The New Zealand Privacy Commissioner John Edwards has lashed out at Facebook, labelling the social network as “morally bankrupt pathological liars who enable genocide (Myanmar)” on Twitter on Sunday night.
Edwards added that the company refuses to “accept any responsibility for any content or harm”.
In an interview with Radio New Zealand on Monday morning, Edwards said Facebook had no systems in place to detect the Christchurch terror attack, and following Facebook’s refusal to delay any live streaming as an interim measure, it would still be difficult for New Zealand to act.
“This is a global problem. The events that were livestreamed in Christchurch could happen anywhere in the world, and it’s a problem that governments need to come together and force the platforms to have a solution for,” he said.
“It maybe that regulating, as Australia has done just in the last week, would be a good interim way to get their attention and say ‘Unless you can demonstrate the safety of these services, you simply cannot use them’.”
Last week, both major parties in Australia rammed the Criminal Code Amendment (Unlawful Showing of Abhorrent Violent Material) Bill 2019 through Parliament during its final sitting week. The new laws use existing arrangements that require site owners to notify police if their services are used to access child pornography, with the maximum penalty being three years imprisonment for individuals, or a fine worth 10% of a company’s annual global turnover for those that fail to comply.
The scope of the legislation is restricted to content deemed abhorrent and broadcasted by perpetrators and their accomplices who engage in terrorist activity, murder, torture, rape, or kidnapping.
Also see: Why the tech industry is wrong about Australia’s video streaming legislation
Witnesses to any of those crimes that are not affiliated with the perpetrators, such as those who happen to live-stream the activity, are not covered by the Bill. Other exceptions for committing such behaviour include to enforce the law, tconduct investigations or court proceedings, conduct research, advocate for law changes, report in the public interest, or for artistic reasons.
A video of the terror attack in Christchurch was viewed around 4,000 times on Facebook and took 29 minutes before it was finally reported, Facebook said previously.
Despite its removal, approximately 1.5 million copies of the video sprung up on the network in the first 24 hours after the attack. However, only approximately 300,000 copies were published as over 1.2 million videos were blocked at upload, the social media giant said. Edwards added that Facebook could no longer say it was solely a platform and not responsible for content, pointing to the use of the social network by Russian trolls in recent elections and its use in Myanmar to target Rohingya Muslims.
Facebook did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication.
Australia’s abhorrent video streaming legislation rammed through Parliament
The eSafety Commissioner given power to send notices that reverse evidentiary proof should prosecution be undertaken.
Why the tech industry is wrong about Australia’s video streaming legislation
The tech industry’s predictable knee-jerk reaction to the government’s knee-jerk ‘social media’ legislation highlights its moral bankruptcy. It’s time to be part of the solution, not the problem.
Facebook data privacy scandal: A cheat sheet (TechRepublic)
Read about the saga of Facebook’s failures in ensuring privacy for user data, including how it relates to Cambridge Analytica, the GDPR, the Brexit campaign, and the 2016 US presidential election.
Apple revokes Facebook’s ability to deploy apps internally amid privacy scandal dispute (TechRepublic)
What happens when you get kicked out of Apple’s Enterprise Developer program? Facebook is finding out the hard way.
Facebook-Cambridge Analytica privacy scandal: Your data still isn’t secure (TechRepublic)
On the one-year anniversary of the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data privacy scandal, Dan Patterson advises companies to stay vigilant and keep data locked down and secure.
CISO Podcast: Talking Anti-Phishing Solutions
Simon Gibson earlier this year published the report, “GigaOm Radar for Phishing Prevention and Detection,” which assessed more than a dozen security solutions focused on detecting and mitigating email-borne threats and vulnerabilities. As Gibson noted in his report, email remains a prime vector for attack, reflecting the strategic role it plays in corporate communications.
Earlier this week, Gibson’s report was a featured topic of discussions on David Spark’s popular CISO Security Vendor Relationship Podcast. In it, Spark interviewed a pair of chief information security officers—Mike Johnson, CISO for SalesForce, and James Dolph, CISO for Guidewire Software—to get their take on the role of anti-phishing solutions.
“I want to first give GigaOm some credit here for really pointing out the need to decide what to do with detections,” Johnson said when asked for his thoughts about selecting an anti-phishing tool. “I think a lot of companies charge into a solution for anti-phishing without thinking about what they are going to do when the thing triggers.”
As Johnson noted, the needs and vulnerabilities of a large organization aligned on Microsoft 365 are very different from those of a smaller outfit working with GSuite. A malicious Excel macro-laden file, for example, poses a credible threat to a Microsoft shop and therefore argues for a detonation solution to detect and neutralize malicious payloads before they can spread and morph. On the other hand, a smaller company is more exposed to business email compromise (BEC) attacks, since spending authority is often spread among many employees in these businesses.
Gibson’s radar report describes both in-line and out-of-band solutions, but Johnson said cloud-aligned infrastructures argue against traditional in-line schemes.
“If you put an in-line solution in front of [Microsoft] 365 or in front of GSuite, you are likely decreasing your reliability, because you’ve now introduced this single point of failure. Google and Microsoft have this massive amount of reliability that is built in,” Johnson said.
So how should IT decision makers go about selecting an anti-phishing solution? Dolph answered that question with a series of questions of his own:
“Does it nail the basics? Does it fit with the technologies we have in place? And then secondarily, is it reliable, is it tunable, is it manageable?” he asked. “Because it can add a lot overhead, especially if you have a small team if these tools are really disruptive to the email flow.”
Dolph concluded by noting that it’s important for solutions to provide insight that can help organizations target their protections, as well as support both training and awareness around threats. Finally, he urged organizations to consider how they can measure the effectiveness of solutions.
“I may look at other solutions in the future and how do I compare those solutions to the benchmark of what we have in place?”
Listen to the Podcast: CISO Podcast
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.”
Apple’s top hardware engineer has moved to a mysterious new project
Dan Riccio is being transitioned to a new role at Apple, the company has announced, one that doesn’t come with...
White House adds ASL interpreter to press briefings on YouTube
The Biden administration has made White House press briefings more accessible for people who are deaf or have trouble hearing....
Biden EV plan “the largest mobilization of public investment” since WW2
The US government plans to replace its fleet of vehicles with electric alternatives, part of a huge public investment in...
Samsung’s Galaxy S21 plan leaks with a production surprise
Back in November, reports claimed that Samsung would take a more cautious production approach with its Galaxy S21 models, something...
AT&T may keep majority ownership of DirecTV as it closes in on final deal
Enlarge / A DirecTV satellite dish seen outside a bar in Portland, Oregon, in October 2019. AT&T is reportedly closing...
Social12 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
Social2 years ago
Apple’s new iPad Pro aims to keep enterprise momentum
Cars2 years ago
Some internet outages predicted for the coming month as ‘768k Day’ approaches