ransom demands. The Clop extortion site has also made no mention so far of the attacks. “If the goal of this operation is extortion,” researchers from Mandiant wrote, “we anticipate that victim organizations could receive extortion emails in the coming days to weeks.”

Continue Reading

Biz & IT

At Apple’s WWDC keynote, “AI” never came up by name, but it was there

Published

on

Enlarge / Someone scans their face using Apple’s “most advanced machine learning techniques” with the Apple Vision Pro during a WWDC 2023 keynote demo reel. (credit: Apple)

Amid notable new products like the Apple Silicon Mac Pro and the Apple Vision Pro revealed at Monday’s WWDC 2023 keynote event, Apple presenters never once mentioned the term “AI,” a notable omission given that its competitors like Microsoft and Google have been heavily focusing on generative AI at the moment. Still, AI was a part of Apple’s presentation, just by other names.

While “AI” is a very ambiguous term days, surrounded by both astounding advancements and extreme hype, Apple chose to avoid that association and instead focused on terms like “machine learning” and “ML.” For example, during the iOS 17 demo, SVP of Software Engineering Craig Federighi talked about improvements to autocorrect and dictation:

Autocorrect is powered by on-device machine learning, and over the years, we’ve continued to advance these models. The keyboard now leverages a transformer language model, which is state of the art for word prediction, making autocorrect more accurate than ever. And with the power of Apple Silicon, iPhone can run this model every time you tap a key.

Notably, Apple mentioned the AI term “transformer” in an Apple keynote. The company specifically talked about a “transformer language model,” which means its AI model uses the transformer architecture that has been powering many recent generative AI innovations, such as the DALL-E image generator and the ChatGPT chatbot.

Read 14 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Continue Reading

Biz & IT

They plugged GPT-4 into Minecraft—and unearthed new potential for AI

Published

on

Microsoft

The technology that underpins ChatGPT has the potential to do much more than just talk. Linxi “Jim” Fan, an AI researcher at the chipmaker Nvidia, worked with some colleagues to devise a way to set the powerful language model GPT-4—the “brains” behind ChatGPT and a growing number of other apps and services—loose inside the blocky video game Minecraft.

The Nvidia team, which included Anima Anandkumar, the company’s director of machine learning and a professor at Caltech, created a Minecraft bot called Voyager that uses GPT-4 to solve problems inside the game. The language model generates objectives that help the agent explore the game, and code that improves the bot’s skill at the game over time.

Voyager doesn’t play the game like a person, but it can read the state of the game directly, via an API. It might see a fishing rod in its inventory and a river nearby, for instance, and use GPT-4 to suggest the goal of doing some fishing to gain experience. It will then use this goal to have GPT-4 generate the code needed to have the character achieve it.

The most novel part of the project is the code that GPT-4 generates to add behaviors to Voyager. If the code initially suggested doesn’t run perfectly, Voyager will try to refine it using error messages, feedback from the game, and a description of the code generated by GPT-4.

Over time, Voyager builds a library of code in order to learn to make increasingly complex things and explore more of the game. A chart created by the researchers shows how capable it is compared to other Minecraft agents. Voyager obtains more than three times as many items, explores more than twice as far, and builds tools 15 times more quickly than other AI agents. Fan says the approach may be improved in the future with the addition of a way for the system to incorporate visual information from the game.

While chatbots like ChatGPT have wowed the world with their eloquence and apparent knowledge—even if they often make things up—Voyager shows the huge potential for language models to perform helpful actions on computers. Using language models in this way could perhaps automate many routine office tasks, potentially one of the technology’s biggest economic impacts.

The process that Voyager uses with GPT-4 to figure out how to do things in Minecraft might be adapted for a software assistant that works out how to automate tasks via the operating system on a PC or phone. OpenAI, the startup that created ChatGPT, has added “plugins” to the bot that allow it to interact with online services such as grocery delivery app Instacart. Microsoft, which owns Minecraft, is also training AI programs to play it, and the company recently announced Windows 11 Copilot, an operating system feature that will use machine learning and APIs to automate certain tasks. It may be a good idea to experiment with this kind of technology inside a game like Minecraft, where flawed code can do relatively little harm.

Video games have long been a test bed for AI algorithms, of course. AlphaGo, the machine learning program that mastered the extremely subtle board game Go back in 2016, cut its teeth by playing simple Atari video games. AlphaGo used a technique called reinforcement learning, which trains an algorithm to play a game by giving it positive and negative feedback, for example from the score inside a game.

It is more difficult for this method to guide an agent in an open-ended game such as Minecraft, where there is no score or set of objectives and where a player’s actions may not pay off until much later. Whether or not you believe we should be preparing to contain the existential threat from AI right now, Minecraft seems like an excellent playground for the technology.

This story originally appeared on wired.com.

Continue Reading

Trending