Tag Archives: Data protection

AWS Resources Addressing Argentina’s Personal Data Protection Law and Disposition No. 11/2006

Post Syndicated from Leandro Bennaton original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/aws-and-resources-addressing-argentinas-personal-data-protection-law-and-disposition-no-112006/

We have two new resources to help customers address their data protection requirements in Argentina. These resources specifically address the needs outlined under the Personal Data Protection Law No. 25.326, as supplemented by Regulatory Decree No. 1558/2001 (“PDPL”), including Disposition No. 11/2006. For context, the PDPL is an Argentine federal law that applies to the protection of personal data, including during transfer and processing.

A new webpage focused on data privacy in Argentina features FAQs, helpful links, and whitepapers that provide an overview of PDPL considerations, as well as our security assurance frameworks and international certifications, including ISO 27001, ISO 27017, and ISO 27018. You’ll also find details about our Information Request Report and the high bar of security at AWS data centers.

Additionally, we’ve released a new workbook that offers a detailed mapping as to how customers can operate securely under the Shared Responsibility Model while also aligning with Disposition No. 11/2006. The AWS Disposition 11/2006 Workbook can be downloaded from the Argentina Data Privacy page or directly from this link. Both resources are also available in Spanish from the Privacidad de los datos en Argentina page.

Want more AWS Security news? Follow us on Twitter.

 

AWS GDPR Data Processing Addendum – Now Part of Service Terms

Post Syndicated from Chad Woolf original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/aws-gdpr-data-processing-addendum/

Today, we’re happy to announce that the AWS GDPR Data Processing Addendum (GDPR DPA) is now part of our online Service Terms. This means all AWS customers globally can rely on the terms of the AWS GDPR DPA which will apply automatically from May 25, 2018, whenever they use AWS services to process personal data under the GDPR. The AWS GDPR DPA also includes EU Model Clauses, which were approved by the European Union (EU) data protection authorities, known as the Article 29 Working Party. This means that AWS customers wishing to transfer personal data from the European Economic Area (EEA) to other countries can do so with the knowledge that their personal data on AWS will be given the same high level of protection it receives in the EEA.

As we approach the GDPR enforcement date this week, this announcement is an important GDPR compliance component for us, our customers, and our partners. All customers which that are using cloud services to process personal data will need to have a data processing agreement in place between them and their cloud services provider if they are to comply with GDPR. As early as April 2017, AWS announced that AWS had a GDPR-ready DPA available for its customers. In this way, we started offering our GDPR DPA to customers over a year before the May 25, 2018 enforcement date. Now, with the DPA terms included in our online service terms, there is no extra engagement needed by our customers and partners to be compliant with the GDPR requirement for data processing terms.

The AWS GDPR DPA also provides our customers with a number of other important assurances, such as the following:

  • AWS will process customer data only in accordance with customer instructions.
  • AWS has implemented and will maintain robust technical and organizational measures for the AWS network.
  • AWS will notify its customers of a security incident without undue delay after becoming aware of the security incident.
  • AWS will make available certificates issued in relation to the ISO 27001 certification, the ISO 27017 certification, and the ISO 27018 certification to further help customers and partners in their own GDPR compliance activities.

Customers who have already signed an offline version of the AWS GDPR DPA can continue to rely on that GDPR DPA. By incorporating our GDPR DPA into the AWS Service Terms, we are simply extending the terms of our GDPR DPA to all customers globally who will require it under GDPR.

AWS GDPR DPA is only part of the story, however. We are continuing to work alongside our customers and partners to help them on their journey towards GDPR compliance.

If you have any questions about the GDPR or the AWS GDPR DPA, please contact your account representative, or visit the AWS GDPR Center at: https://aws.amazon.com/compliance/gdpr-center/

-Chad

Interested in AWS Security news? Follow the AWS Security Blog on Twitter.

Pirate IPTV Service Gave Customer Details to Premier League, But What’s the Risk?

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-iptv-service-gave-customer-details-to-premier-league-but-whats-the-risk-180515/

In a report last weekend, we documented what appear to be the final days of pirate IPTV provider Ace Hosting.

From information provided by several sources including official liquidation documents, it became clear that a previously successful and profitable Ace had succumbed to pressure from the Premier League, which accused the service of copyright infringement.

The company had considerable funds in the bank – £255,472.00 to be exact – but it also had debts of £717,278.84, including £260,000 owed to HMRC and £100,000 to the Premier League as part of a settlement agreement.

Information received by TF late Sunday suggested that £100K was the tip of the iceberg as far as the Premier League was concerned and in a statement yesterday, the football outfit confirmed that was the case.

“A renowned pirate of Premier League content to consumers has been forced to liquidate after agreeing to pay £600,000 for breaching the League’s copyright,” the Premier League announced.

“Ace IPTV, run by Craig Driscoll and Ian Isaac, was selling subscriptions to illegal Premier League streams directly to consumers which allowed viewing on a range of devices, including notorious Kodi-type boxes, as well as to smaller resellers in the UK and abroad.”

Sources familiar with the case suggest that while Ace Hosting Limited didn’t have the funds to pay the Premier League the full £600K, Ace’s operators agreed to pay (and have already paid, to some extent at least) what were essentially their own funds to cover amounts above the final £100K, which is due to be paid next year.

But that’s not the only thing that’s been handed over to the Premier League.

“Ace voluntarily disclosed the personal details of their customers, which the League will now review in compliance with data protection legislation. Further investigations will be conducted, and action taken where appropriate,” the Premier League added.

So, the big question now is how exposed Ace’s former subscribers are.

The truth is that only the Premier League knows for sure but TF has been able to obtain information from several sources which indicate that former subscribers probably aren’t the Premier League’s key interest and even if they were, information obtained on them would be of limited use.

According to a source with knowledge of how a system like Ace’s works, there is a separation of data which appears to help (at least to some degree) with the subscriber’s privacy.

“The system used to manage accounts and take payment is actually completely separate from the software used to manage streams and the lines themselves. They are never usually even on the same server so are two very different databases,” he told TF.

“So at best the only information that has voluntarily been provided to the [Premier League], is just your email, name and address (assuming you even used real details) and what hosting package or credits you bought.”

While this information is bad enough, the action against Ace is targeted, in that it focuses on the Premier League’s content and how Ace (and therefore its users) infringed on the football outfit’s copyrights. So, proving that subscribers actually watched any Premier League content would be an ideal position but it’s not straightforward, despite the potential for detailed logging.

“The management system contains no history of what you watched, when you watched it, when you signed in and so on. That is all contained in a different database on a different server.

“Because every connection is recorded [on the second server], it can create some two million entries a day and as such most providers either turn off this feature or delete the logs daily as having so many entries slows down the system down used for actual streams,” he explains.

Our source says that this data would likely to have been the first to be deleted and is probably “long gone” by now. However, even if the Premier League had obtained it, it’s unlikely they would be able to do much with it due to data protection laws.

“The information was passed to the [Premier League] voluntarily by ACE which means this information has been given from one entity to another without the end users’ consent, not part of the [creditors’ voluntary liquidation] and without a court order to support it. Data Protection right now is taken very seriously in the EU,” he notes.

At this point, it’s probably worth noting that while the word “voluntarily” has been used several times to explain the manner in which Ace handed over its subscribers’ details to the Premier League, the same word can be used to describe the manner in which the £600K settlement amount will be paid.

No one forces someone to pay or hand something over, that’s what the courts are for, and the aim here was to avoid that eventuality.

Other pieces of information culled from various sources suggest that PayPal payment information, limited to amounts only, was also handed over to the Premier League. And, perhaps most importantly (and perhaps predictably) as far as former subscribers are concerned, the football group was more interested in Ace’s upwards supplier chain (the ‘wholesale’ stream suppliers used, for example) than those buying the service.

Finally, while the Premier League is now seeking to send a message to customers that these services are risky to use, it’s difficult to argue with the assertion that it’s unsafe to hand over personal details to an illegal service.

“Ace IPTV’s collapse also highlighted the risk consumers take with their personal data when they sign up to illegal streaming services,” Premier League notes.

TF spoke with three IPTV providers who all confirmed that they don’t care what names and addresses people use to sign up with and that no checks are carried out to make sure they’re correct. However, one concedes that in order to run as a business, this information has to be requested and once a customer types it in, it’s possible that it could be handed over as part of a settlement.

“I’m not going to tell people to put in dummy details, how can I? It’s up to people to use their common sense. If they’re still worried they should give Sky their money because if our backs are against the wall, what do you think is going to happen?” he concludes.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Седем мита за GDPR

Post Syndicated from Bozho original https://blog.bozho.net/blog/3105

GDPR, или новият Общ регламент относно защитата на данните, е гореща тема, тъй като влиза в сила на 25-ти май. И разбира се, публичното пространство е пълно с мнения и заключения по въпроса. За съжаление повечето от тях са грешни. На база на наблюденията ми от последните месеци реших да извадя 7 мита за Регламента.

От края на миналата година активно консултирам малки и големи компании относно регламента, водя обучения и семинари и пиша технически разяснения. И не, не съм юрист, но Регламентът изисква познаване както на правните, така и на технологичните аспекти на защитата на данните.

1. „GDPR ми е ясен, разбрал съм го“

Най-опасното е човек да мисли, че разбира нещо след като само е чувал за него или е прочел две статии в новинарски сайт (както за GDPR така и в по-общ смисъл). Аз самият все още не твърдя, че познавам всички ъгълчета на Регламента. Но по конференции, кръгли маси, обучения, срещи, форуми и фейсбук групи съм чул и прочел твърде много глупости относно GDPR. И то такива, които могат да се оборят с „Не е вярно, виж чл. Х“. В тази категория за съжаление влизат и юристи, и IT специалисти, и хора на ръководни позиции.

От мита, че познаваме GDPR, произлизат и всички останали митове. Част от вината за това е и на самия Регламент. Дълъг е, чете се трудно, има лоши законодателни практики (3 различни хипотези в едно изречение??) и нито Европейската Комисия, нито някоя друга европейска институция си е направила труда да го разясни за хората, за които се отнася – а именно, за почти всички. Т.нар. „работна група по чл. 29 (от предишната Директива)“ има разяснения по някои въпроси, но те са също толкова дълги и трудно четими ако човек няма контекст. При толкова широкообхватно законодателство е голяма грешка то да се остави нерязяснено. Да, в него има много нюанси и много условности (което е друг негов минус), но е редно поне общите положения да бъдат разказани ясно и то от практическа гледна точка.

Така че не – да не си мислим, че сме разбрали GDPR.

2. „Личните данни са тайна“

Определението за лични данни в Регламента може би характеризира целия Регламент – трудно четима и „увъртяно“:

„лични данни“ означава всяка информация, свързана с идентифицирано физическо лице или физическо лице, което може да бъде идентифицирано („субект на данни“); физическо лице, което може да бъде идентифицирано, е лице, което може да бъде идентифицирано, пряко или непряко, по-специално чрез идентификатор като име, идентификационен номер, данни за местонахождение, онлайн идентификатор или по един или повече признаци, специфични за физическата, физиологичната, генетичната, психическата, умствената, икономическата, културната или социална идентичност на това физическо лице;

Всъщност лични данни са всичко, което се отнася за нас. Включително съвсем очевидни неща като цвят на очи и коса, ръст и т.н. И не, личните данни не са тайна. Имената ни не са тайна, ръстът ни не е тайна. ЕГН-то ни не е тайна (да, не е). Има специални категории лични данни, които могат да бъдат тайна (напр. медицински данни), но за тях има специален ред.

Разграничаването, което GDPR не прави ясно, за разлика от едно разяснение на NIST – има лични данни, на база на които хората могат да бъдат идентифицирани, и такива, с които не могат, но се отнасят за тях. По цвят на косата не можем да бъдем идентифицирани. Но цветът на косата представлява лични данни. По професия не можем да бъдем идентифицирани. (По три имена и професия обаче – евентуално може и да можем). И тук едно много важно нещо, посочено в последните изречения на съображение 26 – данни, които са лични, но не могат да бъдат отнесени към конкретно лице, и на база на които не може да бъде идентифицирано такова, не попадат в обхвата на регламента. И съвсем не са тайна – „имаме 120 клиента на възраст 32 години, които са си купили телефон Sony между Април и Юли“ е напълно окей.

Та, личните данни не са та тайни – някои даже са съвсем явни и видни. Целта на GDPR е да уреди тяхната обработка с автоматизирани средства (или полуавтоматизирани в структуриран вид, т.е. тетрадки). С други думи – кой има право да ги съхранява, за какво има право да ги използва и как трябва да ги съхранява и използва.

3. „GDPR не се отнася за мен“

Няма почти никакви изключения в Регламента. Компании под 250 души не са длъжни да водят едни регистри, а компании, които нямат мащабна обработка и наблюдение на субекти на данни нямат задължение за длъжностно лице по защита на данните (Data protection officer; тази точка е дискусионна с оглед на предложенията за изменения на българския закон за защита на личните данни, които разширяват прекалено много изискванията за DPO). Всичко останало важи за всички, които обработват лични данни. И всички граждани на ЕС имат всички права, посочени в Регламента.

4. „Ще ни глобят 20 милиона евро“

Тези глоби са единствената причина GDPR да е популярен. Ако не бяха те, на никого нямаше да му дреме за поредното европейско законодателство. Обаче заради плашещите глоби всякакви консултанти ходят и обясняват как „ами те глобите, знаете, са до 20 милиона“.

Но колкото и да се повтарят тези 20 милиона (или както някои пресоляват манджата „глоби над 20 милиона евро“), това не ги прави реалистични. Първо, има процес, който всички регулатори ще следват, и който включва няколко стъпки на „препоръки“ преди налагане на глоба. Идва комисията, установява несъответствие, прави препоръки, идва пак, установява взети ли са мерки. И ако сте съвсем недобросъвестни и не направите нищо, тогава идват глобите. И тези глоби са пропорционални на риска и на количеството данни. Не е „добър ден, 20 милиона“. Според мен 20-те милиона ще са само за огромни международни компании, като Google и Facebook, които обработват данни на милиони хора. За тетрадката с вересиите глоба няма да има (правото да бъдеш забравен се реализира със задраскване, но само ако магазинерът няма легитимен интерес да ги съхранява, а именно – да му върнете парите :)).

Тук една скоба за българското законодателство – то предвижда доста високи минимуми на глобите (10 хил. лева). Това се оспорва в рамките на общественото обсъждане и е несъразмерно на минимумите в други европейски държави и се надявам да спадне значително.

5. „Трябва да спрем да обработваме лични данни“

В никакъв случай. GDPR не забранява обработката на лични данни, просто урежда как и кога те да се обработват. Имате право да обработвате всички данни, които са ви нужни, за да си свършите работата.

Някои интернет компании напоследък обявиха, че спират работа заради GDPR, защото не им позволявал да обработват данни. И това в общия случай са глупости. Или те така или иначе са били на загуба и сега си търсят оправдание, или са били такъв разграден двор и са продавали данните ви наляво и надясно без ваше знание и съгласие, че GDPR представлява риск. Но то това му е идеята – да няма такива практики. Защото (както твърди Регламентът) това представлява риск за правата и свободите на субектите на данни (субект на данните – това звучи гордо).

6. „Трябва да искаме съгласие за всичко“

Съгласието на потребителите е само едно от основанията за обработка на данните. Има доста други и те дори са по-често срещани в реалния бизнес. Както отбелязах по-горе, ако можете да докажете легитимен интерес да обработвате данните, за да си свършите работата, може да го правите без съгласие. Имате ли право да събирате адреса и телефона на клиента, ако доставяте храна? Разбира се, иначе не може да му я доставите. Няма нужда от съгласие в този случай (би имало нужда от съгласие ако освен за доставката, ползвате данните му и за други цели). Нужно ли е съгласие за обработка на лични данни в рамките на трудово правоотношение? Не, защото Кодекса на труда изисква работодателят да води трудово досие. Има ли нужда банката да поиска съгласие, за да ви обработва личните данни за кредита? Не, защото те са нужни за изпълнението на договора за кредит (и не, не можете да кажете на банката да ви „забрави“ кредита; правото да бъдеш забравен важи само в някои случаи).

Усещането ми обаче е, че ще плъзнат едни декларации и чекбоксове за съгласие, които ще са напълно излишни…но вж. т.1. А дори когато трябва да ги има, ще бъдат прекалено общи, а не за определени цели (съгласявам се да ми обработвате данните, ама за какво точно?).

7. „Съответсвието с GDPR е трудно и скъпо“

…и съответно Регламентът е голяма административна тежест, излишно натоварване на бизнеса и т.н. Ами не, не е. Съответствието с GDPR изисква осъзната обработка на личните данни. Да, изисква и няколко хартии – политики и процедури, с които да докажете, че знаете какви лични данни обработвате и че ги обработвате съвестно, както и че знаете, че гражданите имат някакви права във връзка с данните си (и че всъщност не вие, а те са собственици на тези данни), но извън това съответствието не е тежко. Е, ако хал хабер си нямате какви данни и бизнес процеси имате, може и да отнеме време да ги вкарате в ред, но това е нещо, което по принцип e добре да се случи, със или без GDPR.

Ако например досега в една болница данните за пациентите са били на незащитен по никакъв начин сървър и всеки е имал достъп до него, без това да оставя следа, и също така е имало още 3-4 сървъра, на които никой не е знаел, че има данни (щото „IT-то“ е напуснало преди 2 години), то да, ще трябват малко усилия.

Но почти всичко в GDPR са „добри практики“ така или иначе. Неща, които са полезни и за самия бизнес, не само за гражданите.

Разбира се, синдромът „по-светец и от Папата“ започва да се наблюдава. Освен компаниите, които са изсипали милиони на юристи, консултанти, доставчици (и което накрая е имало плачевен резултат и се е оказало, че за един месец няколко човека могат да я свършат цялата тая работа) има и такива, които четат Регламента като „по-добре да не даваме никакви данни никъде, за всеки случай“. Презастраховането на големи компании, като Twitter и Facebook например, има риск да „удари“ компании, които зависят от техните данни. Но отново – вж. т.1.


В заключение, GDPR не е нещо страшно, не е нещо лошо и не е „измислица на бюрократите в Брюксел“. Има много какво да се желае откъм яснотата му и предполагам ще има какво да се желае откъм приложението му, но „по принцип“ е окей.

И както става винаги със законодателства, обхващащи много хора и бизнеси – в началото ще има не само 7, а 77 мита, които с времето и с практиката ще се изяснят. Ще има грешки на растежа, има риск (особено в по-малки и корумпирани държави) някой „да го отнесе“, но гледайки голямата картинка, смятам, че с този Регламент след 5 години ще сме по-добре откъм защита на данните и откъм последици от липсата на на такава защита.

Tips for Success: GDPR Lessons Learned

Post Syndicated from Chad Woolf original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/tips-for-success-gdpr-lessons-learned/

Security is our top priority at AWS, and from the beginning we have built security into the fabric of our services. With the introduction of GDPR (which becomes enforceable on May 25 of 2018), privacy and data protection have become even more ingrained into our security-centered culture. Three weeks ago, well ahead of the deadline, we announced that all AWS services are compliant with GDPR, meaning you can use AWS as a data processor as a way to help solve your GDPR challenges (be sure to visit our GDPR Center for additional information).

When it comes to GDPR compliance, many customers are progressing nicely and much of the initial trepidation is gone. In my interactions with customers on this topic, a few themes have emerged as universal:

  • GDPR is important. You need to have a plan in place if you process personal data of EU data subjects, not only because it’s good governance, but because GDPR does carry significant penalties for non-compliance.
  • Solving this can be complex, potentially involving a lot of personnel and multiple tools. Your GDPR process will also likely span across disciplines – impacting people, processes, and technology.
  • Each customer is unique, and there are many methodologies around assessing your compliance with GDPR. It’s important to be aware of your own individual business attributes.

I thought it might be helpful to share some of our own lessons learned. In our experience in solving the GDPR challenge, the following were keys to our success:

  1. Get your senior leadership involved. We have a regular cadence of detailed status conversations about GDPR with our CEO, Andy Jassy. GDPR is high stakes, and the AWS leadership team knows it. If GDPR doesn’t have the attention it needs with the visibility of top management today, it’s time to escalate.
  2. Centralize the GDPR efforts. Driving all work streams centrally is key. This may sound obvious, but managing this in a distributed manner may result in duplicative effort and/or team members moving in a different direction.
  3. The most important single partner in solving GDPR is your legal team. Having non-legal people make assumptions about how to interpret GDPR for your unique environment is both risky and a potential waste of time and resources. You want to avoid analysis paralysis by getting proper legal advice, collaborating on a direction, and then moving forward with the proper urgency.
  4. Collaborate closely with tech leadership. The “process” people in your organization, the ones who already know how to approach governance problems, are typically comfortable jumping right in to GDPR. But technical teams, including data owners, have set up their software for business application. They may not even know what kind of data they are storing, processing, or transferring to other parts of the business. In the GDPR exercise they need to be aware of (or at least help facilitate) the tracking of data and data elements between systems. This isn’t a typical ask for technical teams, so be prepared to educate and to fully understand data flow.
  5. Don’t live by the established checklists. There are multiple methodologies to solving the compliance challenges of GDPR. At AWS, we ended up establishing core requirements, mapped out by data controller and data processor functions and then, in partnership with legal, decided upon a group of projects based on our known current state. Be careful about using a set methodology, tool or questionnaire to govern your efforts. These generic assessments can help educate, but letting them drive or limit your work could lead to missing something that is key to your own compliance. In this sense, a generic, “one size fits all” solution might not be helpful.
  6. Don’t be afraid to challenge prior orthodoxy. Many times we changed course based on new information. You shouldn’t be afraid to scrap an effort if you determine it’s not working. You should also not be afraid to escalate issues to senior leadership when needed. This is an executive issue.
  7. Look for ways to leverage your work beyond this compliance activity. GDPR requires serious effort, but are the results limited to GDPR compliance? Certainly not. You can use GDPR workflows as a way to ensure better governance moving forward. Privacy and security will require work for the foreseeable future, so make your governance program scalable and usable for other purposes.

One last tip that has made all the difference: think about protecting data subjects and work backwards from there. Customer focus drives us to ask, “what would customers and data subjects want and expect us to do?” Taking GDPR from a pure legal or compliance standpoint may be technically sufficient, but we believe the objectives of security and personal data protection require a more comprehensive view, and you can most effectively shape that view by starting with the individuals GDPR was meant to protect.

If you would like to find out more about our experiences, as well as how we can help you in your efforts, please reach out to us today.

-Chad Woolf

Vice President, AWS Security Assurance

Interested in additional AWS Security news? Follow the AWS Security Blog on Twitter.

Announcing the new AWS Certified Security – Specialty exam

Post Syndicated from Janna Pellegrino original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/architecture/announcing-the-new-aws-certified-security-specialty-exam/

Good news for cloud security experts: following our most popular beta exam ever, the AWS Certified Security – Specialty exam is here. This new exam allows experienced cloud security professionals to demonstrate and validate their knowledge of how to secure the AWS platform.

About the exam
The security exam covers incident response, logging and monitoring, infrastructure security, identity and access management, and data protection. The exam is open to anyone who currently holds a Cloud Practitioner or Associate-level certification. We recommend candidates have five years of IT security experience designing and implementing security solutions, and at least two years of hands-on experience securing AWS workloads.

The exam validates:

  • An understanding of specialized data classifications and AWS data protection mechanisms.
  • An understanding of data encryption methods and AWS mechanisms to implement them.
  • An understanding of secure Internet protocols and AWS mechanisms to implement them.
  • A working knowledge of AWS security services and features of services to provide a secure production environment.
  • Competency gained from two or more years of production deployment experience using AWS security services and features.
  • Ability to make trade-off decisions with regard to cost, security, and deployment complexity given a set of application requirements.
  • An understanding of security operations and risk.

Learn more and register >>

How to prepare
We have training and other resources to help you prepare for the exam:

AWS Training (aws.amazon.com/training)

Additional Resources

Learn more and register >>

Please contact us if you have questions about exam registration.

Good luck!

Announcing the new AWS Certified Security – Specialty exam

Post Syndicated from Ozlem Yilmaz original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/announcing-the-new-aws-certified-security-specialty-exam/

Good news for cloud security experts: the AWS Certified Security — Specialty exam is here. This new exam allows experienced cloud security professionals to demonstrate and validate their knowledge of how to secure the AWS platform.

About the exam

The security exam covers incident response, logging and monitoring, infrastructure security, identity and access management, and data protection. The exam is open to anyone who currently holds a Cloud Practitioner or Associate-level certification. We recommend candidates have five years of IT security experience designing and implementing security solutions, and at least two years of hands-on experience securing AWS workloads.

The exam validates your understanding of:

  • Specialized data classifications and AWS data protection mechanisms
  • Data encryption methods and AWS mechanisms to implement them
  • Secure Internet protocols and AWS mechanisms to implement them
  • AWS security services and features of services to provide a secure production environment
  • Making tradeoff decisions with regard to cost, security, and deployment complexity given a set of application requirements
  • Security operations and risk

How to prepare

We have training and other resources to help you prepare for the exam.

AWS Training that includes:

Additional Resources

Learn more and register here, and please contact us if you have questions about exam registration.

Want more AWS Security news? Follow us on Twitter.

WHOIS Limits Under GDPR Will Make Pirates Harder to Catch, Groups Fear

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/whois-limits-under-gdpr-will-make-pirates-harder-to-catch-groups-fear-180413/

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a regulation in EU law covering data protection and privacy for all individuals within the European Union.

As more and more personal data is gathered, stored and (ab)used online, the aim of the GDPR is to protect EU citizens from breaches of privacy. The regulation applies to all companies processing the personal data of subjects residing in the Union, no matter where in the world the company is located.

Penalties for non-compliance can be severe. While there is a tiered approach according to severity, organizations can be fined up to 4% of annual global turnover or €20 million, whichever is greater. Needless to say, the regulations will need to be taken seriously.

Among those affected are domain name registries and registrars who publish the personal details of domain name owners in the public WHOIS database. In a full entry, a person or organization’s name, address, telephone numbers and email addresses can often be found.

This raises a serious issue. While registries and registrars are instructed and contractually obliged to publish data in the WHOIS database by global domain name authority ICANN, in millions of cases this conflicts with the requirements of the GDPR, which prevents the details of private individuals being made freely available on the Internet.

As explained in detail by the EFF, ICANN has been trying to resolve this clash. Its proposed interim model for GDPR compliance (pdf) envisions registrars continuing to collect full WHOIS data but not necessarily publishing it, to “allow the existing data
to be preserved while the community discussions continue on the next generation of WHOIS.”

But the proposed changes that will inevitably restrict free access to WHOIS information has plenty of people spooked, including thousands of companies belonging to entertainment industry groups such as the MPAA, IFPI, RIAA and the Copyright Alliance.

In a letter sent to Vice President Andrus Ansip of the European Commission, these groups and dozens of others warn that restricted access to WHOIS will have a serious effect on their ability to protect their intellectual property rights from “cybercriminals” which pose a threat to their businesses.

Signed by 50 organizations involved in IP protection and other areas of online security, the letter expresses concern that in attempting to comply with the GDPR, ICANN is on a course to “over-correct” while disregarding proportionality, accountability and transparency.

A small sample of the groups calling on ICANN

“We strongly assert that this model does not properly account for the critical public and legitimate interests served by maintaining a sufficient amount of data publicly available while respecting privacy interests of registrants by instituting a tiered or layered access system for the vast majority of personal data as defined by the GDPR,” the groups write.

The letter focuses on two aspects of “over-correction”, the first being ICANN’s proposal that no personal data whatsoever of a domain name registrant will be made available “without appropriate consideration or balancing of the countervailing interests in public disclosure of a limited amount of such data.”

In response to ICANN’s proposal that only the province/state and country of a domain name registrant be made publicly available, the groups advise the organization that publishing “a natural person registrant’s e-mail address” in a publicly accessible WHOIS directory will not constitute a breach of the GDPR.

“[W]e strongly believe that the continued public availability of the registrant’s e-mail address – specifically the e-mail address that the registrant supplies to the registrar at the time the domain name is purchased and which e-mail address the registrar is required to validate – is critical for several reasons,” the groups write.

“First, it is the data element that is typically the most important to have readily available for law enforcement, consumer protection, particularly child protection, intellectual property enforcement and cybersecurity/anti-malware purposes.

“Second, the public accessibility of the registrant’s e-mail address permits a broad array of threats and illegal activities to be addressed quickly and the damage from such threats mitigated and contained in a timely manner, particularly where the abusive/illegal activity may be spawned from a variety of different domain names on different generic Top Level Domains,” they add.

The groups also argue that since making email addresses is effectively required in light of Article 5.1(c) ECD, “there is no legitimate justification to discontinue public availability of the registrant’s e-mail address in the WHOIS directory and especially not in light of other legitimate purposes.”

The EFF, on the other hand, says that being able to contact a domain owner wouldn’t necessarily require an email address to be made public.

“There are other cases in which it makes sense to allow members of the public to contact the owner of a domain, without having to obtain a court order,” EFF writes.

“But this could be achieved very simply if ICANN were simply to provide something like a CAPTCHA-protected contact form, which would deliver email to the appropriate contact point with no need to reveal the registrant’s actual email address.”

The groups’ second main concern is that ICANN reportedly makes no distinction between name registrants that are “natural persons versus those that are legal entities” and intends to treat them all as if they are subject to the GDPR, despite the fact that the regulation only applies to data associated with an “identified or identifiable natural person”.

They say it is imperative that EU Data Protection Authorities are made to understand that when registrants obtain a domain for illegal purposes, they often only register it as a “natural person” when registering as a legal person (legal entity) would be more appropriate, despite that granting them less privacy.

“Consequently, the test for differentiating between a legal and natural person should not merely be the legal status of the registrant, but also whether the registrant is, in fact, acting as a legal or natural person vis a vis the use of the domain name,” the groups note.

“We therefore urge that ICANN be given appropriate guidance as to the importance of maintaining a distinction between natural person and legal person registrants and keeping as much data about legal person domain name registrants as publicly accessible as possible,” they conclude.

What will happen with WHOIS on May 25 still isn’t clear. It wasn’t until October 2017 that ICANN finally determined that it would be affected by the GDPR, meaning that it’s been scrambling ever since to meet the compliance date. And it still is, according to the latest available documentation (pdf).

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN reviews, discounts, offers and coupons.

Facebook and Cambridge Analytica

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/03/facebook_and_ca.html

In the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, news articles and commentators have focused on what Facebook knows about us. A lot, it turns out. It collects data from our posts, our likes, our photos, things we type and delete without posting, and things we do while not on Facebook and even when we’re offline. It buys data about us from others. And it can infer even more: our sexual orientation, political beliefs, relationship status, drug use, and other personality traits — even if we didn’t take the personality test that Cambridge Analytica developed.

But for every article about Facebook’s creepy stalker behavior, thousands of other companies are breathing a collective sigh of relief that it’s Facebook and not them in the spotlight. Because while Facebook is one of the biggest players in this space, there are thousands of other companies that spy on and manipulate us for profit.

Harvard Business School professor Shoshana Zuboff calls it “surveillance capitalism.” And as creepy as Facebook is turning out to be, the entire industry is far creepier. It has existed in secret far too long, and it’s up to lawmakers to force these companies into the public spotlight, where we can all decide if this is how we want society to operate and — if not — what to do about it.

There are 2,500 to 4,000 data brokers in the United States whose business is buying and selling our personal data. Last year, Equifax was in the news when hackers stole personal information on 150 million people, including Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and driver’s license numbers.

You certainly didn’t give it permission to collect any of that information. Equifax is one of those thousands of data brokers, most of them you’ve never heard of, selling your personal information without your knowledge or consent to pretty much anyone who will pay for it.

Surveillance capitalism takes this one step further. Companies like Facebook and Google offer you free services in exchange for your data. Google’s surveillance isn’t in the news, but it’s startlingly intimate. We never lie to our search engines. Our interests and curiosities, hopes and fears, desires and sexual proclivities, are all collected and saved. Add to that the websites we visit that Google tracks through its advertising network, our Gmail accounts, our movements via Google Maps, and what it can collect from our smartphones.

That phone is probably the most intimate surveillance device ever invented. It tracks our location continuously, so it knows where we live, where we work, and where we spend our time. It’s the first and last thing we check in a day, so it knows when we wake up and when we go to sleep. We all have one, so it knows who we sleep with. Uber used just some of that information to detect one-night stands; your smartphone provider and any app you allow to collect location data knows a lot more.

Surveillance capitalism drives much of the internet. It’s behind most of the “free” services, and many of the paid ones as well. Its goal is psychological manipulation, in the form of personalized advertising to persuade you to buy something or do something, like vote for a candidate. And while the individualized profile-driven manipulation exposed by Cambridge Analytica feels abhorrent, it’s really no different from what every company wants in the end. This is why all your personal information is collected, and this is why it is so valuable. Companies that can understand it can use it against you.

None of this is new. The media has been reporting on surveillance capitalism for years. In 2015, I wrote a book about it. Back in 2010, the Wall Street Journal published an award-winning two-year series about how people are tracked both online and offline, titled “What They Know.”

Surveillance capitalism is deeply embedded in our increasingly computerized society, and if the extent of it came to light there would be broad demands for limits and regulation. But because this industry can largely operate in secret, only occasionally exposed after a data breach or investigative report, we remain mostly ignorant of its reach.

This might change soon. In 2016, the European Union passed the comprehensive General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR. The details of the law are far too complex to explain here, but some of the things it mandates are that personal data of EU citizens can only be collected and saved for “specific, explicit, and legitimate purposes,” and only with explicit consent of the user. Consent can’t be buried in the terms and conditions, nor can it be assumed unless the user opts in. This law will take effect in May, and companies worldwide are bracing for its enforcement.

Because pretty much all surveillance capitalism companies collect data on Europeans, this will expose the industry like nothing else. Here’s just one example. In preparation for this law, PayPal quietly published a list of over 600 companies it might share your personal data with. What will it be like when every company has to publish this sort of information, and explicitly explain how it’s using your personal data? We’re about to find out.

In the wake of this scandal, even Mark Zuckerberg said that his industry probably should be regulated, although he’s certainly not wishing for the sorts of comprehensive regulation the GDPR is bringing to Europe.

He’s right. Surveillance capitalism has operated without constraints for far too long. And advances in both big data analysis and artificial intelligence will make tomorrow’s applications far creepier than today’s. Regulation is the only answer.

The first step to any regulation is transparency. Who has our data? Is it accurate? What are they doing with it? Who are they selling it to? How are they securing it? Can we delete it? I don’t see any hope of Congress passing a GDPR-like data protection law anytime soon, but it’s not too far-fetched to demand laws requiring these companies to be more transparent in what they’re doing.

One of the responses to the Cambridge Analytica scandal is that people are deleting their Facebook accounts. It’s hard to do right, and doesn’t do anything about the data that Facebook collects about people who don’t use Facebook. But it’s a start. The market can put pressure on these companies to reduce their spying on us, but it can only do that if we force the industry out of its secret shadows.

This essay previously appeared on CNN.com.

EDITED TO ADD (4/2): Slashdot thread.

Не е само Фейсбук – следят ви хиляди компании

Post Syndicated from Григор original http://www.gatchev.info/blog/?p=2127


Попаднах днес на статия в CNN от Брюс Шнайер – експерт по ИТ сигурност, който уважавам изключително много. След кратък размисъл реших, че ще я преведа и пусна тук. Да, нарушение на копирайт е – но е толкова важно и така нужно да се знае от всеки, че съм склонен да поема риска.

—-

Събудени от скандала с Cambridge Analytica, новинарски статии и коментатори се съсредоточиха върху това какво знае Facebook за нас. Оказва се, че е много. Събира данни от нашите публикации, лайковете ни, снимките ни. От нещата, които започваме да пишем, но се отказваме да ги публикуваме. Дори неща, които правим, докато не сме логнати в него – или дори когато сме офлайн. Купува информация за нас от други фирми. И може да разбере от тях за нас и много повече – сексуалната ни ориентация, политическите ни възгледи, дали сме обвързани, какви лекарства пием и много личностови характеристики. Дори ако не сме попълвали личностовия тест на Cambridge Analytica. (Чрез който тази фирма източваше данните ни и данните на приятелите ни – Григор.)

Но при всяка статия, която описва колко гадно ни следи Facebook, хиляди други компании въздъхват с облекчение. Че тези статии обсъждат Facebook, а не тях. Защото е вярно, че Facebook е един от най-големите играчи в тази игра, но и хиляди други фирми ни шпионират и манипулират за своя финансова изгода.

Професорката в Харвард Бизнес Скул Шошана Лубоф нарича това „следящ капитализъм“. Колкото и плашещ да се оказва Facebook, цялостната тази индустрия е далеч по-плашеща. Тя съществува тайно от вече прекалено дълго време, и е крайно време законодателите да изкарат тези фирми пред очите на публиката. За да можем всички да решим така ли искаме да действа нашето общество, и ако не, какво следва да се направи.

В Съединените Щати има между 2500 и 4000 брокери, които се занимават с това да купуват и продават нашите лични данни. Преди година в новините попадна Equifax, когато хакери откраднаха от нея личната информация на 150 милиона души, включително номерата на социалните им осигуровки, рождените дати, адресите и номерата на шофьорските им книжки. (Тоест, абсолютно всичко, което в САЩ идентифицира дадена личност – Григор.)

Вие с гаранция не сте давали на тази фирма разрешение да събира личната ви информация. Equifax е една от хилядите фирми – брокери на информация, за повечето от които дори не сте чували. И които продават личната ви информация без ваше знание и съгласие на всеки, който плати.

Следящият капитализъм докарва нещата още по-нататък. Фирми като Google и Facebook ви предлагат безплатни услуги в замяна на информацията ви. За следенето на Google не съобщават в новините, но то е стряскащо прилепчиво. Ние никога не лъжем търсачките, които използвате. Интересите и любопитствата ни, надеждите и страховете ни, желанията и сексуалните привличания – всичко това бива събирано и съхранявано. Добавете към това следенето кои уебсайтове посещаваме, което Google извършва чрез рекламната си мрежа, нашите акаунти в Gmail, движението ни по Google Maps и каквото може да събере от смартфоните ни.

Телефонът вероятно е най-ефективното проследяващо устройство, създадено някога. Той непрекъснато следи къде се намираме, така че знае къде живеем, работим и прекарваме времето си. Той е първото и последното нещо, което поглеждаме през деня, така че знае кога се събуждаме и кога заспиваме. Всички го имаме, така че той знае и с кого спим. Юбер използва част от тази информация, за да открива забежките за по една нощ. Мобилният ви доставчик и всяко приложение в телефона, което има достъп до услугите за локация, знаят много повече.

Следящият капитализъм поддържа немалка част от Интернет. Той стои зад повечето „безплатни“ услуги, а и зад много платени. Целта му е да ви манипулира психологически, например чрез таргетирано рекламиране, за да ви убеди да купите нещо или да направите нещо, например да гласувате за определен кандидат. Масовото, базирано на индивидуални профили манипулиране, което бяха хванати да вършат Cambridge Analytica, може да звучи отвратително – но това е, което в края на краищата се бори да постигне всяка компания. Вашата лична информация бива събирана именно затова, и то е, което я прави ценна. Компаниите, които разбират това, могат да я използват срещу вас.

Нищо от това не е новост. Медиите съобщават за следящия капитализъм от години. През 2015 г. написах книга на тази тема. Още през 2010 г. Уолстрийт Джърнъл публикува двегодишна серия статии, спечелила награди, как хората биват следени онлайн и офлайн, под заглавието „Какво знаят те“.

Следящият капитализъм е дълбоко вграден в нашето все по-компютризирано общество, и ако размерите му излязат на бял свят, ще има масов натиск за ограничения и регулации. Но тъй като тази индустрия оперира предимно тайно, и само отвреме навреме изтича информация за някоя кражба на данни или някоя разследваща статия, повечето от нас остават в неизвестност за всеобхватността ѝ.

Това може скоро да се промени. През 2016 г. Европейският съюз прие широкообхватния регламент General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Подробностите в този закон са прекалено сложни, за да бъдат обяснени тук. Някои от нещата, които той постановява, са че личните данни на европейски граждани могат да бъдат събирани и съхранявани само за „специфични, изрично обявени и легитимни цели“, и единствено с изричното съгласие на потребителя. Съгласието не може да бъде заровено из условията за използване (EULA) на това или онова, нито пък може да бъде смятано за дадено, ако потребителят не го изключи изрично. Законът влиза в сила през май, и компаниите по целия свят се подготвят да влязат в съгласие с него.

Тъй като на практика всеки следящ капитализъм събира данните на европейци, това ще освети тази индустрия като нищо досега. Ето ви само един пример. Подготвяйки се за този закон, PayPal тихомълком публикува списък на над 600 компании, с които вашата информация може да бъде споделяна. Какво ще стане, когато на всяка компания се наложи да публикува тази информация и да обясни изрично как използва личните ни данни? Очертава се да разберем.

Когато този скандал се надигна, дори Марк Цукърбърг каза, че вероятно неговата индустрия трябва да бъде регулирана. Надали обаче си е пожелавал сериозна и принципна регулация, каквато GDPR въвежда в сила в Европа.

Прав е. Следящият капитализъм е действал безконтролно твърде дълго време. И напредъкът както в анализа на големи количества лични данни, така и в изкуствения интелект ще направят утрешните му приложения далеч по-плашещи от днешните. Единственото спасение от това е регулацията.

Първата стъпка към всяка регулация е прозрачността. Кой има нашите данни? Точни ли са? Какво прави той с тях? Продава ли ги? Как ги опазва? Можем ли да го накараме да ги изтрие? Не виждам никаква надежда Конгресът на САЩ да прокара в обозримото бъдеще закон за защита на данните, подобен на GDPR, но не е непредставимо да се въведат закони, които задължават тези компании да бъдат по-прозрачни в действията си.

Едно от последствията на скандала с Cambridge Analytica е, че някои хора си изтриха акаунтите във Facebook. Това е трудно да се направи както трябва, и не изтрива данните, които Facebook събира за хора без акаунт в него. Но все е някакво начало. Пазарът може да окаже натиск върху тези компании да ограничат следенето ни, но само ако накараме тази индустрия да излезе от сенките на светло.

—-

И аз съм писал по въпроса, още през 2012 г. – тук и тук. Не зная дали тогава помогнах на някого да разбере нещо – май по-скоро не, ако съдя по коментарите под тях. Не зная дали ще помогна на някого и сега. Но се чувствам длъжен да опитам.

Ако съдя по личните си наблюдения, нито една от онлайн фирмите, която ви дава възможност да си изтриете информацията от нея, не я изтрива истински. Знам случаи, когато информацията от „изтрити“ акаунти бива откривана в пакети продадени впоследствие лични данни. Знам и фирми, които твърдят, че не съхраняват никаква лична информация, но всъщност съхраняват и продават на всеки платежоспособен и мълчалив всеки бит от нея, който успеят да докопат. Така че съм скептичен, че регулацията ще постигне кой знае колко.

Има обаче нещо, което можем сами да направим за себе си – и то е просто да спрем да използваме които услуги на подобни събирачи можем. Без мобилен телефон трудно се живее, но трябва ли да имате акаунти във всички социални мрежи, за които сте чували? И т.н.

Надявам се след този скандал проектите за децентрализиран и опазващ личната информация аналог на Facebook да получат нов тласък. Надявам се и поне този 1% от хората, които не са идеално кръгли идиоти във вакуум, да почнат да вземат някакви мерки да опазят себе си и своите начинания.

Tracking Cookies and GDPR

Post Syndicated from Bozho original https://techblog.bozho.net/tracking-cookies-gdpr/

GDPR is the new data protection regulation, as you probably already know. I’ve given a detailed practical advice for what it means for developers (and product owners). However, there’s one thing missing there – cookies. The elephant in the room.

Previously I’ve stated that cookies are subject to another piece of legislation – the ePrivacy directive, which is getting updated and its new version will be in force a few years from now. And while that’s technically correct, cookies seem to be affected by GDPR as well. In a way I’ve underestimated that effect.

When you do a Google search on “GDPR cookies”, you’ll pretty quickly realize that a) there’s not too much information and b) there’s not much technical understanding of the issue.

What appears to be the consensus is that GDPR does change the way cookies are handled. More specifically – tracking cookies. Here’s recital 30:

(30) Natural persons may be associated with online identifiers provided by their devices, applications, tools and protocols, such as internet protocol addresses, cookie identifiers or other identifiers such as radio frequency identification tags. This may leave traces which, in particular when combined with unique identifiers and other information received by the servers, may be used to create profiles of the natural persons and identify them.

How tracking cookies work – a 3rd party (usually an ad network) gives you a code snippet that you place on your website, for example to display ads. That code snippet, however, calls “home” (makes a request to the 3rd party domain). If the 3rd party has previously been used on your computer, it has created a cookie. In the example of Facebook, they have the cookie with your Facebook identifier because you’ve logged in to Facebook. So this cookie (with your identifier) is sent with the request. The request also contains all the details from the page. In effect, you are uniquely identified by an identifier (in the case of Facebook and Google – fully identified, rather than some random anonymous identifier as with other ad networks).

Your behaviour on the website is personal data. It gets associated with your identifier, which in turn is associated with your profile. And all of that is personal data. Who is responsible for collecting the website behaviour data, i.e. who is the “controller”? Is it Facebook (or any other 3rd party) that technically does the collection? No, it’s the website owner, as the behaviour data is obtained on their website, and they have put the tracking piece of code there. So they bear responsibility.

What’s the responsibility? So far it boiled down to displaying the useless “we use cookies” warning that nobody cares about. And the current (old) ePrivacy directive and its interpretations says that this is enough – if the users actions can unambiguously mean that they are fine with cookies – i.e. if they continue to use the website after seeing the warning – then you’re fine. This is no longer true from a GDPR perspective – you are collecting user data and you have to have a lawful ground for processing.

For the data collected by tracking cookies you have two options – “consent” and “legitimate interest”. Legitimate interest will be hard to prove – it is not something that a user reasonably expects, it is not necessary for you to provide the service. If your lawyers can get that option to fly, good for them, but I’m not convinced regulators will be happy with that.

The other option is “consent”. You have to ask your users explicitly – that means “with a checkbox” – to let you use tracking cookies. That has two serious implications – from technical and usability point of view.

  • The technical issue is that the data is sent via 3rd party code as soon as the page loads and before the user can give their consent. And that’s already a violation. You can, of course, have the 3rd party code be dynamically inserted only after the user gives consent, but that will require some fiddling with javascript and might not always work depending on the provider. And you’d have to support opt-out at any time (which would in turn disable the 3rd party snippet). It would require actual coding, rather than just copy-pasting a snippet.
  • The usability aspect is the bigger issue – while you could neatly tuck a cookie warning at the bottom, you’d now have to have a serious, “stop the world” popup that asks for consent if you want anyone to click it. You can, of course, just add a checkbox to the existing cookie warning, but don’t expect anyone to click it.

These aspects pose a significant questions: is it worth it to have tracking cookies? Is developing new functionality worth it, is interrupting the user worth it, and is implementing new functionality just so that users never clicks a hidden checkbox worth it? Especially given that Firefox now blocks all tracking cookies and possibly other browsers will follow?

That by itself is an interesting topic – Firefox has basically implemented the most strict form of requirements of the upcoming ePrivacy directive update (that would turn it into an ePrivacy regulation). Other browsers will have to follow, even though Google may not be happy to block their own tracking cookies. I hope other browsers follow Firefox in tracking protection and the issue will be gone automatically.

To me it seems that it will be increasingly not worthy to have tracking cookies on your website. They add regulatory obligations for you and give you very little benefit (yes, you could track engagement from ads, but you can do that in other ways, arguably by less additional code than supporting the cookie consents). And yes, the cookie consent will be “outsourced” to browsers after the ePrivacy regulation is passed, but we can’t be sure at the moment whether there won’t be technical whack-a-mole between browsers and advertisers and whether you wouldn’t still need additional effort to have dynamic consent for tracking cookies. (For example there are reported issues that Firefox used to make Facebook login fail if tracking protection is enabled. Which could be a simple bug, or could become a strategy by big vendors in the future to force browsers into a less strict tracking protection).

Okay, we’ve decided it’s not worth it managing tracking cookies. But do you have a choice as a website owner? Can you stop your ad network from using them? (Remember – you are liable if users’ data is collected by visiting your website). And currently the answer is no – you can’t disable that. You can’t have “just the ads”. This is part of the “deal” – you get money for the ads you place, but you participate in a big “surveillance” network. Users have a way to opt out (e.g. Google AdWords gives them that option). You, as a website owner, don’t.

Facebook has a recommendations page that says “you take care of getting the consent”. But for example the “like button” plugin doesn’t have an option to not send any data to Facebook.

And sometimes you don’t want to serve ads, just track user behaviour and measure conversion. But even if you ask for consent for that and conditionally insert the plugin/snippet, do you actually know what data it sends? And what it’s used for? Because you have to know in order to inform your users. “Do you agree to use tracking cookies that Facebook has inserted in order to collect data about your behaviour on our website” doesn’t sound compelling.

So, what to do? The easiest thing is just not to use any 3rd party ad-related plugins. But that’s obviously not an option, as ad revenue is important, especially in the publishing industry. I don’t have a good answer, apart from “Regulators should pressure ad networks to provide opt-outs and clearly document their data usage”. They have to do that under GDPR, and while website owners are responsible for their users’ data, the ad networks that are in the role of processors in this case (as you delegate the data collection for your visitors to them) also have obligation to assist you in fulfilling your obligations. So ask Facebook – what should I do with your tracking cookies? And when the regulator comes after a privacy-aware customer files a complaint, you could prove that you’ve tried.

The ethical debate whether it’s wrong to collect data about peoples’ behaviour without their informed consent is an easy one. And that’s why I don’t put blame on the regulators – they are putting the ethical consensus in law. It gets more complicated if not allowing tracking means some internet services are no longer profitable and therefore can’t exist. Can we have the cake and eat it too?

The post Tracking Cookies and GDPR appeared first on Bozho's tech blog.

The 600+ Companies PayPal Shares Your Data With

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/03/the_600_compani.html

One of the effects of GDPR — the new EU General Data Protection Regulation — is that we’re all going to be learning a lot more about who collects our data and what they do with it. Consider PayPal, that just released a list of over 600 companies they share customer data with. Here’s a good visualization of that data.

Is 600 companies unusual? Is it more than average? Less? We’ll soon know.

Connect Veeam to the B2 Cloud: Episode 2 — Using StarWind VTL

Post Syndicated from Roderick Bauer original https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hybrid-cloud-example-veem-vtl-cloud/

Connect Veeam to the B2 Cloud

View all posts in the Veeam series.

In the first post in this series, we discussed how to connect Veeam to the B2 cloud using Synology. In this post, we continue our Veeam/B2 series with a discussion of how to back up Veeam to the Backblaze B2 Cloud using StarWind VTL.

StarWind provides “VTL” (Virtual Tape Library) technology that enables users to back up their “VMs” (virtual machines) from Veeam to on-premise or cloud storage. StarWind does this using standard “LTO” (Linear Tape-Open) protocols. This appeals to organizations that have LTO in place since it allows adoption of more scalable, cost efficient cloud storage without having to update the internal backup infrastructure.

Why An Additional Backup in the Cloud?

Common backup strategy, known as 3-2-1, dictates having three copies at a minimum of active data. Two copies are stored locally and one copy is in another location.

Relying solely on on-site redundancy does not guarantee data protection after a catastrophic or temporary loss of service affecting the primary data center. To reach maximum data security, an on-premises private cloud backup combined with an off-site public cloud backup, known as hybrid cloud, provides the best combination of security and rapid recovery when required.

Why Consider a Hybrid Cloud Solution?

The Hybrid Cloud Provides Superior Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity

Having a backup strategy that combines on-premise storage with public cloud storage in a single or multi-cloud configuration is becoming the solution of choice for organizations that wish to eliminate dependence on vulnerable on-premises storage. It also provides reliable and rapidly deployed recovery when needed.

If an organization requires restoration of service as quickly as possible after an outage or disaster, it needs to have a backup that isn’t dependent on the same network. That means a backup stored in the cloud that can be restored to another location or cloud-based compute service and put into service immediately after an outage.

Hybrid Cloud Example: VTL and the Cloud

Some organizations will already have made a significant investment in software and hardware that supports LTO protocols. Specifically, they are using Veeam to back up their VMs onto physical tape. Using StarWind to act as a VTL with Veeam enables users to save time and money by connecting their on-premises Veeam Backup & Replication archives to Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage.

Why Veeam, StarWind VTL, and Backblaze B2?

What are the primary reasons that an organization would want to adopt Veeam + StarWind VTL + B2 as a hybrid cloud backup solution?

  1. You are already invested in Veeam along with LTO software and hardware.

Using Veeam plus StarWind VTL with already-existing LTO infrastructure enables organizations to quickly and cost-effectively benefit from cloud storage.

  1. You require rapid and reliable recovery of service should anything disrupt your primary data center.

Having a backup in the cloud with B2 provides an economical primary or secondary cloud storage solution and enables fast restoration to a current or alternate location, as well as providing the option to quickly bring online a cloud-based compute service, thereby minimizing any loss of service and ensuring business continuity. Backblaze’s B2 is an ideal solution for backing up Veeam’s backup repository due to B2’s combination of low-cost and high availability compared to other cloud solutions such as Microsoft Azure or Amazon AWS.

Using Veeam, StarWind VTL, and Backblaze B2 cloud storage is a superior alternative to tape as B2 offers better economics, instant access, and faster recovery.

 

Workflow for how to connect Veeam to the Backblaze B2 Cloud using StarWind VTL

Connect Veeam to the Backblaze B2 Cloud using StarWind VTL (graphic courtesy of StarWind)

View all posts in the Veeam series.

The post Connect Veeam to the B2 Cloud: Episode 2 — Using StarWind VTL appeared first on Backblaze Blog | Cloud Storage & Cloud Backup.

Pirates Crack Microsoft’s UWP Protection, Five Layers of DRM Defeated

Post Syndicated from Andy original https://torrentfreak.com/pirates-crack-microsofts-uwp-protection-five-layers-of-drm-defeated-180215/

As the image on the right shows, Microsoft’s Universal Windows Platform (UWP) is a system that enables software developers to create applications that can run across many devices.

“The Universal Windows Platform (UWP) is the app platform for Windows 10. You can develop apps for UWP with just one API set, one app package, and one store to reach all Windows 10 devices – PC, tablet, phone, Xbox, HoloLens, Surface Hub and more,” Microsoft explains.

While the benefits of such a system are immediately apparent, critics say that UWP gives Microsoft an awful lot of control, not least since UWP software must be distributed via the Windows Store with Microsoft taking a cut.

Or that was the plan, at least.

Last evening it became clear that the UWP system, previously believed to be uncrackable, had fallen to pirates. After being released on October 31, 2017, the somewhat underwhelming Zoo Tycoon Ultimate Animal Collection became the first victim at the hands of popular scene group, CODEX.

“This is the first scene release of a UWP (Universal Windows Platform) game. Therefore we would like to point out that it will of course only work on Windows 10. This particular game requires Windows 10 version 1607 or newer,” the group said in its release notes.

CODEX release notes

CODEX says it’s important that the game isn’t allowed to communicate with the Internet so the group advises users to block the game’s executable in their firewall.

While that’s not a particularly unusual instruction, CODEX did reveal that various layers of protection had to be bypassed to make the game work. They’re listed by the group as MSStore, UWP, EAppX, XBLive, and Arxan, the latter being an anti-tamper system.

“It’s the equivalent of Denuvo (without the DRM License part),” cracker Voksi previously explained. “It’s still bloats the executable with useless virtual machines that only slow down your game.”

Arxan features

Arxan’s marketing comes off as extremely confident but may need amending in light of yesterday’s developments.

“Arxan uses code protection against reverse-engineering, key and data protection to secure servers and fortification of game logic to stop the bad guys from tampering. Sorry hackers, game over,” the company’s marketing reads.

What is unclear at this stage is whether Zoo Tycoon Ultimate Animal Collection represents a typical UWP release or if some particular flaw allowed CODEX to take it apart. The possibility of additional releases is certainly a tantalizing one for pirates but how long they will have to wait is unknown.

Whatever the outcome, Arxan calling “game over” is perhaps a little premature under the circumstances but in this continuing arms race, they probably have another version of their anti-tamper tech up their sleeves…..

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and more. We also have VPN discounts, offers and coupons

Backblaze and GDPR

Post Syndicated from Andy Klein original https://www.backblaze.com/blog/gdpr-compliance/

GDPR General Data Protection Regulation

Over the next few months the noise over GDPR will finally reach a crescendo. For the uninitiated, “GDPR” stands for “General Data Protection Regulation” and it goes into effect on May 25th of this year. GDPR is designed to protect how personal information of EU (European Union) citizens is collected, stored, and shared. The regulation should also improve transparency as to how personal information is managed by a business or organization.

Backblaze fully expects to be GDPR compliant when May 25th rolls around and we thought we’d share our experience along the way. We’ll start with this post as an introduction to GDPR. In future posts, we’ll dive into some of the details of the process we went through in meeting the GDPR objectives.

GDPR: A Two Way Street

To ensure we are GDPR compliant, Backblaze has assembled a dedicated internal team, engaged outside counsel in the United Kingdom, and consulted with other tech companies on best practices. While it is a sizable effort on our part, we view this as a waypoint in our ongoing effort to secure and protect our customers’ data and to be transparent in how we work as a company.

In addition to the effort we are putting into complying with the regulation, we think it is important to underscore and promote the idea that data privacy and security is a two-way street. We can spend millions of dollars on protecting the security of our systems, but we can’t stop a bad actor from finding and using your account credentials left on a note stuck to your monitor. We can give our customers tools like two factor authentication and private encryption keys, but it is the partnership with our customers that is the most powerful protection. The same thing goes for your digital privacy — we’ll do our best to protect your information, but we will need your help to do so.

Why GDPR is Important

At the center of GDPR is the protection of Personally Identifiable Information or “PII.” The definition for PII is information that can be used stand-alone or in concert with other information to identify a specific person. This includes obvious data like: name, address, and phone number, less obvious data like email address and IP address, and other data such as a credit card number, and unique identifiers that can be decoded back to the person.

How Will GDPR Affect You as an Individual

If you are a citizen in the EU, GDPR is designed to protect your private information from being used or shared without your permission. Technically, this only applies when your data is collected, processed, stored or shared outside of the EU, but it’s a good practice to hold all of your service providers to the same standard. For example, when you are deciding to sign up with a service, you should be able to quickly access and understand what personal information is being collected, why it is being collected, and what the business can do with that information. These terms are typically found in “Terms and Conditions” and “Privacy Policy” documents, or perhaps in a written contract you signed before starting to use a given service or product.

Even if you are not a citizen of the EU, GDPR will still affect you. Why? Because nearly every company you deal with, especially online, will have customers that live in the EU. It makes little sense for Backblaze, or any other service provider or vendor, to create a separate set of rules for just EU citizens. In practice, protection of private information should be more accountable and transparent with GDPR.

How Will GDPR Affect You as a Backblaze Customer

Over the coming months Backblaze customers will see changes to our current “Terms and Conditions,” “Privacy Policy,” and to our Backblaze services. While the changes to the Backblaze services are expected to be minimal, the “terms and privacy” documents will change significantly. The changes will include among other things the addition of a group of model clauses and related materials. These clauses will be generally consistent across all GDPR compliant vendors and are meant to be easily understood so that a customer can easily determine how their PII is being collected and used.

Common GDPR Questions:

Here are a few of the more common questions we have heard regarding GDPR.

  1. GDPR will only affect citizens in the EU.
    Answer: The changes that are being made by companies such as Backblaze to comply with GDPR will almost certainly apply to customers from all countries. And that’s a good thing. The protections afforded to EU citizens by GDPR are something all users of our service should benefit from.
  2. After May 25, 2018, a citizen of the EU will not be allowed to use any applications or services that store data outside of the EU.
    Answer: False, no one will stop you as an EU citizen from using the internet-based service you choose. But, you should make sure you know where your data is being collected, processed, and stored. If any of those activities occur outside the EU, make sure the company is following the GDPR guidelines.
  3. My business only has a few EU citizens as customers, so I don’t need to care about GDPR?
    Answer: False, even if you have just one EU citizen as a customer, and you capture, process or store data their PII outside of the EU, you need to comply with GDPR.
  4. Companies can be fined millions of dollars for not complying with GDPR.
    Answer:
    True, but: the regulation allows for companies to be fined up to $4 Million dollars or 20% of global revenue (whichever is greater) if they don’t comply with GDPR. In practice, the feeling is that such fines will be reserved (at least initially) for egregious violators that ignore or merely give “lip-service” to GDPR.
  5. You’ll be able to tell a company is GDPR compliant because they have a “GDPR Certified” badge on their website.
    Answer: There is no official GDPR certification or an official GDPR certification program. Companies that comply with GDPR are expected to follow the articles in the regulation and it should be clear from the outside looking in that they have followed the regulations. For example, their “Terms and Conditions,” and “Privacy Policy” should clearly spell out how and why they collect, use, and share your information. At some point a real GDPR certification program may be adopted, but not yet.

For all the hoopla about GDPR, the regulation is reasonably well thought out and addresses a very important issue — people’s privacy online. Creating a best practices document, or in this case a regulation, that companies such as Backblaze can follow is a good idea. The document isn’t perfect, and over the coming years we expect there to be changes. One thing we hope for is that the countries within the EU continue to stand behind one regulation and not fragment the document into multiple versions, each applying to themselves. We believe that having multiple different GDPR versions for different EU countries would lead to less protection overall of EU citizens.

In summary, GDPR changes are coming over the next few months. Backblaze has our internal staff and our EU-based legal council working diligently to ensure that we will be GDPR compliant by May 25th. We believe that GDPR will have a positive effect in enhancing the protection of personally identifiable information for not only EU citizens, but all of our Backblaze customers.

The post Backblaze and GDPR appeared first on Backblaze Blog | Cloud Storage & Cloud Backup.

Join Us for AWS Security Week February 20–23 in San Francisco!

Post Syndicated from Craig Liebendorfer original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/join-us-for-aws-security-week-february-20-23-in-san-francisco/

AWS Pop-up Loft image

Join us for AWS Security Week, February 20–23 at the AWS Pop-up Loft in San Francisco, where you can participate in four days of themed content that will help you secure your workloads on AWS. Each day will highlight a different security and compliance topic, and will include an overview session, a customer or partner speaker, a deep dive into the day’s topic, and a hands-on lab or demos of relevant AWS or partner services.

Tuesday (February 20) will kick off the week with a day devoted to identity and governance. On Wednesday, we will dig into secure configuration and automation, including a discussion about upcoming General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requirements. On Thursday, we will cover threat detection and remediation, which will include an Amazon GuardDuty lab. And on Friday, we will discuss incident response on AWS.

Sessions, demos, and labs about each of these topics will be led by seasoned security professionals from AWS, who will help you understand not just the basics, but also the nuances of building applications in the AWS Cloud in a robust and secure manner. AWS subject-matter experts will be available for “Ask the Experts” sessions during breaks.

Register today!

– Craig

New – Encryption at Rest for DynamoDB

Post Syndicated from Jeff Barr original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-encryption-at-rest-for-dynamodb/

At AWS re:Invent 2017, Werner encouraged his audience to “Dance like nobody is watching, and to encrypt like everyone is:

The AWS team is always eager to add features that make it easier for you to protect your sensitive data and to help you to achieve your compliance objectives. For example, in 2017 we launched encryption at rest for SQS and EFS, additional encryption options for S3, and server-side encryption of Kinesis Data Streams.

Today we are giving you another data protection option with the introduction of encryption at rest for Amazon DynamoDB. You simply enable encryption when you create a new table and DynamoDB takes care of the rest. Your data (tables, local secondary indexes, and global secondary indexes) will be encrypted using AES-256 and a service-default AWS Key Management Service (KMS) key. The encryption adds no storage overhead and is completely transparent; you can insert, query, scan, and delete items as before. The team did not observe any changes in latency after enabling encryption and running several different workloads on an encrypted DynamoDB table.

Creating an Encrypted Table
You can create an encrypted table from the AWS Management Console, API (CreateTable), or CLI (create-table). I’ll use the console! I enter the name and set up the primary key as usual:

Before proceeding, I uncheck Use default settings, scroll down to the Encrypytion section, and check Enable encryption. Then I click Create and my table is created in encrypted form:

I can see the encryption setting for the table at a glance:

When my compliance team asks me to show them how DynamoDB uses the key to encrypt the data, I can create a AWS CloudTrail trail, insert an item, and then scan the table to see the calls to the AWS KMS API. Here’s an extract from the trail:

{
  "eventTime": "2018-01-24T00:06:34Z",
  "eventSource": "kms.amazonaws.com",
  "eventName": "Decrypt",
  "awsRegion": "us-west-2",
  "sourceIPAddress": "dynamodb.amazonaws.com",
  "userAgent": "dynamodb.amazonaws.com",
  "requestParameters": {
    "encryptionContext": {
      "aws:dynamodb:tableName": "reg-users",
      "aws:dynamodb:subscriberId": "1234567890"
    }
  },
  "responseElements": null,
  "requestID": "7072def1-009a-11e8-9ab9-4504c26bd391",
  "eventID": "3698678a-d04e-48c7-96f2-3d734c5c7903",
  "readOnly": true,
  "resources": [
    {
      "ARN": "arn:aws:kms:us-west-2:1234567890:key/e7bd721d-37f3-4acd-bec5-4d08c765f9f5",
      "accountId": "1234567890",
      "type": "AWS::KMS::Key"
    }
  ]
}

Available Now
This feature is available now in the US East (N. Virginia), US East (Ohio), US West (Oregon), and EU (Ireland) Regions and you can start using it today.

There’s no charge for the encryption; you will be charged for the calls that DynamoDB makes to AWS KMS on your behalf.

Jeff;