Category Archives: Internet Security
Cyber Security in Pakistan: Government Initiatives and Internet … – Dispatch news Desk
Internet technology in Pakistan has grown rapidly creating a digital revolution. As a result, the social and economic growth of the country has also greatly improved. But unfortunately, it has also made the country vulnerable to new threats, specifically, when it comes to cybersecurity. Lately, cyber-attacks have become more rampant, costly, and sophisticated. It does not only affect individuals but government institutions and businesses as well. Here, we are going to explore cybersecurity in Pakistan including the challenges and improvements that need to be done.
The digital economy in Pakistan is continuously expanding. In fact, there are over 100 million internet users in the country. At the same time, the number of e-commerce businesses has also grown. Pakistan has a sluggish approach toward cybersecurity and social media and recently, there is an increase in cybersecurity incidents. In fact, in 2020 alone, there was a 300 percent increase in cyber-attacks.
Is cyber security important to Pakistan?, Unfortunately, Pakistans cybersecurity is facing a lot of challenges due to several factors. One of its major challenges is the peoples lack of understanding about cybersecurity. Most internet users in the country are not implementing cybersecurity measures, such as keeping their software and applications up to date, using strong passwords, or using VPNs. There are a lot of VPNs out there but unveiling ExpressVPNs security and speed keeps you protected.
The lack of resources and expertise is also another challenge in Pakistans cybersecurity. Most organizations do not have sufficient funds, making them unable to invest in expertise and cybersecurity infrastructure. Due to this lack of resources, these organizations became exposed to cyber threats since they cant protect themselves against these attacks.
Another crucial challenge is the absence of cybersecurity laws and regulations in the country. Currently, the laws and regulations in Pakistan do not provide substantial protection against cyber threats. As a result, individuals and businesses have become more vulnerable to cyber-attacks.
Despite having a lot of challenges in the cybersecurity infrastructure of Pakistan, there is still a lot of room for improvement. For instance, increasing awareness about cybersecurity among the general public. This can be accomplished by launching education and training programs so that the people will know what are the basic cybersecurity measures and how they can protect themselves against cyber attacks.
Another way is to encourage businesses to invest funds for expertise and cybersecurity infrastructure. This can help in protecting your business against financial damage caused by cyber-attacks. It can also make your company competitive and reputable, as a result, customers will be impressed since you are taking cybersecurity seriously.
One of the major concerns of individuals, businesses, and the government of Pakistan is their cybersecurity infrastructure. This is because cyber-attacks can likely lead to serious financial damage. At the same time, it can also greatly affect the reputation of the company. Unfortunately, the current cybersecurity infrastructure of the country is not sufficient enough to address the increasing cyber threats. However, there are ways that this can be improved such as investing in expertise and cybersecurity infrastructure, extending awareness, and most of all strengthening laws and regulations. By accomplishing these necessary steps, Pakistan can enjoy a safer and more secure digital environment.
Read more from the original source:
Cyber Security in Pakistan: Government Initiatives and Internet ... - Dispatch news Desk
You Can’t Trust Your Browser’s ‘Lock’ to Tell You a Website Is Safe – Lifehacker
When you browse the internet, you probably notice a small lock icon that appears in the URL bar. Its common internet security advice to look for this lock whenever visiting a new site, to make sure your connection is actually secure. Google, however, announced it will retire the lock, since it doesnt think it serves the security purpose it once did. So, how will you be able to tell if a site is safe going forward? Google has a plan.
The lock has been used since the 90s to signify when the site youre on is using HTTPS vs. HTTP. HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol) is, simply, the protocol that allows for transfer of data across the internet. Its what allows you to visit Lifehacker.com, and, on the flip side, is what allows us to share our articles each day. HTTPS (Hypertext Transfer Protocol Secure) is essentially HTTP but encrypted: Its the same underlying transfer protocol, but, now, the connection between your device and the site youre visiting is protected from third parties.
Cybersecurity experts, including Google, pushed HTTPS hard, because of its superior security protections when compared to standard HTTP. Simply switching to HTTPS helps to ensure bad actors cant hijack the connection, so you can read about lifehacks without worrying about being spied on or getting hacked by third parties. That lock icon symbolizes that secure connection, and its omission should signify the connection cant be trusted.
However, HTTPS isnt a sanctuary from scams and hackers. It merely blocks third parties from interfering with your connection. If the other end of the connection is compromised, HTTPS wont do a damn thing to help you. Google highlights that almost all phishing sites use HTTPS, not HTTP: You could easily click a fake website using HTTPS and get scammed, all with that comforting lock icon resting in the URL bar.
Thats the crux of the issue as Google sees it: Theres a discrepancy between what people think the lock means, and what it actually symbolizes. Google says too many people assume the lock means the site theyre visiting is totally safe to use, when all the lock really means is the site is using HTTPS. In fact, in a survey, 89% of participants misunderstood what the lock really means. This isnt a Chrome problem, either: Most web browsers use a lock icon to confirm an HTTPS connection. Its just Google is the first to do away with it.
Anyone who clicks the lock can see theres more to it than a simple safety indicator: Of course, the first option lets you know if the connection is secure, and whether your personal data is protected on the site. However, you can also see information about cookies and data used by the site, followed by a link to Chrome settings for that data. Theres also an option to adjust the overall settings for the site youre visiting, which lets you change permissions for things like location, camera, microphone, etc.
Between the lack of clarity concerning what the lock actually means, as well as the expanded settings option the lock provides, Google would rather just scrap the lock altogether. With Chrome 117, which the company plans to release in September, the lock will be no more, replaced by an icon that resembles a settings menu:
When clicked, this icon shows a similar dropdown to the lock icon, including secure connection message, cookies and site data settings, as well as site settings options. However, youll also see quick actions for permissions like location, microphone, and motion sensors, which makes it easy to quickly manage your data on any given website.
Google plans to remove the lock on Android at the same time as desktop. It also will remove the icon from iOS, but, since it isnt tappable in the first place, not much will change for Chrome browsers on iPhone.
The lock will remain until September, but you can get rid of it yourself today. Google is making the settings icon available in the Chrome Canary app, where it delivers early builds of features before releasing them to the public Chrome app.
Read more:
You Can't Trust Your Browser's 'Lock' to Tell You a Website Is Safe - Lifehacker
CERT-In issues cyber alert against ‘Royal’ ransomware that attacks health, education sectors – The Hindu
The Indian cyber security agency has issued a warning against "Royal ransomware" virus that attacks critical sectors such as communications, health care, education and even individuals and seeks pay-off in Bitcoins for not leaking personal data in the public domain.
TheIndian Computer Emergency Response Team or CERT-In has stated in a latest advisory that this Internet spread ransomware sneaks in through phishing emails, malicious downloads, abusing RDP (remote desktop protocol) and other forms of social engineering. This ransomware, cyber experts told PTI, was first detected in January 2022 and it got active sometime around September last year even as the U.S. authorities issued advisories against its spread.
Royal ransomware is targeting multiple crucial infrastructure sectors, including manufacturing, communications, health care, education, etc. or individuals. The ransomware encrypts the files on a victim's system and attackers ask for ransom payment in bitcoin," the advisory said.
"Attackers also threaten to leak the data in public domain if denied payment," the advisory said. The CERT-In is the federal technology arm to combat cyber attacks and guard the cyber space against phishing and hacking assaults and similar online attacks.
The advisory said the "threat actors have followed many tactics to mislead victims into installing the remote access software as a part of call back phishing, where they pretend to be various service providers."
The ransomware infects "using a specific approach to encrypt files depending on the size of the content." "It will divide the content into two segments i.e. encrypted and unencrypted. The malware may choose a small amount of data from a large file to encrypt so as to increase the chances of avoiding caution or detection. It adds 532 bytes at the end of encrypted file for writing randomly generated encrypted key, file size of encrypted file and encryption percentages parametre," the CERT-In said.
The lethality of this virus can be gauged from the fact that before starting encryption of the data it attacks, the ransomware checks the state of targeted files and deletes shadow copies to prevent recovery through service.
After intruding into network, the malware tries to make persistence and lateral movement in the network. Even after getting access of domain controller, the ransomware disables anti-virus protocols. Moreover, the ransomware exfiltrates a large amount of data before encryption, the advisory said.
It has been observed, it said, that 'Royal ransomware' does not share information such as the ransom amount, any instructions, etc. on a note like other ransomware, instead it connects with the victim directly via a .onion URL route (darkweb browser).
The agency has suggested some counter-measures and Internet hygiene protocols to guard from this ransomware attack and others like it. Maintain offline backup of data, and regularly maintain backup and restoration as this practice will ensure the organisation will not be severely interrupted and have irretrievable data.
It is also recommended to have all backup data encrypted, immutable (i.e., cannot be altered or deleted) covering the entire organisations data infrastructure, it said.
The users should enable protected files in the Windows Operating System to prevent unauthorised changes to critical files and they should disable remote desktop connections, employ least-privileged accounts and limit users who can log in using remote desktop part from setting an account lockout policy.
A number of other best practices have been suggested by the agency, including basic ones such as having an updated anti-virus in the computer systems and not clicking on unsolicited emails from unknown links.
Continue reading here:
CERT-In issues cyber alert against 'Royal' ransomware that attacks health, education sectors - The Hindu
Port St. Lucie Tattoo Artist Pleads Guilty to Producing Child Sexual … – Department of Justice
MIAMI Dustin Singleton, 42, of Hobe Sound, pleaded guilty before U.S. District Court Judge Aileen M. Cannon to three counts of producing child sexual abuse material, possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and possession of a firearm and ammunition as a convicted felon.
On April 29, 2022, following a traffic stop in Stuart, Fla., Martin County Sheriffs Office (MCSO) detectives found 32.86 grams of methamphetamine with a purity level of 98%, approximately 5 grams of cocaine, less than a gram of fentanyl, approximately 195 grams of marijuana, several glass pipes, hypodermic needles, a loaded Smith & Wesson, Bodyguard .380 caliber semi-automatic pistol, a loaded Glock type 9mm pistol built from a Polymer80 PF940C kit (Glock clone), several unused baggies, several pill bottles with various controlled substances, $1,104.00 in U.S. currency, 10 cellphones, and three tablets in Singletons vehicle. Singleton is a convicted felon and prohibited by law from possessing firearms.
In July 2022, a Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agent and two MCSO detectives received information that tattoo artist Singleton aka Greenhouse exchanged narcotics and tattoos for sexual activity with minor females at his Port St. Lucie tattoo shop. Two rounds of search warrants were obtained the first one for narcotics and the second one for child sexual abuse material, which targeted Singletons electronic devices. Forensic examinations of the devices revealed numerous images of Singleton and Elijah Daniel Shaw, both engaging in sexually explicit activity with a freshly tattooed 13-year-old minor female victimrecorded inside the tattoo shop.
On August 2, 2022, law enforcement arrested Shaw who identified images/videos of himself, Singleton, and the 13-year-old minor female victim and confirmed that the video was recorded inside Singletons tattoo parlor. A HSI special agent applied for additional search warrants for Singletons and Shaws social media and iCloud accounts. Forensic Examiners located numerous videos of child sexual abuse material, spanning six hours, including videos of Singleton tattooing the 13-year-old, and later holding a smoking glass pipe for the victim, while he and Shaw both engaged in sexually explicit activity with her. Investigators located videos revealing two additional minor victims, each 17 years of age, engaging in sexually explicit activity with Singleton. Singleton had secretly recorded himself having sex with the minors, using his tattoo shops video surveillance system, which he saved in his iCloud.
For each of the three counts of producing child sexual abuse material, Singleton faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years in prison and up to 30 years in prison followed by a lifetime of supervised release. In addition, he will be required to register as a sex offender.
For the drug distribution charge, Singleton faces up to 20 years in prison, followed by at least 3 years of supervised release.
For the firearm charge, Singleton faces up to 10 years in prison, followed by supervised release for up to 3 years.
Elijah Daniel Shaw, on January 25, pleaded guilty to producing and possessing child sexual abuse material, before U.S. Magistrate Judge Melissa Damian, sitting in Miami. Shaw is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Aileen M. Cannon on June 27, in Fort Pierce.
United States Attorney Markenzy Lapointe for the Southern District of Florida and acting Special Agent in Charge Michael E. Buckley, HSI, Miami, announced the guilty plea.
HSI Fort Pierce Office investigated the case, with assistance from Martin County Sheriffs Office, St. Lucie County Sheriffs Office, and Port St. Lucie Police Department. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Carmen Lineberger and Michael Porter are prosecuting it.
This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood (PSC), a nationwide initiative launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse. Led by United States Attorneys Offices and the Criminal Divisions Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, PSC marshals federal, state, and local resources to locate, apprehend and prosecute individuals, who sexually exploit children, and to identify and rescue victims. For more information about the PSC initiative and for information regarding Internet safety, please visit http://www.justice.gov/psc.
Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at http://www.flsd.uscourts.gov or at http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.govunder case number 22-cr-14048.
###
Read more here:
Port St. Lucie Tattoo Artist Pleads Guilty to Producing Child Sexual ... - Department of Justice
TD Announces Revised and Extended Long-term IDA Agreement … – TD Stories
TORONTO, May 5, 2023 /CNW/ - TD Bank Group ("TD" or "the Bank") (TSX: TD) (NYSE: TD) today confirmed it entered into an amended Insured Deposit Account (IDA) Agreement with The Charles Schwab Corporation ("Schwab"). TD and Schwab amended the IDA to reflect the current market and interest rate environment. In comparison to the existing agreement, the revised agreement extends the term by three years to July 1, 2034, and provides for lower deposit balances in its first six years, for higher balances in the latter years. Specifically, until September 2025, the aggregate amount of fixed rate obligations will serve as the floor. Thereafter, the floor will be set at US$60 billion up from US$50 billion in the existing agreement.
This robust agreement provides TD with greater certainty around future deposit balances while providing Schwab additional flexibility and strengthening TD's partnership with Schwab.
"We are pleased to further extend our agreement with Schwab," said Bharat Masrani, Group President and CEO, TD Bank Group. "Our relationship with Schwab, one of the leading investment services firms in the U.S., delivers strategic and financial value to TD and our shareholders."
About TD
The Toronto-Dominion Bank and its subsidiaries are collectively known as TD Bank Group ("TD"). TD is the fifth largest bank in North America by assets and serves over 27 million customers in four key businesses operating in a number of locations in financial centres around the globe: Canadian Personal and Commercial Banking, including TD Canada Trust and TD Auto Finance Canada; U.S. Retail, including TD Bank, America's Most Convenient Bank, TD Auto Finance U.S., TD Wealth (U.S.), and an investment in The Charles Schwab Corporation; Wealth Management and Insurance, including TD Wealth (Canada), TD Direct Investing, and TD Insurance; and Wholesale Banking, including TD Securities. TD also ranks among the world's leading online financial services firms, with more than 15 million active online and mobile customers. TD had $1.9 trillion in assets on January 31, 2023. The Toronto-Dominion Bank trades under the symbol "TD" on the Toronto and New York Stock Exchanges.
Caution Regarding Forward-Looking Statements
From time to time, the Bank (as defined in this document) makes written and/or oral forward-looking statements, including in this document, in other filings with Canadian regulators or the United States (U.S.) Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and in other communications. In addition, representatives of the Bank may make forward-looking statements orally to analysts, investors, the media and others. All such statements are made pursuant to the "safe harbour" provisions of, and are intended to be forward-looking statements under, applicable Canadian and U.S. securities legislation, including the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements made in this document, the Management's Discussion and Analysis ("2022 MD&A") in the Bank's 2022 Annual Report under the heading "Economic Summary and Outlook", under the headings "Key Priorities for 2023" and "Operating Environment and Outlook" for the Canadian Personal and Commercial Banking, U.S. Retail, Wealth Management and Insurance, and Wholesale Banking segments, and under the heading "2022 Accomplishments and Focus for 2023" for the Corporate segment, and in other statements regarding the Bank's objectives and priorities for 2023 and beyond and strategies to achieve them, the regulatory environment in which the Bank operates, and the Bank's anticipated financial performance. Forward-looking statements are typically identified by words such as "will", "would", "should", "believe", "expect", "anticipate", "intend", "estimate", "plan", "goal", "target", "may", and "could". By their very nature, these forward-looking statements require the Bank to make assumptions and are subject to inherent risks and uncertainties, general and specific. Especially in light of the uncertainty related to the physical, financial, economic, political, and regulatory environments, such risks and uncertainties many of which are beyond the Bank's control and the effects of which can be difficult to predict may cause actual results to differ materially from the expectations expressed in the forward-looking statements. Risk factors that could cause, individually or in the aggregate, such differences include: strategic, credit, market (including equity, commodity, foreign exchange, interest rate, and credit spreads), operational (including technology, cyber security, and infrastructure), model, insurance, liquidity, capital adequacy, legal, regulatory compliance and conduct, reputational, environmental and social, and other risks. Examples of such risk factors include general business and economic conditions in the regions in which the Bank operates; geopolitical risk; inflation, rising rates and recession; the economic, financial, and other impacts of pandemics, including the COVID-19 pandemic; the ability of the Bank to execute on long-term strategies and shorter-term key strategic priorities, including the successful completion and integration of acquisitions and dispositions, business retention plans, and strategic plans; technology and cyber security risk (including cyber-attacks, data security breaches or technology failures) on the Bank's information technology, internet, network access or other voice or data communications systems or services; model risk; fraud activity; the failure of third parties to comply with their obligations to the Bank or its affiliates, including relating to the care and control of information, and other risks arising from the Bank's use of third-party service providers; the impact of new and changes to, or application of, current laws and regulations, including without limitation tax laws, capital guidelines and liquidity regulatory guidance; regulatory oversight and compliance risk; increased competition from incumbents and new entrants (including Fintechs and big technology competitors); shifts in consumer attitudes and disruptive technology; exposure related to significant litigation and regulatory matters; ability of the Bank to attract, develop, and retain key talent; changes to the Bank's credit ratings; changes in foreign exchange rates, interest rates, credit spreads and equity prices; increased funding costs and market volatility due to market illiquidity and competition for funding; Interbank Offered Rate (IBOR) transition risk; critical accounting estimates and changes to accounting standards, policies, and methods used by the Bank; existing and potential international debt crises; environmental and social risk (including climate change); and the occurrence of natural and unnatural catastrophic events and claims resulting from such events. The Bank cautions that the preceding list is not exhaustive of all possible risk factors and other factors could also adversely affect the Bank's results. For more detailed information, please refer to the "Risk Factors and Management" section of the 2022 MD&A, as may be updated in subsequently filed quarterly reports to shareholders and news releases (as applicable) related to any events or transactions discussed under the heading "Significant Acquisitions" or "Significant and Subsequent Events, and Pending Acquisitions" in the relevant MD&A, which applicable releases may be found on http://www.td.com. All such factors, as well as other uncertainties and potential events, and the inherent uncertainty of forward-looking statements, should be considered carefully when making decisions with respect to the Bank. The Bank cautions readers not to place undue reliance on the Bank's forward-looking statements. Material economic assumptions underlying the forward-looking statements contained in this document are set out in the 2022 MD&A under the heading "Economic Summary and Outlook", under the headings "Key Priorities for 2023" and "Operating Environment and Outlook" for the Canadian Personal and Commercial Banking, U.S. Retail, Wealth Management and Insurance, and Wholesale Banking segments, and under the heading "2022 Accomplishments and Focus for 2023" for the Corporate segment, each as may be updated in subsequently filed quarterly reports to shareholders. Any forward-looking statements contained in this document represent the views of management only as of the date hereof and are presented for the purpose of assisting the Bank's shareholders and analysts in understanding the Bank's financial position, objectives and priorities and anticipated financial performance as at and for the periods ended on the dates presented, and may not be appropriate for other purposes. The Bank does not undertake to update any forward-looking statements, whether written or oral, that may be made from time to time by or on its behalf, except as required under applicable securities legislation.
SOURCE TD Bank Group
Read more:
TD Announces Revised and Extended Long-term IDA Agreement ... - TD Stories
Ellsworth Man Sentenced to 25 Years in Federal Prison for Child … – Department of Justice
Bryan Ross, 26, from Ellsworth, Iowa, was sentenced April 28, 2023, to 25 years in federal prison for Producing and Distributing Child Pornography.
At the hearing, evidence established that between July 2019, and February 2022, Ross knowingly harassed and coerced minors online via Facebook and Snapchat to take sexually explicit photos and videos of themselves to send to him. Evidence further established that Ross received and attempted to receive visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and distributed them to others online.
Ross was sentenced in Sioux City by United States District Court Chief Judge Leonard T. Strand to 300 months imprisonment and fined $1,000. Ross was also ordered to pay $18,649 in restitution to the victims. Ross must also serve an 8-year term of supervised released following the prison term. There is no parole in the federal system.
This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse. Led by the United States Attorneys Offices and the Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who sexually exploit children, and to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit http://www.usdoj.gov/psc. For more information about internet safety education, please visit http://www.usdoj.gov/psc and click on the tab resources.
The case was investigated by Department of Homeland Security and prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Kraig R. Hamit.
Court file information at https://ecf.iand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl.
The case file number is 22-3016. Follow us on Twitter @USAO_NDIA.
Continued here:
Ellsworth Man Sentenced to 25 Years in Federal Prison for Child ... - Department of Justice
Why Continuous Compliance Is a Necessity – Spiceworks News and Insights
Despite the challenges facing virtually every IT Operations team, compliance initiatives are no longer reserved for the unlucky few its a fundamental requirement for all of IT. But how can teams solve their most pressing security frustrations? It starts with continuous compliance, says Claire McDyre, product manager at Puppet by Perforce.
Security is a national concern, with the White House recently announcing its investments in a resilient future and dismantling threat actorsOpens a new window . This strategy aims to defend critical infrastructure, extend the scope, and share liability by expanding the use of minimum cybersecurity requirements in critical sectors to ensure national security and public safety and harmonizing regulations to reduce the burden of compliance. Further, organizations can reduce the cost of compliance by adhering to best practices within their everyday IT procedures, systems, and tools.
Companies are now expected to meet regulatory and internal best-practice standards, resulting in IT operations (ITOps) teams being pressed to work increasingly efficiently across heterogeneous technologies, all while remaining mindful of cost containment and limited availability of skilled resources. Risk management programs, formalized processes designed to keep organizations safe across a capricious threat landscape, are driving many of these requirements.
Failure to comply with a regulated mandate can result in millions of dollars in fines. For example, severe violations of the European Unions (EU) general data protection regulation (GDPR) can lead to penalties of up to 20 million eurosOpens a new window , or up to 4% of the total global turnover of the preceding fiscal year, whichever is higher! But how can teams solve their most pressing security frustrations? It starts with a proactive and preventative approach with continuous compliance.
For enterprise organizations, compliance extends beyond a single audit. The IT infrastructure landscape is constantly evolving, bringing to light two important aspects the audit process and the resulting enforcement of the policy. These two components are time intensive and ultimately highlight the importance of a robust audit framework. Continuous compliance is the process of automating those practices to ensure technology is constantly audit-ready and continuously protected from threats.
According to a 2023 State of DevOps surveyOpens a new window , self-service platform teams are actively seeking better methodologies for maintaining infrastructure security and compliance. In fact, over 40% said they intend to automate their platforms governance, compliance, and information security policies over the next 12 months.
See More: Using Data to Boost Developer Happiness
Compliance is a tactical declaration that all stated rules and requirements are satisfied, and it requires proactively mitigating the risks that have already been identified. Each risk requires its own process with audit readiness, and being constantly prepared ideally, well before an auditmeans problems can be addressed before they have negative consequences. It also streamlines the formal audit process, which now takes on the role of validating the appropriateness and completion of ongoing compliance activities.
Audits are incredibly burdensome, partly due to the proliferation of devices and users as companies grow. Audits are perceived as formal exercises performed only when mandated by regulatory mandates. Complicating things further, security benchmarks upon which audits are based continuously evolve to keep pace with new risks, updated standards, and new technologies.
Being continuously compliant means consistently complying with various requirements outlined by common industry standards. Ongoing activities should include secure configuration management, as well as access control, vulnerability management, and malware defenses. Many opportunities exist to simplify these requirements through automation, greatly easing the audit burden as a result.
The center for internet security (CIS) benchmarks are a great resource for secure configuration management that many organizations have adopted as the industry standard for system measurement. The benchmarks are prescriptive guidelines on how to securely configure the variety of technologies being managed. Another Security configuration standardpopular with U.S. government agencies is the defense information security agencys (DISA) security technical implementation guides (STIGs).
Organizations are often required to comply with more than one regulation. Fortunately, all of them carry a common expectation of good security hygiene and adopting and implementing CIS benchmarks as the foundation establishes crosswalks for demonstrating compliance to them all. That foundational step will contribute greatly towards the overall requirements of any regulation.
After a comprehensive audit, organizations will know how configurations need to be altered initially to become compliant. But what about ongoing enforcement? And what happens when the standards being enforced are updated?
The manual evaluation and enforcement of secure configurations is time-consuming and complex, and fraught with the potential of human error, leading many ITOps to reject involvement until the security team has identified a risk. However, being proactive doesnt have to burden forward-thinking ITOps teams, even when security standards change.
Automation can facilitate compliance with minimal imposition on an ITOps teams valuable time and resources. Focus can then shift to projects with greater business value. Being prepared for an audit at a moments notice brings peace of mind, as does having instant insight into the state of compliance throughout the entire estate, inclusive of on-premise, cloud, and hybrid environments. Autonomous scans quickly identify areas of non-compliance, and failures are remediated consistently and without intervention. The desired state is enforced automatically by declaring policy as code, utilizing expert-built content and tailored modules. Embedded CIS scanning ensures compliance is always evaluated against the most up-to-date security standards, accommodating the latest risks and new technologies.
Whether its one person managing dozens of servers or a team managing thousands of servers, its critical to have control and clear visibility to ensure compliance with regulatory frameworks and internal security policies. Remember, achieving initial compliance is just one aspect of security.
Continuous compliance enforcement is the best solution for managing secure configurations. Ask your ITOps team about the time spent preparing for their last audit and addressing all the discovered shortfalls chances are, it was frantic and stressful. By adopting continuous compliance for secure system configurations as a foundational step, organizations will be positioned to successfully navigate their current and future security or compliance mandates.
What steps have you taken toward continuous compliance? How has it benefited you? Share with us on FacebookOpens a new window , TwitterOpens a new window , and LinkedInOpens a new window .
Image Source: Shutterstock
Read the original:
Why Continuous Compliance Is a Necessity - Spiceworks News and Insights
CBP Makes Changes to CBP One App – Customs and Border Protection
WASHINGTON U.S. Customs and Border Protection today announced changes to the CBP One app to expand the number of appointments available, allow for additional time to complete requests, and prioritize those who have been waiting the longest. Scheduling an appointment in CBP One provides a safe, orderly, and humane process for noncitizens to access ports of entry rather than attempting to enter the United States irregularly.
CBP One will transition to a new appointment scheduling system on May 10 that will address previous volume issues around specific times in the day by making appointments available for 23 hours each day instead of at a designated time, allowing for more flexibility and access to the scheduling system. Noncitizens will receive notification to confirm their appointments after submitting their request. CBP will also increase the number of appointments available to approximately 1,000 each day, and will prioritize noncitizens who have waited the longest.
Specifically, CBP One App will now:
Importantly, these new changes will not change the way noncitizens initially register themselves, their families, or others via the CBP One app, nor does it change the requirements for individuals to confirm their appointments. The enhanced process will give noncitizens more time to navigate the appointment scheduling app, along with prioritizing noncitizens who have been waiting the longest for an appointment.
These changes will provide noncitizens with limited connectivity the same opportunity to schedule appointments to present themselves for inspection at Southwest Border ports of entry as those with better internet connections. CBP continues to advance innovative technologies and improve the delivery of its critical homeland security mission, including to streamline safe and efficient processes at ports of entry. CBP One remains a key part of the Department of Homeland Securitys multi-pronged strategy to address migrant flows at the southwest border. By using CBP One for these appointments, we have increased our capacity to process noncitizens at ports of entry, a critical part of our commitment to safe, orderly, and humane migration processes.
Noncitizens must still be physically located within central or northern Mexico to both request and schedule an appointment via CBP One. Appointments are being offered at eight ports of entry: Brownsville, Paso Del Norte in El Paso, Eagle Pass, Hidalgo, and Laredo in Texas; Calexico and San Ysidro in California; and Nogales in Arizona.
More information on the CBP One mobile application, available in English, Spanish, Haitian Creole, Portuguese, and Russian, can be found athttps://www.cbp.gov/about/mobile-apps-directory/cbpone.The CBP One application can be downloaded for free from the Apple and Google Application Stores as well from the CBP website.
Go here to see the original:
CBP Makes Changes to CBP One App - Customs and Border Protection
Apple releases first-ever Rapid Security Response updates for iPhone, iPad, and Mac; how to use, issues, and more explained – Sportskeeda
Modified May 03, 2023 15:12 GMT
Apple's Rapid Security Response updates are a much-needed feature every other digital device should have. In a world where cyber attacks are becoming increasingly prevalent, the importance of a swift and effective security response cannot be understated. Recognizing this, Apple recently released their first-ever Rapid Security Response update for the iPhone (iOS 16.4.1(a)), iPad, and Mac devices.
This new feature is designed to provide users quick and effective security fixes for any discovered vulnerabilities. This article will discuss these updates, how to use them, and some known benefits and issues with the Rapid Security Response.
Here is everything you need to know about Rapid Security Responses to keep your digital resources safe and sound:
So, what exactly are Rapid Security Response updates, and how do they work? These updates are minor, targeted patches designed to address specific security vulnerabilities. They are meant to be deployed quickly and easily without requiring a full system update. Users can receive critical security fixes without waiting for the next major software release.
For added security, check out this guide on how to set up passkeys on your Apple device.
To use Rapid Security Response updates, users must ensure their device runs the latest iOS, iPadOS, or macOS version. Once a security patch is released, it will be automatically downloaded and installed on the device. Users don't need to take any additional steps to receive the patch.
These upcoming updates will allow Apple to respond to security threats promptly. In the past, it could take several weeks or even months for security vulnerabilities to be addressed in a significant software update.
This left users vulnerable to potential attacks during that time. With these security updates, however, Apple can quickly address these vulnerabilities and provide users with the necessary protection.
Despite this significant benefit, there are some potential issues to be aware of. One concern is that these patches could cause compatibility issues with third-party apps or devices. This is because the patches are designed to address specific security vulnerabilities that may not be compatible with all software and hardware configurations.
Another issue is that this update may not address all security vulnerabilities. While Apple is working to address the most critical threats, some vulnerabilities may not be covered by these patches. In these cases, users must still rely on significant software updates to address the issue.
These updates are not a replacement for good security practices. While these patches can help mitigate security risks, users should still take steps to protect their devices and data. This includes using strong passwords, avoiding suspicious websites and downloads, enabling two-factor authentication, and using iCloud-based services carefully.
These security updates are a welcome addition to Apple's security toolkit. They provide users with an additional layer of protection against potential threats and help to ensure that devices stay up-to-date with the latest security patches. While there may be some potential issues to be aware of, the benefits of these updates far outweigh the risks.
If you are unsure whether your device is receiving Rapid Security Response updates, you can check the settings menu for available updates. Keep your device up to date with the latest software releases and adhere to best practices for internet security. This may help keep your data and devices safe from potential threats.
For more such informative content, follow Sportskeeda/GamingTech.
Note: We may receive a small commission from the links included in the article.
Lawsuit: Government’s Hands Are All Over EIP’s Censorship – The Federalist
The members of the Election Integrity Partnership and Virality Project conspired with state, local, and federal government officials to violate the First Amendment rights of social media users, a class-action lawsuit filed on Tuesday in a Louisiana federal court alleged.
Over the course of the 88-page complaint, the named plaintiffs, Gateway Pundit founder Jim Hoft and Co-Director of Health Freedom Louisiana Jill Hines, detailed extensive direct and indirect government involvement with the defendants censorship activities, allegedly making the private entities and individuals state actors for purposes of the Constitution.
Here are the highlights of the governments alleged connection to the defendants censorship activities.
Formed in 2020, the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) describes itself as a partnership between four of the nations leading institutions focused on understanding misinformation and disinformation in the social media landscape: the Stanford Internet Observatory, the University of Washingtons Center for an Informed Public, Graphika, and the Atlantic Councils Digital Forensic Research Lab. In early 2021, the same four entities expanded their focus to address supposed Covid-19 misinformation on social media, calling the effort the Virality Project.
In both the run-up to the 2020 election and since then, EIP and the Virality Project pushed Big Tech companies to censor speech. Excepting the University of Washington, which was not named in the class-action lawsuit, the institutions involved in the EIP and Virality Project are private entities, and the individuals running those institutions are non-governmental actors. Thus, without more, the censorship efforts would not implicate the First Amendment.
But there was more much more a conspiracy between the defendants, according to the complaint. Those defendants include the Stanford Internet Observatory and the Leland Stanford Junior University and its board of trustees, the latter two of which are allegedly legally responsible for the observatorys conduct; Alex Stamos, the director of the Stanford Internet Observatory; Rene DiResta, the Stanford Internet Observatorys research manager; the Atlantic Council; the Atlantic Councils Digital Forensic Research Lab; and Graham Brookie, the senior director of the Atlantic Councils DFRLab.
In support of the alleged conspiracy, the plaintiffs quoted at length the defendants own words, much of it culled from the EIPs post-election report, but also pulled from interviews and its webpage. Here we see the EIP boast of its coalition that exchanged information with election officials, government agencies, and social media platforms. The work carried out by the EIP and its partners during the 2020 U.S. election, the defendants stressed, united government, academia, civil society, and industry, analyzing across platforms, to address misinformation in real time.
The united goal, according to the complaint, was censorship. This is clear from Stamos Aug. 26, 2020, comment to The New York Times, when the Stanford Observatory director explained that the EIP sought to collaborate with Big Tech to remove disinformation. The EIP further explained that it saw itself filling the critical gap of monitoring supposed election misinformation inside the United States a gap the EIP recognized existed because the First Amendment prevents the government from censoring speech.
But the EIP did not act alone. In fact, the EIP was created in consultation with the Department of Homeland Securitys Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, or CISA, with the idea for the EIP allegedly originating from CISA interns who were Stanford students. The CISA then assisted Stanford as it sought to figure out what the gap was the EIP needed to address. Two weeks before EIP officially launched, Stanford also met with CISA to present EIP concept.
The government continued to work with EIP after its formation. Both federal and state-level government officials submitted tickets or reports of supposed misinformation to EIP, which would then submit them to the social media companies for censorship. EIPs post-election report identified government partners who submitted tips of misinformation, including CISA, the State Departments Global Engagement Center (GEC), and the Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center, the last of which received reports of disinformation from state and local government officials. EIP would then forward the complaints to the social media companies for censorship.
CISA also helped EIP by connecting it with election-official groups, such as the National Association of Secretaries of State and the National Association of State Election Directors, both of which represent state and local government officials. CISA facilitated meetings between EIP and those groups as well, leading to censorship requests fed to the EIP and then forwarded to social media companies.
The governments entanglement with the censorship efforts of EIP was more pronounced when it came to the Center for Internet Security because CISA both funded the Center for Internet Security and directed state and local election officials to report supposed misinformation to it. CISA further connected the Center for Internet Security to EIP, resulting in the former feeding the latter a substantial number of misinformation tickets. EIP then pushed those censorship requests to social media companies.
Later, as the 2020 election neared, CISA coordinated with the Center for Internet Security and EIP to establish a joint reporting process, with the three organizations agreeing to let each other know what they were reporting to platforms like Twitter.
The individuals responsible for EIP, including Stamos, DiResta, and Kate Starbird, all have or had formal roles in CISA. Both Stamos and Starbird are members of CISAs Cybersecurity Advisory Committee, while DiResta is a Subject Matter Expert for a CISA subcommittee.
Additionally, two of the six CISA members who took shifts in reporting supposed misinformation to Big Tech companies apparently worked simultaneously as interns for CISA and at the Stanford Internet Observatory and EIP, reporting misinformation to the social media companies on behalf of both CISA and EIP. In fact, the two interns reported misinformation to platforms on behalf of CISA by using EIP ticket numbers. One of the CISA interns also forwarded a detailed report of supposed misinformation from the Election Integrity Partnership to social media companies using CISAs reporting system.
As noted above, after the 2020 election, the Election Integrity Project replicated its censorship efforts to combat so-called Covid misinformation through the Virality Project. The Virality Project used the foundations established with the governments assistance for the EIP and continued to collaborate with government officials and Big Tech.
The Virality Project boasted of its strong ties with several federal government agencies, most notably the Office of the Surgeon General (OSG) and the CDC. The Virality Project also identified federal health agencies and state and local public health officials as stakeholders who provided tips, feedback and requests to assess specific incidents and narratives. And as was the case with the Election Integrity Project, the Virality Project flagged content for censorship by social media companies, including Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram, through a ticket system.
While it was those private platforms that censored Hoft, Hines, and an untold number of other Americans, the class-action complaint establishes it was the government that initiated and pushed for that censorship, while hiding behind EIP and other organizations. And because EIP allegedly conspired with the government to silence the plaintiffs speech, the class-action lawsuit seeks to hold it liable too.
The defendants have some time before responding. When they do, theyll likely seek to have the lawsuit tossed, arguing they arent the government and thus could not violate the First Amendment. The detailed allegations of collaboration with the government make it unlikely they will succeed on a motion to dismiss, however, which will mean the plaintiffs will be entitled to discovery and thats where well likely see the real evidence of a conspiracy.
Margot Cleveland is The Federalist's senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prizethe law schools highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. As a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of a young son with cystic fibrosis, Cleveland frequently writes on cultural issues related to parenting and special-needs children. Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.
Go here to read the rest:
Lawsuit: Government's Hands Are All Over EIP's Censorship - The Federalist