28 May 2015

Administrative

Posts relating to the category tag "administrative" are listed below.

03 March 2015

User Interface Modifications to Combat Buyer Fraud

A paper published for the 2015 Network and Distributed System Security (NDSS) Symposium in February describes user interface modification techniques to address liar buyer fraud, and the results of experiments assessing the potential for these to reduce ecommerce fraud losses.

Title from the paper 'Liar Buyer Fraud, and How to Curb It' by Markus Jakobsson, Hossein Siadati and Mayank Dhiman

Liar Buyer Fraud, and How to Curb It authors Markus Jakobsson, Hossein Siadati and Mayank Dhiman describe "liar buyer" fraud, how traditional anti-fraud technology fails to curb this problem, and details the results of experiments of proposed alternative techniques to reduce the problem.

The authors explain that liar buyer fraudsters are generally not repeat fraudsters, but are otherwise honest people who are first-time offenders that act fraudulently as the result of temporary poor judgement. This manifests itself in claims that deliveries were not made. It is believed that at least a quarter, and as much as half, of direct fraud affecting some organisations is the result of liar buyer fraud.

The ideas considered by the authors for their research involve changes to the user interface that promote user honesty:

  1. Disclosure that the customer's computer/device has been recognised
  2. Disclosure of the customer's location (e.g. IP address, post code or location map)
  3. Production of statements by the delivery person
  4. Simplifying methods of goods return
  5. Forcing the customer to make a promise
  6. Attending to angry and upset customers carefully.

The research focused on the first two of these and found they have a significant reduction in customer's willingness to file false claims. The other options look promising and, perhaps with the exception of the third approach, could be undertaken by real-world retailers in A/B/N testing.

Posted on: 03 March 2015 at 07:48 hrs

Comments Comments (0) | Permalink | Send Send | Post to Twitter

20 February 2015

Two Factor Authentication for Many UK Domain Registrants

UK domain registry Nominet is offering increased identity authentication measures for access to its online services.

Partial screen capture of Nominet's online portal for authenticated registrants showing the domain listing that includes clerkendweller.co.uk and clerkendweller.uk

Nominet has enabled optional two-factor authentication (2FA) for online log in. Some organisations have had their web site availability affected by compromise of the domain name, rather than the application or host systems. If your company owns any domains administered by Nominet, you probably have at least one online account.

Nominet Online Services is a system that allows registrants to manage their domain name register entries, including transferring or cancelling a registration, notifying Nominet of a change of details, and moving a domain name to a new registrar. Check all the email addresses used across your domain portfolio, and log in or create accounts. Then enable 2FA. Ensure these credentials are managed by the company and not individuals, or third parties for that matter.

Nominet is responsible for:

  • Top level domains (TLD)
    • cymru
    • wales
    • uk
    • (but not .scot)
  • .uk second level domains (SLDs)
    • co.uk
    • ltd.uk
    • me.uk
    • net.uk
    • org.uk
    • plc.uk
  • .uk restricted
    • .nic.uk
    • .sch.uk

Nominet has also published a short guide to the process. You will also need to manage credentials in domain acquisition processes, employee starters and leavers processes, and in handling security incident events when a 2FA device is lost or stolen.

Of course, you should make sure the designated email accounts are also protected with strong passwords that are changed regularly, and also have two-factor authentication implemented themselves.

Posted on: 20 February 2015 at 13:10 hrs

Comments Comments (0) | Permalink | Send Send | Post to Twitter

17 February 2015

AppSensor Now A Flagship OWASP Project

I was extremely pleased at the release of the v2 AppSensor reference implementation inJanuary. Now I am excited that the Open Web Application Security Project (OWASP) has elevated the project's status.

Photograph of a green pendant flag flying against a blue sky

The completely voluntary OWASP project task force, led by Johanna Curiel, has been working through a backlog of project reviews. Over the last couple of years OWASP AppSensor Project has delivered significant steps in the coverage, quality, and depth of outputs. In fact it is also the only OWASP project that is both a documentation type of project, and a code one.

OWASP has promoted the project to the highest level - Flagship status. As co-leader with John Melton and Dennis Groves, and project founder Michael Coates, I am thrilled with this recognition.

OWASP's project inventory includes nine other Flagship projects and defines flagship status as:

The goal of OWASP Flagship projects is to identify, highlight, and support mainstream OWASP projects that make up a complete application security product of high quality and value to the software security industry. These projects are selected for their strategic value to OWASP and application security as a whole.

OWASP Flagship projects represent projects that are not only mature, but are also projects that OWASP as an organization provides direct support to maintaining. The core mission of OWASP is to make application security visible and so as an organization, OWASP has a vested interest in the success of its Flagship projects. Since Flagship projects have such high visibility, these projects are expected to uphold the most stringent requirements of all OWASP Projects.

It is important to remember all the people who have volunteered their time and effort to reach this stage. So many good and generous people.

Mark Miller has just interviewed John Melton about the OWASP AppSensor Project as part of the OWASP 24/7 podcast series. He provides an overview of application-specific attack detection and response, discusses what is new in version 2.0.0, explains the architectural options, describes the process flow, and mentions what else is on the roadmap.

AppSensor will be participating in this year's AppSec EU application security conference in Amsterdam, from 19th to 22nd May 2015. I hope you can make it.

Posted on: 17 February 2015 at 07:55 hrs

Comments Comments (0) | Permalink | Send Send | Post to Twitter

10 February 2015

NIST SP 800-163 Vetting the Security of Mobile Applications

In the last of my run of three mobile app related posts, US standards body National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has released Special Publication (SP) 800-163 Vetting the Security of Mobile Applications.

One of the tables from NIST SP 800-163 'Vetting the Security of Mobile Applications' showing top level general categories of iOS app vulnerabilities

SP 800-163 is for organisations that plan to implement a mobile app vetting process or consume app vetting results from other parties. It is also intended for developers that are interested in understanding the types of software vulnerabilities that may arise in their apps during the software development life cycle (SDLC). The report is grouped into planning, testing and app approval/rejection sections:

  • Planning
    • Security requirements
    • Understanding vetting limitations
    • Budget and staffing
  • Testing
    • General app security requirements
    • Testing approaches
    • Sharing results
  • App approval/rejection
    • Report and risk auditing
    • Organisation-specific vetting criteria
    • Final approval/rejection.

The guidance is practical and highlights risks that are mobile app specific as well as general application security risks. Appendices B & C provide helpful categorised lists of Android and iOS mobile app vulnerability types respectively.

Posted on: 10 February 2015 at 07:48 hrs

Comments Comments (0) | Permalink | Send Send | Post to Twitter

02 February 2015

CMA Consultations on Consumer Data

The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has two current related consultations.

Photograph of a yellow pendant flag flying on a mask against a blue sky

Data Sharing and Open Data in Banking

Following the publication of the report Data Sharing and Open Data for Banks in December 2014 which examined how financial technology firms can make better use of bank data on behalf of customers through application programming interfaces (APIs) and open data, the government is now seeking views on how an open API standard could be delivered in UK banking.

The call for evidence describes evidence is sought from banks, consumer groups, financial services providers, card schemes, payment institutions, financial technology firms and app and software designers. In particular views are sought about how the recommendations in the report should be developed, what benefits more open data in banking could bring to consumers and how an open API standard in UK banking could best be delivered.

The Data Sharing and Open Data in Banking call for evidence closes on 25th February 2015. Responses can be sent by email to Datasharing.CfE@hmtreasury.gsi.gov.uk or by post to Data Sharing and Open Data in Banking, Banking and Credit Team, HM Treasury, 1 Horse Guards Road, London SW1A 2HQ.

The Commercial Use of Consumer Data

The CMA is also seeking information on the commercial collection and use of UK consumers' data, and the implications (benefits and risks) for firms and consumers.

The briefing document details the scope as UK consumer data collected both inside and outside the UK in the context of the internet and more widely; collected directly by businesses as well as by appliances, applications and cloud services; collected at any time, both with and without the knowledge of consumers; includes both data on specific transactions for goods and services (including paid for and free-at-use services) as well as data not specific to such transactions; and used by firms dealing directly with consumers (for instance to target groups and individuals with offers), and third party firms (using data sourced from firms dealing directly with consumers) who analyse this data to provide commercial services to other firms.

The consultation on Commercial Use of Consumer Data closes at 5pm on Friday 6 March 2015. Responses can be submitted using the online form or by completing a form and returning to ConsumerData@cma.gsi.gov.uk or by post to Consumer Data Call for Information, Competition and Markets Authority, 7th floor Victoria House, 37 Southampton Row, London WC1B 4AD.

Posted on: 02 February 2015 at 10:32 hrs

Comments Comments (0) | Permalink | Send Send | Post to Twitter

23 January 2015

Undertaking by Office for Data Protection Act Breach

UK privacy regulator The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has published details of its enforcement action against shoe retailer Office.

Partial screen capture of a page from Office e-commerce website www.office.co.uk

The action relates to the unauthorised access of more than a million customer records on a legacy system that was not being protected adequately.

Office Holdings Ltd has signed an undertaking to comply with the fifth (retention) and seventh (security) data protection principles.

The undertaking requires Office to:

  • Undertake regular penetration testing of its websites and servers
  • Implement new data protection policy documents, including a retention and disposal policy for customer data
  • Provide initial and refresher formal data protection training to all Office employees
  • Implement any other security measures as necessary to protect personal data
  • Only retain personal data as long as necessary.

Office seem lucky not to have been fined. There is nothing above that they shouldn't already have been doing and "exposure of decommissioned software/services" is one of the most common classes of IT security vulnerabilities in online systems that result in failures to secure personal data identified by the ICO last May. This document was published by the ICO at about the same time as the Office incident occurred so I think other retailers have been warned and would not be treated as lightly for a similar breach now.

Posted on: 23 January 2015 at 08:34 hrs

Comments Comments (0) | Permalink | Send Send | Post to Twitter

14 January 2015

Application Security and Privacy Mapping 2015

I have updated my chart detailing the most important guidance, standards, legislation and organisations that can influence mobile and web application development security and privacy in the UK.

Principal Influences on UK Web Applications' mind map diagram for January 2015

For a fuller explanation, read my post about the update last October.

Access the Principal Influences on UK Applications 2015 chart, hosted on my company's web site.

Posted on: 14 January 2015 at 10:39 hrs

Comments Comments (2) | Permalink | Send Send | Post to Twitter

09 January 2015

FTC Final Order Against Snapchat

Following a public comment period in May-June 2014, at the end of December the US consumer protection body Federal Trade Commission has approved a final order settling charges against Snapchat that lasts for twenty years.

Part of the FTC's final order against Snapchat Inc showing the text 'VII. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent within ninety (90) days after the date of service of this order, shall file with the Commission a true and accurate report, in writing, setting forth in detail the manner and form of its compliance with this order. Within ten (10) days of receipt of written notice from a representative of the Commission, it shall submit an additional true and accurate written report. VIII. This order will terminate on December 23, 2034, or twenty (20) years from the most recent date that the United States or the Commission files a complaint (with or without an accompanying consent decree) in federal court alleging any violation of the order, whichever comes later; provided, however, that the filing of such a complaint will not affect the duration of: A. any Part in this order that terminates in fewer than twenty (20) years; B. this order's application to any respondent that is not named as a defendant in such complaint; and C. this order if such complaint is filed after the order has terminated pursuant to this Part.'

The charges related to how Snapchat deceived consumers about the automatic deletion of private images sent through the service.

The key FTC documents are:

The final order, 23rd December 2014::

  • Prohibits Snapchat from misrepresenting how its products or services maintain and protect the privacy, security, or confidentiality of any covered information
  • Requires Snapchat to establish and implement, and thereafter maintain, a comprehensive privacy program
  • Requires Snapchat to obtain an initial and, for 20 years, biennial assessments and reports from a qualified, objective, independent third-party professional, who uses procedures and standards generally accepted in the profession
  • Requires Snapchat to retain for 5 years records of all communications, complaints, notifications about possible order compliance failures, and assessment materials
  • Requires Snapchat to ensure it provides a copy of the order, and keep evidence of this, to all current and future subsidiaries, current and future principals, officers, directors, and managers, and to all current and future employees, agents, and representatives having responsibilities relating to the subject matter of the order
  • Requires Snapchat to notify the FTC of relevant corporate structure changes
  • Requires Snapchat to provide, within 90 days of the order, a document detailing the manner and form of its compliance with the order.

The order ends on 23rd December 2034 — an additional twenty year compliance overhead on top of the privacy program they should already have had in place.

I wonder if US consumers are also affected by the Moonpig API saga.

Posted on: 09 January 2015 at 08:42 hrs

Comments Comments (0) | Permalink | Send Send | Post to Twitter

07 January 2015

Moonpig Website Vulnerability, Incident and Breaches

Personalised greetings card service Moonpig was all over the popular news yesterday.

Partial screen of the Moonpig customer support page that states 'A MESSAGE TO OUR CUSTOMERS: You may have seen reports this morning about our Apps and the security of customer details when shopping with Moonpig. We can assure our customers that all password and payment information is and has always been safe. The security of your shopping experience at Moonpig is extremely important to us and we are investigating the detail behind today's report as a priority. As a precaution, our Apps will be unavailable for a time whilst we conduct these investigations and we will work to resume a normal service as soon as possible. The desktop and mobile websites are unaffected.'

Paul Price found an exploitable weakness in Moonpig's public API and contacted them in August 2013, and again a year later. Eventually he gave up and published details on Monday.

Following much Twitter activity, yesterday Moonpig tweeted:

We are aware of claims re customer data and can confirm that all password and payment information is and has always been safe.

Interesting spin, since the vulnerability relates to other personal data — passwords or payment card holder data. Shortly afterwards, Moonpig tweeted:

As a precaution, our Apps will be unavailable for a time whilst we conduct these investigations: http://www.moonpig.com/uk/Information/Press/

Moonpig also added the following message to their customer support page:

A MESSAGE TO OUR CUSTOMERS: You may have seen reports this morning about our Apps and the security of customer details when shopping with Moonpig. We can assure our customers that all password and payment information is and has always been safe. The security of your shopping experience at Moonpig is extremely important to us and we are investigating the detail behind today's report as a priority. As a precaution, our Apps will be unavailable for a time whilst we conduct these investigations and we will work to resume a normal service as soon as possible. The desktop and mobile websites are unaffected.

Although Moonpig has not responded to the core issue (personal information), the published details appear to indicate:

  • Breach of principle 7 of the Data Protection Act
  • Breach of the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS)
  • A disregard for customers' data when the company has been aware of the problem for so long, and it continued to collect and process personal data through the period.

PCI DSS is only relevant here if the system components for api.moonpig.com are within the PCI environment. There is no need for a cardholder data breach for there to be a breach of compliance with PCI DSS. The main www.moonpig.com systems are definitely within scope since payment cardholder data is collected on forms generated by the website and the data is sent back to the same Moonpig website.

Nevertheless, by passing through the shopping basket and check out, other application security and privacy concerns are evident such as system information leakage, sending personal data over unencrypted channels, and third-party code on checkout pages.

The API issue and the other public issues on the web site do not seem to even meet the baseline security controls published for years by OWASP.

The help page about Payment and Personal Details Security states:

Security is an important priority for us and we are committed to protecting your privacy. We are registered as required under the Data Protection Act 1998 (Reg. Z4843659) and we use the most up-to-date technology available to protect your personal details. To avoid the risk of computer fraud, your credit card number is not stored in our system at any point in the payment process. Please see our privacy and security policy here.

That is clearly not true and might therefore be a breach of the Advertising Standards Authority Online Remit. The above also hints that somehow payment cardholder data is safe because it "is not stored". That's good, but it is not the same as saying it is not processed by Moonpig systems at all, which is likely to be misleading to some consumers. The terms and conditions say very little about protecting personal data - except from "in transit", and as we know that is not true for all parts of the web site that collect or display personal data.

If that is not enough for Moonpig, if the API vulnerability also affects United States customers, we will see the US Federal Trade Commission get involved. That body has been very strict in recent enforcement actions for online privacy failings. Affected US readers can submit complaints to the FTC online.

Posted on: 07 January 2015 at 12:55 hrs

Comments Comments (0) | Permalink | Send Send | Post to Twitter

17 December 2014

Business Failure at the Speed of Software

This week we saw two events where the automated nature of processes lead to major business failures.

Partial extract from the RepricerExpress showing some of the liability clauses in its terms and conditions of service published at http://www.repricerexpress.com/terms-and-conditions/

On Friday, a number of Amazon retailers were affected by a pricing problem. Those that had chosen to subscribe to the third-party RepricerExpress service that automatically adjusts prices to match or better competitors, found their products were being sold for as little as 1 pence. Those organisations that despatched their own goods were able to spot the problem themselves, but those that used Amazon to stock and ship product, were affected more seriously because Amazon simply carried on regardless for some time.

The cause of the hour-long issue has been fixed. RepricerExpress's clients are outraged, and of course for some of them this could put them out of business. I am sure RepricerExpress will be reminding its clients what they agreed to in the RepricerExpress end user licence agreement (partial screenshot in the image above). Including for example that the maximum liability "shall be limited to a sum equal to the total Licence Fees paid to the Licensor in the period of 12 months considered retrospectively from the date the cause of action arose". So, how much would you pay for something that can reduce your product prices by almost 100%? £20-70 per month apparently seems to be the answer.

Express indeed.

Then on Monday, taxi-like company Uber, which had another PR disaster last month, managed to incense everyone by rapidly escalating its prices in Sydney as "demand increased" i.e. people attempted to leave the city during the dreadful cafe hostage event. Later reacting to pressure, Uber cancelled the change and offered some free services instead and a refund to those affected by its pricing.

These have a common factor of automated software making unmoderated changes to pricing that would clearly be perceived as unreasonable to a human. And doing it fast.

Superfast fail.

Automation is good — but enumerate all the possibilities, and implement limits, checks and alerts. And monitor these. And more importantly, check your contracts and who is liable for what. Then do a risk assessment and make sure someone senior reviews this and makes some decision about the risks. Can you survive the unexpected?

Posted on: 17 December 2014 at 17:23 hrs

Comments Comments (0) | Permalink | Send Send | Post to Twitter

More Entries

Administrative : Application Security and Privacy
ISO/IEC 18004:2006 QR code for https://clerkendweller.uk

Requested by 54.204.74.171 on Thursday, 28 May 2015 at 18:56 hrs (London date/time)

Please read our terms of use and obtain professional advice before undertaking any actions based on the opinions, suggestions and generic guidance presented here. Your organisation's situation will be unique and all practices and controls need to be assessed with consideration of your own business context.

Terms of use https://www.clerkendweller.uk/page/terms
Privacy statement https://www.clerkendweller.uk/page/privacy
© 2008-2015 clerkendweller.uk