Equifax CEO to Congress: Not Sure We Are Encrypting Data(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Equifax CEO to Congress: Not Sure We Are Encrypting Data
https://www.wsj.com/articles/equifax-ceo-to-congress-not-sure-we-are-encrypting-data-1510180486?mod=yahoo_hs&yptr=yahoo
166 comments
It's not your information in the sense of you having any ownership or control over it. It's just information about you. I got information about you by looking through your comment history. You cannot make me forget it. Lucky for you, I will anyway in a few minutes, since I am not in the business of selling that kind of information and thus don't really care.
While what you say is factually true, does anyone else find it morally repugnant? The idea that information like your genetic code, behavioral data, photos of your likeliness, etc. might be owned by someone else strikes me as both slightly ridiculous and incredibly dehumanizing.
Which is precisely why this is handled completely differently in the EU. Essentially, data about you (personally identifiable information) is your data, people generally may not store or distribute it without explicit consent, and generally you may revoke consent at any time. There are exceptions and the details are complicated, of course, but the fundamental principle is much more sensible.
That seems to be somewhat overstating the current position under EU data protection laws, though some member states already go further, and with the introduction of the GDPR next year the situation across the EU will move closer to what you describe.
Yes, it's not all the unified across countries yet, but the basic principle still generally aplies, in contrast to the US model of "if you happen to have some information about someone else, good for you!", which then only has exceptions for medical information and stuff like that.
Wow. This is great! US Privacy Laws would benefit to be at least this strong
Its good as a person, but it is a pain in the ass for companies. Things like the domain name used in an email address can be considered PII because if the domain name was your name, that is PII... IP addresses can, in many cases, also be considered PII. Once something is PII, you as a company have to treat that data different--you have to be able to provide that data to the person and you have to be able to delete it.
Basically, the overall idea is good (data about you should be owned by you) but mapping that into actual nuts & bolts implementation details is a huge pain in the ass.
Basically, the overall idea is good (data about you should be owned by you) but mapping that into actual nuts & bolts implementation details is a huge pain in the ass.
> Things like the domain name used in an email address can be considered PII because if the domain name was your name, that is PII...
That's ... just wrong. The email address itself, unless it happens to be a role address, is PII. Whether there is a person's name in there doesn't matter.
> IP addresses can, in many cases, also be considered PII.
Really, no, the address isn't PII, the information about someone's behaviour is. You may store IP addresses as much as you like. You just may not store it as a key that could be used to link information about someone to other information about them.
> Basically, the overall idea is good (data about you should be owned by you) but mapping that into actual nuts & bolts implementation details is a huge pain in the ass.
I wouldn't say it's always trivial, but it's not really that hard either. The only thing that is really hard is collecting data that you have no justification to collect. If you simply avoid collecting data, none of the other stuff affects you.
That's ... just wrong. The email address itself, unless it happens to be a role address, is PII. Whether there is a person's name in there doesn't matter.
> IP addresses can, in many cases, also be considered PII.
Really, no, the address isn't PII, the information about someone's behaviour is. You may store IP addresses as much as you like. You just may not store it as a key that could be used to link information about someone to other information about them.
> Basically, the overall idea is good (data about you should be owned by you) but mapping that into actual nuts & bolts implementation details is a huge pain in the ass.
I wouldn't say it's always trivial, but it's not really that hard either. The only thing that is really hard is collecting data that you have no justification to collect. If you simply avoid collecting data, none of the other stuff affects you.
The only thing that is really hard is collecting data that you have no justification to collect. If you simply avoid collecting data, none of the other stuff affects you.
Unfortunately, since our modern digital world works with data, that particular tautology is next to useless.
With my small business hat on, I'm deeply concerned about the real world implications of the GDPR next year, even as with my privacy advocate hat on I'm happy that the kinds of big data-hoarding companies that cause most of the real problems are going to face more meaningful regulation.
Unfortunately, since our modern digital world works with data, that particular tautology is next to useless.
With my small business hat on, I'm deeply concerned about the real world implications of the GDPR next year, even as with my privacy advocate hat on I'm happy that the kinds of big data-hoarding companies that cause most of the real problems are going to face more meaningful regulation.
> That's ... just wrong
The lawyers would disagree with you. If the email address contains anything that identifies you personally, it's PII and thus falls under GDPR. Therefore, if you collect email addresses you have to go through great pains to protect them.
As for the rest of your stuff, while you are technically correct your comment is pretty useless. We live in a data driven world that requires.... well... collecting data. Saying "just dont collect email" isn't helpful and collecting IP address info without associating it with use data is pretty pointless.
It is a huge, expensive undertaking to make any kind of "legacy" pre-GDPR infrastructure GDPR compliant.
> If you simply avoid collecting data, none of the other stuff affects you.
If you are doing anything useful on the internet, you are collecting data.
The lawyers would disagree with you. If the email address contains anything that identifies you personally, it's PII and thus falls under GDPR. Therefore, if you collect email addresses you have to go through great pains to protect them.
As for the rest of your stuff, while you are technically correct your comment is pretty useless. We live in a data driven world that requires.... well... collecting data. Saying "just dont collect email" isn't helpful and collecting IP address info without associating it with use data is pretty pointless.
It is a huge, expensive undertaking to make any kind of "legacy" pre-GDPR infrastructure GDPR compliant.
> If you simply avoid collecting data, none of the other stuff affects you.
If you are doing anything useful on the internet, you are collecting data.
> The lawyers would disagree with you. If the email address contains anything that identifies you personally, it's PII and thus falls under GDPR.
You are simply missing the point. It's not required to "contain" anything. If it is the email address of a person, then that makes it PII.
> Therefore, if you collect email addresses you have to go through great pains to protect them.
Well, yes, of course you do? If you want to profit from using other people's addresses, you better make sure they don't get harmed by it.
> We live in a data driven world that requires.... well... collecting data.
Erm ... no? We don't live in a data driven world, we live in a world where some people are completely unwilling to respect the boundaries of other people and consider it their right to do whatever it takes to manipulate them in their interest. There is no such right, there is nothing that requires that you violate other people.
> Saying "just dont collect email" isn't helpful
Well, whether it is helpful depends on what you expect to be helped with. But it is a perfectly viable thing to do. If people voluntarily hand you their email address so you can send them invoices, say, there is absolutely no problem with you doing so, because that obviously means that there is consent. Anything beyond that, and you are just selfishly trying to ignore the interests of other people, and it is perfectly viable to just not do that.
> collecting IP address info without associating it with use data is pretty pointless.
... so don't do it, then?
> It is a huge, expensive undertaking to make any kind of "legacy" pre-GDPR infrastructure GDPR compliant.
Erm, well, it's an expensive undertaking to stop being an asshole ... so what?
> If you are doing anything useful on the internet, you are collecting data.
So, if I publish a free software project on my own web server that doesn't write any log files ... that's not useful? Could you explain how exactly that reasoning goes?
You are simply missing the point. It's not required to "contain" anything. If it is the email address of a person, then that makes it PII.
> Therefore, if you collect email addresses you have to go through great pains to protect them.
Well, yes, of course you do? If you want to profit from using other people's addresses, you better make sure they don't get harmed by it.
> We live in a data driven world that requires.... well... collecting data.
Erm ... no? We don't live in a data driven world, we live in a world where some people are completely unwilling to respect the boundaries of other people and consider it their right to do whatever it takes to manipulate them in their interest. There is no such right, there is nothing that requires that you violate other people.
> Saying "just dont collect email" isn't helpful
Well, whether it is helpful depends on what you expect to be helped with. But it is a perfectly viable thing to do. If people voluntarily hand you their email address so you can send them invoices, say, there is absolutely no problem with you doing so, because that obviously means that there is consent. Anything beyond that, and you are just selfishly trying to ignore the interests of other people, and it is perfectly viable to just not do that.
> collecting IP address info without associating it with use data is pretty pointless.
... so don't do it, then?
> It is a huge, expensive undertaking to make any kind of "legacy" pre-GDPR infrastructure GDPR compliant.
Erm, well, it's an expensive undertaking to stop being an asshole ... so what?
> If you are doing anything useful on the internet, you are collecting data.
So, if I publish a free software project on my own web server that doesn't write any log files ... that's not useful? Could you explain how exactly that reasoning goes?
> Saying "just dont collect email" isn't helpful
If you don't need that email address for anything, then don't collect it. If you do (perhaps because the customer has agreed to let you send them email), then fine, collect it, but also provide a way to delete it, permanently, if the customer wants to terminate their relationship with you.
> It is a huge, expensive undertaking to make any kind of "legacy" pre-GDPR infrastructure GDPR compliant.
Yes, it is. But worthwhile things are often not trivial.
If you don't need that email address for anything, then don't collect it. If you do (perhaps because the customer has agreed to let you send them email), then fine, collect it, but also provide a way to delete it, permanently, if the customer wants to terminate their relationship with you.
> It is a huge, expensive undertaking to make any kind of "legacy" pre-GDPR infrastructure GDPR compliant.
Yes, it is. But worthwhile things are often not trivial.
But worthwhile things are often not trivial.
Indeed. But there is not trivial, and then there is prohibitively difficult and expensive to the point of being unreasonable.
Obvious examples, exhibit A: Suppose you use a deduplicating backup system, and being a responsible service you also ensure that all user data is properly encrypted as part of your backup process. If each single customer who decides they don't want to deal with you any more can require you to remove any reference to them from anything you currently store or have ever stored, please describe a technically and commercially viable strategy for reliably cleansing your backups.
Indeed. But there is not trivial, and then there is prohibitively difficult and expensive to the point of being unreasonable.
Obvious examples, exhibit A: Suppose you use a deduplicating backup system, and being a responsible service you also ensure that all user data is properly encrypted as part of your backup process. If each single customer who decides they don't want to deal with you any more can require you to remove any reference to them from anything you currently store or have ever stored, please describe a technically and commercially viable strategy for reliably cleansing your backups.
Here's the thing: tough shit. I am super tired of the "it costs too much", "it's too hard to do" excuses. You've built your business off of my data. Not yours. Mine. I dictate how it is used and who has it. You keeping my data can actually be a threat to my security and livelihood.
We have swung way too far into a regime where personal information is irresponsibly slung around the internet with no accountability and no consequences when that data is misused.
> If each single customer who decides they don't want to deal with you any more can require you to remove any reference to them from anything you currently store or have ever stored, please describe a technically and commercially viable strategy for reliably cleansing your backups.
That's not my job to do. That's "your" job as a responsible technologist to figure out, based on your knowledge of your systems and processes. I'm in the midst of preparing to be GDPR compliant at my employer, and I'm not saying it's easy, but all these problems are tractable. Would I rather be focused 100% on building new products and features? Sure, who wouldn't? But part of being a professional developer is taking responsibility for the software you write, which includes handling customer data with respect. GDPR is a step in the right direction for that.
We have swung way too far into a regime where personal information is irresponsibly slung around the internet with no accountability and no consequences when that data is misused.
> If each single customer who decides they don't want to deal with you any more can require you to remove any reference to them from anything you currently store or have ever stored, please describe a technically and commercially viable strategy for reliably cleansing your backups.
That's not my job to do. That's "your" job as a responsible technologist to figure out, based on your knowledge of your systems and processes. I'm in the midst of preparing to be GDPR compliant at my employer, and I'm not saying it's easy, but all these problems are tractable. Would I rather be focused 100% on building new products and features? Sure, who wouldn't? But part of being a professional developer is taking responsibility for the software you write, which includes handling customer data with respect. GDPR is a step in the right direction for that.
I am super tired of the "it costs too much", "it's too hard to do" excuses. You've built your business off of my data.
I haven't built my business off your data or anyone else's, unless things like having your details to charge the agreed payments or keeping routine server logs counts. None of my businesses is in the data harvesting field, nor do any of them collect personal data that isn't legitimately relevant to what they do or share it with any third parties other than to help do whatever it is they do.
Not yours. Mine. I dictate how it is used and who has it.
Well, no, you don't. You might wish you did, but neither the law nor the facts are currently on your side. This will remain the case even under GDPR.
You keeping my data can actually be a threat to my security and livelihood.
Your paranoia may be a greater threat to your security and livelihood. There is very little that we do that could pose any significant threat to anyone even if our systems were compromised. How do things like keeping records of how people are using our own services and resources to help with our own planning and protection against abuse pose any threat to you whatsoever?
That's "your" job as a responsible technologist to figure out, based on your knowledge of your systems and processes.
And I suggest that for many businesses, no solution will exist that is responsible in terms of good practices like keeping proper records and back-ups, compliant with the letter of the law under the GDPR, and commercially viable in the face of people actually exercising their full rights under that law.
But part of being a professional developer is taking responsibility for the software you write, which includes handling customer data with respect.
I am a staunch advocate of privacy and protecting the rights of the little guy. I do treat all personal data with respect, and we go to considerable lengths in my businesses to ensure that such data is not collected or shared unnecessarily, is stored and processed according to good practices, and so on. We have always done so, from day one, even with only limited resources and sometimes at the expense of doing things that would no doubt have made us more money but crossed into territory we weren't happy being in.
My objection to the GDPR is precisely that despite doing reasonable things to run our businesses and doing nothing that most people would consider even remotely controversial or unreasonable, we are still subject to the kinds of excessive and expensive measures we have been talking about. It's rather ironic that the obligation to notify third parties to which data has been disclosed comes with caveats about being impossible or involving disproportionate effort, yet the obligation to erase data held directly does not.
However, given that this is the case under the GDPR, it's hard to imagine how most businesses could withstand full enforcement of the right to erasure by customers wanting to make trouble without compromising their ability to operate viably and responsibly in other respects. That is not, IMHO, a good law, even if you're a privacy advocate. In fact, since it sets an almost impossibly high standard for compliance, it is arguably worse than a more moderate law, because businesses may decide that they're screwed in any case if someone wants to make trouble so they have little to lose by not doing their best in terms of data protection.
I haven't built my business off your data or anyone else's, unless things like having your details to charge the agreed payments or keeping routine server logs counts. None of my businesses is in the data harvesting field, nor do any of them collect personal data that isn't legitimately relevant to what they do or share it with any third parties other than to help do whatever it is they do.
Not yours. Mine. I dictate how it is used and who has it.
Well, no, you don't. You might wish you did, but neither the law nor the facts are currently on your side. This will remain the case even under GDPR.
You keeping my data can actually be a threat to my security and livelihood.
Your paranoia may be a greater threat to your security and livelihood. There is very little that we do that could pose any significant threat to anyone even if our systems were compromised. How do things like keeping records of how people are using our own services and resources to help with our own planning and protection against abuse pose any threat to you whatsoever?
That's "your" job as a responsible technologist to figure out, based on your knowledge of your systems and processes.
And I suggest that for many businesses, no solution will exist that is responsible in terms of good practices like keeping proper records and back-ups, compliant with the letter of the law under the GDPR, and commercially viable in the face of people actually exercising their full rights under that law.
But part of being a professional developer is taking responsibility for the software you write, which includes handling customer data with respect.
I am a staunch advocate of privacy and protecting the rights of the little guy. I do treat all personal data with respect, and we go to considerable lengths in my businesses to ensure that such data is not collected or shared unnecessarily, is stored and processed according to good practices, and so on. We have always done so, from day one, even with only limited resources and sometimes at the expense of doing things that would no doubt have made us more money but crossed into territory we weren't happy being in.
My objection to the GDPR is precisely that despite doing reasonable things to run our businesses and doing nothing that most people would consider even remotely controversial or unreasonable, we are still subject to the kinds of excessive and expensive measures we have been talking about. It's rather ironic that the obligation to notify third parties to which data has been disclosed comes with caveats about being impossible or involving disproportionate effort, yet the obligation to erase data held directly does not.
However, given that this is the case under the GDPR, it's hard to imagine how most businesses could withstand full enforcement of the right to erasure by customers wanting to make trouble without compromising their ability to operate viably and responsibly in other respects. That is not, IMHO, a good law, even if you're a privacy advocate. In fact, since it sets an almost impossibly high standard for compliance, it is arguably worse than a more moderate law, because businesses may decide that they're screwed in any case if someone wants to make trouble so they have little to lose by not doing their best in terms of data protection.
PII just stands for personally identifying information. If it identifies you, it is PII. Even if it isn't linked to any behavioral data explicitly, the fact that its in your DB means they are associated with you. Thus email and IP are PII.
No, if it is in your DB because it gets written to that DB as a result of them being associated with you, then that is PII, prescisely because that is information about them being associeted with you.
If you use an RNG to generate IP addresses, that does not represent any information about any person, hence no PII, even if it is in fact the IP address of a person that is protected under the relevant regulation.
If you use an RNG to generate IP addresses, that does not represent any information about any person, hence no PII, even if it is in fact the IP address of a person that is protected under the relevant regulation.
More specifically:
"If a business collects and processes IP addresses, but has no legal means of linking those IP addresses to the identities of the relevant users, then those IP addresses are unlikely to be personal data. However, businesses should note that if they have sufficient information to link an IP address to a particular individual (e.g., through login details, cookies, or any other information or technology) then that IP address is personal data, and is subject to the full protections of EU data protection law."
https://www.whitecase.com/publications/alert/court-confirms-...
"If a business collects and processes IP addresses, but has no legal means of linking those IP addresses to the identities of the relevant users, then those IP addresses are unlikely to be personal data. However, businesses should note that if they have sufficient information to link an IP address to a particular individual (e.g., through login details, cookies, or any other information or technology) then that IP address is personal data, and is subject to the full protections of EU data protection law."
https://www.whitecase.com/publications/alert/court-confirms-...
"implementation details is a huge pain in the ass"
Privacy is worth protecting. Plus, it's still a huge value add to your customers if you provide them these controls, whether you're legally required to or not.
Privacy is worth protecting. Plus, it's still a huge value add to your customers if you provide them these controls, whether you're legally required to or not.
Are you suggesting that it would be better if an entity should "own" / be in control of all information about it? I'm not trying to straw-man your argument, but I can't find any other self-consistent scenario in which what you describe as morally repugnant, ridiculous and dehumanizing is "solved".
Assuming that is what you meant, consider: Equifax's CEO owns all information about Equifax, looks at all this negative press recently and decides it should be scrubbed from the Internet / all publications / etc. If you meant it only to apply to people, lets play the Godwin's Law card and suggest that Hitler (or his descendants) wishes to scrub all information about the holocaust, etc.
I think that scenario is far, far worse.
Assuming that is what you meant, consider: Equifax's CEO owns all information about Equifax, looks at all this negative press recently and decides it should be scrubbed from the Internet / all publications / etc. If you meant it only to apply to people, lets play the Godwin's Law card and suggest that Hitler (or his descendants) wishes to scrub all information about the holocaust, etc.
I think that scenario is far, far worse.
It's possible to draw a distinction between corporations and people, Hobby-Lobby notwithstanding. You could argue, self-consistently, that people have a right to the information about them, while corporations (as a legal fiction) have no such right. In your example, Equifax's CEO would have no recourse to negative press about Equifax, but he would have recourse to negative information about himself, which he kinda does under existing libel & slander laws, though truth is an absolute defense for those.
The EU operates under similar provisions, which as an ex-Googler and tech entrepreneur I find pretty annoying, but as a person find pretty encouraging.
(There are issues even under this distinction that are problematic: if you commit a crime, does the public have a right to know? What if your crime puts them at risk? If you have a reputation for screwing your business partners over, should future business partners have a right to seek this out? But at the same time, there are huge negative externalities to not being able to control this information. If a company has false information on you - as happens pretty frequently - do they have a right to sell it to so many parties that correcting it becomes impossible?)
The EU operates under similar provisions, which as an ex-Googler and tech entrepreneur I find pretty annoying, but as a person find pretty encouraging.
(There are issues even under this distinction that are problematic: if you commit a crime, does the public have a right to know? What if your crime puts them at risk? If you have a reputation for screwing your business partners over, should future business partners have a right to seek this out? But at the same time, there are huge negative externalities to not being able to control this information. If a company has false information on you - as happens pretty frequently - do they have a right to sell it to so many parties that correcting it becomes impossible?)
There's a difference between holding data saying "This is Bob Smith and his email address is [email protected] and his SSN is 123-45-6789", data that is personally identifying and could reasonably be considered private, and holding factual (even newsworthy) information about a person's public activities ("Bob Smith was convicted of securities fraud").
I find this idea genuinely intriguing. If such an idea were to work, it would need a clear-cut definition dividing the two types of information about a person (since we're talking in a legal context here, and you'd need to be able to defend yourself if Bob argues you shouldn't have a given piece of information that you have).
What if I lent you money and you never repaid me -- could you legally prevent me from telling anyone about it, by virtue of it being private information about you? If you think that's unreasonable, isn't that more or less the basis of your credit score?
What if I lent you money and you never repaid me -- could you legally prevent me from telling anyone about it, by virtue of it being private information about you? If you think that's unreasonable, isn't that more or less the basis of your credit score?
I think we should be having a discussion about the dimensions of that, yes.
A set of questions I've been thinking through are:
What is privacy?
Can it be quantified?
What is identity?
What are the reasons we want to check or confirm identity?
Can some of those reasons be eliminated?
It seems to me that privacy is the ability to define and defend boundaries of information and disclosure. That the question of what is or isn't known, and to who's benefit that information is used (and in particular, to the benefit of the subject of the information, of society as a whole, or some specific third party or parties), matter. That there is a continuum of interests in protecting and revealing relevant information, much of which has to do with the relationship of the subject to society, and that those with great power, or a history of abusing society's trust, have a far smaller claim to relevant privacy. (Balanced, perhaps, with potential consequent risks: the wealthy in parts of the world are subject to stalkers, frauds, kidnapping, and extortion threats, for example.)
Persons in positions of high power, or convicted of crimes, or who've violated public trust, should be faced with greater disclosures. That would include, on at least two counts, Equifax's former CEO.
Much of the reason for seeking information is to establish trust or credit. Should I trust what you say, the capabilities you claim to have, that you own or control or have created specific properties, resources, or communications? Are you the specific subject of a given medical history? Do you owe, or can you claim, a tax debt or a pension credit?
Also part of this question is what risks (or opportunities) disclosure of specific information portends. Do the specifics of a romantic relationship you had 30 years ago matter? Does the fact that you are, or aren't, a politician, a military officer, or gay, matter? Or that the romantic partner was or was not of age of consent? Or that you were or weren't?
When is knowledge power or control? When is it liberating? For how long should it be controlled?
Do rights expire after a fixed set of time? On death? Or are they carried forward according to, say, tribal customs or beliefs? For how long?
A set of questions I've been thinking through are:
What is privacy?
Can it be quantified?
What is identity?
What are the reasons we want to check or confirm identity?
Can some of those reasons be eliminated?
It seems to me that privacy is the ability to define and defend boundaries of information and disclosure. That the question of what is or isn't known, and to who's benefit that information is used (and in particular, to the benefit of the subject of the information, of society as a whole, or some specific third party or parties), matter. That there is a continuum of interests in protecting and revealing relevant information, much of which has to do with the relationship of the subject to society, and that those with great power, or a history of abusing society's trust, have a far smaller claim to relevant privacy. (Balanced, perhaps, with potential consequent risks: the wealthy in parts of the world are subject to stalkers, frauds, kidnapping, and extortion threats, for example.)
Persons in positions of high power, or convicted of crimes, or who've violated public trust, should be faced with greater disclosures. That would include, on at least two counts, Equifax's former CEO.
Much of the reason for seeking information is to establish trust or credit. Should I trust what you say, the capabilities you claim to have, that you own or control or have created specific properties, resources, or communications? Are you the specific subject of a given medical history? Do you owe, or can you claim, a tax debt or a pension credit?
Also part of this question is what risks (or opportunities) disclosure of specific information portends. Do the specifics of a romantic relationship you had 30 years ago matter? Does the fact that you are, or aren't, a politician, a military officer, or gay, matter? Or that the romantic partner was or was not of age of consent? Or that you were or weren't?
When is knowledge power or control? When is it liberating? For how long should it be controlled?
Do rights expire after a fixed set of time? On death? Or are they carried forward according to, say, tribal customs or beliefs? For how long?
I can't imagine it'd be all that different from existing laws on using the "likeness" of a person in movies, TV, or advertising. All you'd have to do is extend that list to third-party financial institutions and on the non-public-facing side of advertising.
Well, like a lot of things, it's a balancing act.
If we say "nobody is allowed to keep information about other people ever," that's clearly a huge reduction in freedom. Americans generally like freedom even if it brings some negative stuff with it. (Think The KKK - they would be flat out illegal in some countries but in America they are protected under the law)
Some people may say it's morally repugnant to restrict private entities from writing down information they happen to know about other people. If I write in my diary "HN user nostrademons said XXX" should HN user nostrademons own that information just because my diary might be stolen?
Right now how we balance it is companies are allowed to collect this information all they want and look at it themselves all they want. BUT it can only be accessed by a third party with your permission (you give a bank permission when you open an account, your landlord when they run a credit check, your insurance company when you get a quote, etc.) Creditors may send targeted offers to you based on your credit file, but you may opt out (or in) at any time. (you can do it here: https://www.optoutprescreen.com/). You can access your own file for free yearly as well as whenever you were denied something as a result of what's on your file(s). You have the right to dispute the information in your file if it's inaccurate. Creditors are required to disclose to you certain information that they used to make their decisions. You have the right to freeze your reports so nobody can access them.
If we say "nobody is allowed to keep information about other people ever," that's clearly a huge reduction in freedom. Americans generally like freedom even if it brings some negative stuff with it. (Think The KKK - they would be flat out illegal in some countries but in America they are protected under the law)
Some people may say it's morally repugnant to restrict private entities from writing down information they happen to know about other people. If I write in my diary "HN user nostrademons said XXX" should HN user nostrademons own that information just because my diary might be stolen?
Right now how we balance it is companies are allowed to collect this information all they want and look at it themselves all they want. BUT it can only be accessed by a third party with your permission (you give a bank permission when you open an account, your landlord when they run a credit check, your insurance company when you get a quote, etc.) Creditors may send targeted offers to you based on your credit file, but you may opt out (or in) at any time. (you can do it here: https://www.optoutprescreen.com/). You can access your own file for free yearly as well as whenever you were denied something as a result of what's on your file(s). You have the right to dispute the information in your file if it's inaccurate. Creditors are required to disclose to you certain information that they used to make their decisions. You have the right to freeze your reports so nobody can access them.
I don’t find all of that inherently morally repugnant. I own several photographs of other people, for instance. I think it’s clear that you’re really talking about the bad things that can happen when a large entity (probably a government or large corporation) gets a large amount of personal data. I don’t disagree that there are many bad things such an entity can do, but I certainly don’t therefore intuit that anyone possessing someone else’s personal information or likeness is inherently morally repugnant, ridiculous, or dehumanizing.
Honestly, no. Because the flip side of that stance is that all information that has anything to do with me belongs solely to me. That just seems...naive? Unrealistic? I certainly don't find it morally repugnant or dehumanizing that someone can take a picture of me and keep it. And that's probably the mildest counterexample...
IMO it's only a problem if I did not give away that information. Thing is, we give away a lot of data about ourselves.
IMO it's only a problem if I did not give away that information. Thing is, we give away a lot of data about ourselves.
> IMO it's only a problem if I did not give away that information. Thing is, we give away a lot of data about ourselves.
Sure, and why is it so ridiculous to expect that I might change my mind about certain types of information, when given to a corporation, and want them to delete that information? Why shouldn't I have the right to, say, tell a company with sensitive financial data about me to delete it and terminate my relationship with them? If I can't do that, then I'm at their mercy not to sell that data, be acquired and have the data used in new ways that I did not authorize by the new owner, or be compromised and have that data in the hands of parties that would misuse it.
We're not talking about censoring obviously public information, here, or even allowing people to hide when they've done something newsworthy. We're talking about controlling the flow of, and access to, private, personally-identifying information.
Sure, and why is it so ridiculous to expect that I might change my mind about certain types of information, when given to a corporation, and want them to delete that information? Why shouldn't I have the right to, say, tell a company with sensitive financial data about me to delete it and terminate my relationship with them? If I can't do that, then I'm at their mercy not to sell that data, be acquired and have the data used in new ways that I did not authorize by the new owner, or be compromised and have that data in the hands of parties that would misuse it.
We're not talking about censoring obviously public information, here, or even allowing people to hide when they've done something newsworthy. We're talking about controlling the flow of, and access to, private, personally-identifying information.
Sure, and why is it so ridiculous to expect that I might change my mind about certain types of information, when given to a corporation, and want them to delete that information?
It's not ridiculous, but it does impose a cost on them, and by extension everyone else dealing with them, because you changed your mind. Whether you should automatically be entitled to impose that cost on everyone else and under what circumstances is not an easy question.
Why shouldn't I have the right to, say, tell a company with sensitive financial data about me to delete it and terminate my relationship with them?
Maybe they need that data for their own financial records. Maybe those records are things they are required by law to keep.
Maybe they use that data to protect themselves against fraud or other abuses, and only use it in reasonable ways for those purposes, and allowing fraudsters to require them to delete all traces of their previous interactions would leave them unreasonably vulnerable.
If I can't do that, then I'm at their mercy not to sell that data, be acquired and have the data used in new ways that I did not authorize by the new owner, or be compromised and have that data in the hands of parties that would misuse it.
That's a false dichotomy. Practical data protection is almost always going to be about restricting not just the initial collection of data but also how that data may be used and by whom once it has been collected. An isolationist approach where everything can be kept totally secret is impractical, but it's usually not what we really want anyway, since then you couldn't do anything useful and intentional with the data either. It's more useful to ensure that people who have some data about us for legitimate purposes do not to then repurpose that data or share it with others for less legitimate purposes or without sufficient transparency and additional consent as appropriate.
It's not ridiculous, but it does impose a cost on them, and by extension everyone else dealing with them, because you changed your mind. Whether you should automatically be entitled to impose that cost on everyone else and under what circumstances is not an easy question.
Why shouldn't I have the right to, say, tell a company with sensitive financial data about me to delete it and terminate my relationship with them?
Maybe they need that data for their own financial records. Maybe those records are things they are required by law to keep.
Maybe they use that data to protect themselves against fraud or other abuses, and only use it in reasonable ways for those purposes, and allowing fraudsters to require them to delete all traces of their previous interactions would leave them unreasonably vulnerable.
If I can't do that, then I'm at their mercy not to sell that data, be acquired and have the data used in new ways that I did not authorize by the new owner, or be compromised and have that data in the hands of parties that would misuse it.
That's a false dichotomy. Practical data protection is almost always going to be about restricting not just the initial collection of data but also how that data may be used and by whom once it has been collected. An isolationist approach where everything can be kept totally secret is impractical, but it's usually not what we really want anyway, since then you couldn't do anything useful and intentional with the data either. It's more useful to ensure that people who have some data about us for legitimate purposes do not to then repurpose that data or share it with others for less legitimate purposes or without sufficient transparency and additional consent as appropriate.
> It's not ridiculous, but it does impose a cost on them, and by extension everyone else dealing with them, because you changed your mind. Whether you should automatically be entitled to impose that cost on everyone else and under what circumstances is not an easy question.
Sure, and that's why we have initiatives like the GDPR that try to answer that question. It's not going to be perfect, but throwing up our hands and giving up isn't an answer either.
> Maybe they need that data for their own financial records. Maybe those records are things they are required by law to keep.
Needing that information to be personally-identifiable is pretty rare, and cases where that information needs to be retained for a long time are even rarer. But in cases where it's necessary, sure, of course, go for it. The point is that the data needs to be collected and kept for a legit business purpose.
> That's a false dichotomy.
No, it's not.
> Practical data protection is almost always going to be about restricting not just the initial collection of data but also how that data may be used and by whom once it has been collected.
That's been shown not to work all that well. Companies lose control of data all the time, whether due to a data breach, or due to unscrupulous practices internally that takes existing data to use in new ways, even if not specifically authorized.
> An isolationist approach where everything can be kept totally secret is impractical, but it's usually not what we really want anyway, since then you couldn't do anything useful and intentional with the data either.
Sure, and nowhere did I suggest that's what I wanted. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I'm totally fine giving out "secret" data if there's a benefit to my doing so. But if there is no benefit to me, then companies should not be entitled to my data.
Sure, and that's why we have initiatives like the GDPR that try to answer that question. It's not going to be perfect, but throwing up our hands and giving up isn't an answer either.
> Maybe they need that data for their own financial records. Maybe those records are things they are required by law to keep.
Needing that information to be personally-identifiable is pretty rare, and cases where that information needs to be retained for a long time are even rarer. But in cases where it's necessary, sure, of course, go for it. The point is that the data needs to be collected and kept for a legit business purpose.
> That's a false dichotomy.
No, it's not.
> Practical data protection is almost always going to be about restricting not just the initial collection of data but also how that data may be used and by whom once it has been collected.
That's been shown not to work all that well. Companies lose control of data all the time, whether due to a data breach, or due to unscrupulous practices internally that takes existing data to use in new ways, even if not specifically authorized.
> An isolationist approach where everything can be kept totally secret is impractical, but it's usually not what we really want anyway, since then you couldn't do anything useful and intentional with the data either.
Sure, and nowhere did I suggest that's what I wanted. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I'm totally fine giving out "secret" data if there's a benefit to my doing so. But if there is no benefit to me, then companies should not be entitled to my data.
Sure, and that's why we have initiatives like the GDPR that try to answer that question. It's not going to be perfect, but throwing up our hands and giving up isn't an answer either.
I would argue that the approach taken by the GDPR is pretty close to just throwing up our hands and giving up, just coming down on the other extreme.
Needing that information to be personally-identifiable is pretty rare, and cases where that information needs to be retained for a long time are even rarer.
Not at all. Just look at the records you are required to keep under EU VAT rules. One of the big criticisms since the changes in 2015 has been that they require an already demanding standard of evidence to be kept for the location of every single customer you sell to (if you're selling something within the scope of the rule change, obviously), you're required to keep that information for years, and your records are subject to audit by any of 28 different national tax authorities.
But in cases where it's necessary, sure, of course, go for it. The point is that the data needs to be collected and kept for a legit business purpose.
And what happens when that data includes, say, an IP address that was subject to geolocation when a customer was charged, thus linking that IP address and everything else in every log or database entry that you ever collected that mentions it with that specific customer? Since you may effectively be forced to keep the IP address associated with the customer to meet mandatory standards for tax record-keeping, must you now purge every related record or log line even from backups, on demand and entirely at your own expense?
What if those backups are stored, as many are, in an encrypted, deduplicating format? Are you now required to go through every backup you've ever taken in the history of your business and systematically obfuscate or delete every mention of that IP address? Do you have to take steps to erase any trace of it from the storage media involved, in case the media are lost and subject to recovery measures after an ordinary deletion? Do you realise how much time and money would be involved in doing that, every time a customer decided they didn't want you storing any personal data about them any more? It's totally impractical. There has to be some measure of being reasonable and proportionate in what is required.
That's been shown not to work all that well.
It doesn't work well when the regulations aren't enforced and there are limited meaningful penalties even for the sort of gross negligence that we've seen in cases like the Equifax leak. The idea that what Equifax did was compliant with the current rules is laughable, yet they've barely taken a slap on the wrist for it, despite both the degree of negligence that led to the breach and the scale and nature of the potential damage.
There's nothing inherently wrong with the principle, though. After all, there are many other things that we could do, but which are illegal and most of us don't, and we penalise those who break those laws. Why should this be any different?
I'm totally fine giving out "secret" data if there's a benefit to my doing so. But if there is no benefit to me, then companies should not be entitled to my data.
But that wasn't the scenario we were talking about. We were talking about a situation where someone legitimately had personal data about you, and you subsequently changed your mind and wanted them to delete that data. From the point of view of someone controlling and processing personal data in legitimate ways, giving you an absolute right to revoke that permission regardless of the practical consequences to anyone else involved is a totally different situation to giving you a right not to be involved in the first place.
I would argue that the approach taken by the GDPR is pretty close to just throwing up our hands and giving up, just coming down on the other extreme.
Needing that information to be personally-identifiable is pretty rare, and cases where that information needs to be retained for a long time are even rarer.
Not at all. Just look at the records you are required to keep under EU VAT rules. One of the big criticisms since the changes in 2015 has been that they require an already demanding standard of evidence to be kept for the location of every single customer you sell to (if you're selling something within the scope of the rule change, obviously), you're required to keep that information for years, and your records are subject to audit by any of 28 different national tax authorities.
But in cases where it's necessary, sure, of course, go for it. The point is that the data needs to be collected and kept for a legit business purpose.
And what happens when that data includes, say, an IP address that was subject to geolocation when a customer was charged, thus linking that IP address and everything else in every log or database entry that you ever collected that mentions it with that specific customer? Since you may effectively be forced to keep the IP address associated with the customer to meet mandatory standards for tax record-keeping, must you now purge every related record or log line even from backups, on demand and entirely at your own expense?
What if those backups are stored, as many are, in an encrypted, deduplicating format? Are you now required to go through every backup you've ever taken in the history of your business and systematically obfuscate or delete every mention of that IP address? Do you have to take steps to erase any trace of it from the storage media involved, in case the media are lost and subject to recovery measures after an ordinary deletion? Do you realise how much time and money would be involved in doing that, every time a customer decided they didn't want you storing any personal data about them any more? It's totally impractical. There has to be some measure of being reasonable and proportionate in what is required.
That's been shown not to work all that well.
It doesn't work well when the regulations aren't enforced and there are limited meaningful penalties even for the sort of gross negligence that we've seen in cases like the Equifax leak. The idea that what Equifax did was compliant with the current rules is laughable, yet they've barely taken a slap on the wrist for it, despite both the degree of negligence that led to the breach and the scale and nature of the potential damage.
There's nothing inherently wrong with the principle, though. After all, there are many other things that we could do, but which are illegal and most of us don't, and we penalise those who break those laws. Why should this be any different?
I'm totally fine giving out "secret" data if there's a benefit to my doing so. But if there is no benefit to me, then companies should not be entitled to my data.
But that wasn't the scenario we were talking about. We were talking about a situation where someone legitimately had personal data about you, and you subsequently changed your mind and wanted them to delete that data. From the point of view of someone controlling and processing personal data in legitimate ways, giving you an absolute right to revoke that permission regardless of the practical consequences to anyone else involved is a totally different situation to giving you a right not to be involved in the first place.
There's an excluded-middle fallacy here somewhere.
I don't really have a problem if I end up in the background of someone's family photo and then they stick it in an album or on a hard disk somewhere. I'd have a pretty big problem if someone snapped a photo of me in a public place and then sold it to a white supremacist magazine as "the face of minorities taking over this country". We'd have an even bigger problem if there was somebody out there who had hacked every security camera in the world and was collecting images to train facial recognition for a fleet of killer drones who would eliminate all his adversaries.
These situations are not the same. Most people have no problem with the first. Most people would be pretty terrified of the last.
I don't really have a problem if I end up in the background of someone's family photo and then they stick it in an album or on a hard disk somewhere. I'd have a pretty big problem if someone snapped a photo of me in a public place and then sold it to a white supremacist magazine as "the face of minorities taking over this country". We'd have an even bigger problem if there was somebody out there who had hacked every security camera in the world and was collecting images to train facial recognition for a fleet of killer drones who would eliminate all his adversaries.
These situations are not the same. Most people have no problem with the first. Most people would be pretty terrified of the last.
There might be an excluded-middle fallacy here somewhere but you haven't provided any clues as to its location.
But I think I get the gist of the thing you're pointing at, but surely you can understand why are other people would be wary of deciding what exactly is problematic in this regard via legislation, police, courts, etc., particularly as they exist today.
But I think I get the gist of the thing you're pointing at, but surely you can understand why are other people would be wary of deciding what exactly is problematic in this regard via legislation, police, courts, etc., particularly as they exist today.
>does anyone else find it morally repugnant
Yes, the idea that you are entitled to edit other people's memories is as repugnant as it gets.
Yes, the idea that you are entitled to edit other people's memories is as repugnant as it gets.
> Is there any way for me to get my information removed from Equifax?
No. (EDIT: If someone has a better idea, please reply!) I filed a complaint with the CFPB with citations from their breach as well as congressional testimony requesting my credit file be removed. The response was boilerplate:
"Thank you for contacting Equifax. We remain focused on consumer protection and committed to providing outstanding service and support. Protecting the security of the information in our possession is a responsibility we take very seriously and we apologize for the concern and frustration this cybersecurity incident causes. We have developed a comprehensive portfolio of services to support all U.S. consumers. Please refer to our dedicated website, https://www.equifaxsecurity2017.com, for the latest information and updates or contact our dedicated call center at 866-447-7559. The call center was set up to assist consumers and is open every day (including weekends) from 7:00 a.m. – 1:00 a.m. Eastern Time."
> Do I need to contact all of my line item creditors and ask them to remove references to Equifax?
Even if you contact your creditors, Equifax is under no obligation to remove the data. Most credit lines have the possibility of falling off after 10 years (7 years for negative trade lines), but there is no obligation for them to be removed.
No. (EDIT: If someone has a better idea, please reply!) I filed a complaint with the CFPB with citations from their breach as well as congressional testimony requesting my credit file be removed. The response was boilerplate:
"Thank you for contacting Equifax. We remain focused on consumer protection and committed to providing outstanding service and support. Protecting the security of the information in our possession is a responsibility we take very seriously and we apologize for the concern and frustration this cybersecurity incident causes. We have developed a comprehensive portfolio of services to support all U.S. consumers. Please refer to our dedicated website, https://www.equifaxsecurity2017.com, for the latest information and updates or contact our dedicated call center at 866-447-7559. The call center was set up to assist consumers and is open every day (including weekends) from 7:00 a.m. – 1:00 a.m. Eastern Time."
> Do I need to contact all of my line item creditors and ask them to remove references to Equifax?
Even if you contact your creditors, Equifax is under no obligation to remove the data. Most credit lines have the possibility of falling off after 10 years (7 years for negative trade lines), but there is no obligation for them to be removed.
I'm honestly curious if Equifax would fall under GDPR regulations? I'm sure there's some overlap of EU citizens who have lines of credit in the US.
We're having to prep for that at my corp currently, and it's VERY explicit about being able to pull up and remove all personal data, with some very hefty fines if you don't.
EDIT: thought about this further and peeked at our guidelines, they may be able to get around this by the "data is integral to the function of the business" exemption, but I'd still wonder if someone could speak with authority on this.
We're having to prep for that at my corp currently, and it's VERY explicit about being able to pull up and remove all personal data, with some very hefty fines if you don't.
EDIT: thought about this further and peeked at our guidelines, they may be able to get around this by the "data is integral to the function of the business" exemption, but I'd still wonder if someone could speak with authority on this.
> they may be able to get around this by the "data is integral to the function of the business" exemption
That's probably more of an "integral to fulfilling its contractual obligations to those the data is about". It's more complicated than that, but the point is that you cannot simply declare it the purpose of your business to collect personal information and thus be exempt from data protrection regulation.
That's probably more of an "integral to fulfilling its contractual obligations to those the data is about". It's more complicated than that, but the point is that you cannot simply declare it the purpose of your business to collect personal information and thus be exempt from data protrection regulation.
Fairly confident the CFPB does absolutely nothing to read complaints. I send in one for each credit agency and got the same boilerplate even though my complaint had nothing to do with the breach.
I filed the complaint through them as it acts as a notary function (complaint ID generated, my complaint and Equifax's response on file).
> Is there any way for me to get my information removed from Equifax?
No. Pay cash or get tracked.
No. Pay cash or get tracked.
Tracking is different than having your score data stored somewhere. Do you have a source for your "no" by the way? I'm genuinely curious.
I don't have a source, but you are the subject of Equifax's business, not a participant, so you have very little say. They scrape public data, and buy data from credit card issuers, store "loyalty" programs, etc. For the little you can do, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_reporting_agency#United...
Note that there are all sorts of unregulated ways in which companies (e.g. Facebook) use CRA data.
Note that there are all sorts of unregulated ways in which companies (e.g. Facebook) use CRA data.
The "source" is 99.99% of financial-y things you do use data brokers, if not Equifax specifically.
Got a bank account? You're in ChexSystem and/or Early Warning.
Ever had a car loan? Credit card? Student loan? Mortgage? You're in TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian, plus more.
Got a job at a large company? Your more likely than not to be in The Work Number.
Ever return an item to the store? You're probably in The Retail Equation.
Ever have car insurance, renter's insurance, and/or home owner's insurance? You're in LexusNexis.
It's virtually impossible, unless you live on a homestead completely off the grid, to avoid these data brokers knowing things about you.
Got a bank account? You're in ChexSystem and/or Early Warning.
Ever had a car loan? Credit card? Student loan? Mortgage? You're in TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian, plus more.
Got a job at a large company? Your more likely than not to be in The Work Number.
Ever return an item to the store? You're probably in The Retail Equation.
Ever have car insurance, renter's insurance, and/or home owner's insurance? You're in LexusNexis.
It's virtually impossible, unless you live on a homestead completely off the grid, to avoid these data brokers knowing things about you.
All of your consumer activity is sold to data brokers. All of your financial transactions involving credit instruments is sold to data brokers. They then package your data into a profile and sell it to marketers who want to target different demographic slices and compare against competitors.
Most people don't have a listing in any phone books these days yet you can type in a name and get credible hits from whitepages.com. Where do you think they get that data on names and where people live when you've never had a business relationship with them?
Most people don't have a listing in any phone books these days yet you can type in a name and get credible hits from whitepages.com. Where do you think they get that data on names and where people live when you've never had a business relationship with them?
Paying cash doesn't guarantee you won't end up in Equifax's databases. Your employer may report your income to The Work Number (owned by Equifax), your landlord may report your payment history, etc.
Furthermore, your case of "pay cash" pretty much excludes you from higher education and home ownership. Unless you are super wealthy.
Furthermore, your case of "pay cash" pretty much excludes you from higher education and home ownership. Unless you are super wealthy.
>Your employer may report your income to The Work Number (owned by Equifax), your landlord may report your payment history, etc.
How is this legal?
How is this legal?
Because that information is no different than anything in your credit report.
I forgot to mention the insurance companies have their own data brokers too. So you'll end up in there if you've ever had insurance.
I forgot to mention the insurance companies have their own data brokers too. So you'll end up in there if you've ever had insurance.
So you have to be extremely wealthy in order to pay cash everywhere, pay the obamacare insurance penalty plus any medical costs paid for by you out of pocket in cash. Also, you cannot legally drive in most (all?) states in the US since they require having some form of insurance (typically 'liability' ins.) for your vehicle.
Wow, it's impossible to not end up in any of these systems.
Wow, it's impossible to not end up in any of these systems.
Correct, the only way to avoid it is to live completely "off the grid," cabin in the woods style.
Paradoxically, if you were extremely wealthy you'd definitely want to purchase umbrella insurance to insure that wealth!!
I should mention that when I said insurance I meant car, homeowners, renters, and umbrella insurance, not medical insurance. I don't know about medical insurance and what sorts of data brokers they may use.
Banks use data brokers when you have a savings or checking account too.
Paradoxically, if you were extremely wealthy you'd definitely want to purchase umbrella insurance to insure that wealth!!
I should mention that when I said insurance I meant car, homeowners, renters, and umbrella insurance, not medical insurance. I don't know about medical insurance and what sorts of data brokers they may use.
Banks use data brokers when you have a savings or checking account too.
[deleted]
I don't know which is worse: That Equifax is straight up lying about their infrastructure to hide malpractice, or that they don't even know
"Honestly, Senator, does it really matter at this point? The data is all out there now anyways, you'd may as well just let us carry on unless you want to give us a 9-figure contract to update our own infrastructure."
...Is what I can only imagine is being said when the cameras are off.
...Is what I can only imagine is being said when the cameras are off.
Well didn't the IRS hire equifax right after the breach was exposed publicly?
They eventually canceled[0], but yes.
[0]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/after-second-bun...
[0]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/after-second-bun...
People responsible for data protection in Equifax know perfectly well how the data is stored[]. The CEO, evidently, does not. No news here, just a headline to provoke outrage.
[] Yes, "no protection" is also a way of storing data.
[] Yes, "no protection" is also a way of storing data.
You'd think that when you're the CEO of a company going off to talk to Congress about your company's recent data security problem, you might, I dunno... bone up on a few pieces of information about how your own company does security? Crazy thought, I know.
maybe he realized playing dumb was safer
Encrypt your secrets in plaintext, the hackers will never see it coming
I just use double-ROT-13 as my TPM, that way I can invoke the DMCA too!
OK now that's a quality nerdy joke if I ever heard one!
[deleted]
Not a lawyer, curious if this would be a violation of https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/6801
Equifax themselves are not a financial institution, but as a vendor of one, would it not apply to them too?
Equifax themselves are not a financial institution, but as a vendor of one, would it not apply to them too?
Doesn't matter; realistically, laws don't apply to them.
(Also not a lawyer)
(Also not a lawyer)
Just give them the corporate death penalty all ready.
What does that mean? The government just takes investors’ property when it doesn’t like what they do? That’s called expropriation. It redistributes the assets to the shareholders? They could just reconstitute the parts. This concept does not happen because it is silly.
In this context the "Corporate death penalty" could just be allowing them to get sued for the full amount of the damage they caused without baling them out. In practice, there is no way that they could survive that.
If you forced them to stop doing business and sell their assets, the shareholders would just get money. You can't simply rebuild a company from that, not to mention they'd probably get a significant haircut from that forced sale.
It may be appropriate, but that is such a rare tool to have used, you could argue that it should be avoided at all costs. Watching the government unravel companies just strikes me as dangerous.
That said, I find these credit agencies to be absurd, and need to either disappear or 100% change their business.
That said, I find these credit agencies to be absurd, and need to either disappear or 100% change their business.
>you could argue that it should be avoided at all costs
ok, argue this.
ok, argue this.
Because at some point along the spectrum, the truly bad, "don't deserve to exist" companies eventually turns into the government and party in power picking winners and losers. Depending on the party, this could be anyone from Goldman Sachs to Monsanto to the Washington Post, to Peabody Energy (coal).
Normalizing the corporate death penalty starts the ball rolling towards this end.
Normalizing the corporate death penalty starts the ball rolling towards this end.
I don't buy slippery-slope arguments as a general rule. The tool (corporate charter revocation) exists for a reason, and should be used if that reason is met. Sure, we must be constantly vigilant to ensure the tool isn't used for evil or with bias, but that's true of anything that can be used for good or bad.
It's pursued in the judicial system. Our judiciary has been, in the past, fairly non-partisan.
How many years can a corporation spend in jail?
Can anyone give a summary or point me to another article (not paywalled) with similar information? I'm very interested, but don't have a WSJ subscription.
Non-Paywall version http://archive.is/ikG4d
Source: u/neurotech1 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15672691
Source: u/neurotech1 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15672691
I second this
vladsanchez(1)
This guy needs to be held personally responsible. But he won’t be and that makes me extremely mad.
It sucks that the rich and wealthy can be as morally bankrupt as they want without any/many consequences.
It sucks that the rich and wealthy can be as morally bankrupt as they want without any/many consequences.
To be fair, the headline quote is from the interim chief. Richard Smith, the CEO at the time of the breach, has already resigned.
The interim CEO is not a complete newcomer though, he was in Equifax since April 2010[0] and is former head of the company’s Asia-Pacific business[0]. And considering the huge controversy around the data, it being their main/sole business and the fact it made his predecessor step down he should take a bit more interest than random journalists and randoms online to understand crystal clear what's going on in there, especially when preparing to go to a hearing in Congress to get drilled about it.
Then there's this gem [0]: "Barros also led the company’s U.S. Information Solutions (USIS) business, which includes U.S.-based services that provide businesses with consumer and commercial information and insights related to areas of risk management, identity and fraud, marketing and a variety of industry-specific solutions."
[0] - https://www.equifax.com/about-equifax/corporate-leadership/
Then there's this gem [0]: "Barros also led the company’s U.S. Information Solutions (USIS) business, which includes U.S.-based services that provide businesses with consumer and commercial information and insights related to areas of risk management, identity and fraud, marketing and a variety of industry-specific solutions."
[0] - https://www.equifax.com/about-equifax/corporate-leadership/
Thank you. Understanding enough encryption to know how to protect your company data would take about 1 day of learning, every CEO should know this, no excuses.
I dont expect them to be able to debate cipher strengths or argue key length, but I do expect them to know about Machine-To-Machine communication, Data at rest, One-way encryption and what it takes to be HIPAA compliant etc, it's their job to know this, and it's NOT HARD. I makes me mad too.
I dont expect them to be able to debate cipher strengths or argue key length, but I do expect them to know about Machine-To-Machine communication, Data at rest, One-way encryption and what it takes to be HIPAA compliant etc, it's their job to know this, and it's NOT HARD. I makes me mad too.
Equifax doesn't store medical data, so HIPAA doesn't apply.
Here's the thing: short of some California disclosure laws, it isn't clear that Equifax broke any laws, or even any contracts.
They don't have any particular duty to protect the data they have about you, other than protecting their own IP. Equifax is a clearing house for information that people say about you.
Look, if I follow you around, reporting all your movements, write it down, and then my notes about you get posted on the internet, what law did I break? (Equifax used to report "his marital troubles, jobs, school history, childhood, sex life, and political activities", so it isn't that far of a stretch).
Given that perspective, it makes sense that they would protect the data as much as any data vendor would. Certainly they didn't predict the PR backlash such a failure would cause and should have factored that in.
Here's the thing: short of some California disclosure laws, it isn't clear that Equifax broke any laws, or even any contracts.
They don't have any particular duty to protect the data they have about you, other than protecting their own IP. Equifax is a clearing house for information that people say about you.
Look, if I follow you around, reporting all your movements, write it down, and then my notes about you get posted on the internet, what law did I break? (Equifax used to report "his marital troubles, jobs, school history, childhood, sex life, and political activities", so it isn't that far of a stretch).
Given that perspective, it makes sense that they would protect the data as much as any data vendor would. Certainly they didn't predict the PR backlash such a failure would cause and should have factored that in.
They don't have any particular duty to protect the data they have about you, other than protecting their own IP.
They certainly do in much of the civilised world. The US is almost as far behind the norm in the modern world when it comes to privacy safeguards as it is in its banking and financial infrastructure.
They certainly do in much of the civilised world. The US is almost as far behind the norm in the modern world when it comes to privacy safeguards as it is in its banking and financial infrastructure.
The FCRA gives them the duty to protect their information from unauthorized disclosure.
Non-Paywall version http://archive.is/ikG4d
Thanks for this. Also, for future reference, can you just paste wsj article URLs into archive.is and it will go out and pull the non paywalled article? Or does archive.is get the cached page from your browser or something?
Encryption wouldn't have mattered here. To a pretty good first approximation, none of the "encryption" done at scale at any Fortune 500 company in the US is more than a speed bump for attackers. Unless you're using moon math --- nobody is --- enterprise backend encryption is hamstrung by the fact that you're keeping the data because automated business processes need to use it, which means automated systems need to decrypt it.
This is an excellent point, but you can also envision attack scenarios in which only parts of a distributed system are compromised. In that case, the inability of some systems to read the data that they store could be a benefit because the systems that are compromised are not absolutely guaranteed to be the same systems that possess the keys.
One nice example of this which I once saw in a real system is that a system that collects credit card numbers from the public might not need to be able to read those numbers after they're recorded, if the charges are going to be made by a later batch process. So the credit card number receiving system can use a public key to encrypt the incoming data in such a way that the batch processor will later be able to decrypt it. In this case, there is certainly a machine that has the capacity to read the data, but it's not the same machine that stores the data or that is exposed to connections from the general public. (But that paradigm is a lot easier for the case of offline batch processing, which is mostly different from the applications that you were describing... but wherever a system has a component like this, it may be possible to reduce the window of exposure with this pattern.)
Another example is that a database server might be compromised via a different vector from its clients. If some database fields were encrypted, the impact of a database-only compromise would be reduced.
Edit: elsewhere in this thread someone points out that your argument may be meant to be more specific to this breach, and I think it's most likely right with respect to this particular incident.
One nice example of this which I once saw in a real system is that a system that collects credit card numbers from the public might not need to be able to read those numbers after they're recorded, if the charges are going to be made by a later batch process. So the credit card number receiving system can use a public key to encrypt the incoming data in such a way that the batch processor will later be able to decrypt it. In this case, there is certainly a machine that has the capacity to read the data, but it's not the same machine that stores the data or that is exposed to connections from the general public. (But that paradigm is a lot easier for the case of offline batch processing, which is mostly different from the applications that you were describing... but wherever a system has a component like this, it may be possible to reduce the window of exposure with this pattern.)
Another example is that a database server might be compromised via a different vector from its clients. If some database fields were encrypted, the impact of a database-only compromise would be reduced.
Edit: elsewhere in this thread someone points out that your argument may be meant to be more specific to this breach, and I think it's most likely right with respect to this particular incident.
[deleted]
For some color here, the Fermi estimate for number of unique consequential writes Equifax will make in a day is about ~1 billion and the number of "pull that entire file, please" is in the tens of millions.
All the data is hot data. That's what Equifax exists at all. There are multiple internal services which can cause "pull that entire file." If you lose any of them, your data store doesn't matter; there goes the ball game.
Someone's about to say "But rate limiting!" and not understand that Bank of America can ask for 10 million files at a time. (One cron job talking to a another cron job, etc etc, will fetch an update to a substantial fraction of all of their customers to update their internal records for underwriting. A larger recurring use case is "Refresh the soft pull on everyone in our marketing funnel whose pull is stale." Note that that is a sizable portion of the adult population.)
All the data is hot data. That's what Equifax exists at all. There are multiple internal services which can cause "pull that entire file." If you lose any of them, your data store doesn't matter; there goes the ball game.
Someone's about to say "But rate limiting!" and not understand that Bank of America can ask for 10 million files at a time. (One cron job talking to a another cron job, etc etc, will fetch an update to a substantial fraction of all of their customers to update their internal records for underwriting. A larger recurring use case is "Refresh the soft pull on everyone in our marketing funnel whose pull is stale." Note that that is a sizable portion of the adult population.)
We’re using spooky moon math (semi-homomorphic encryption in a rather restricted case, mind you) for exactly this reason for the 4 biggest companies in a huge industry here in Australia. These companies are starting to understand why it might be needed, which is super exciting. And hell, even if the prototype gets killed, it’s been fun as hell to work on.
What kind of operations are you able to do on the data?
Solely addition on integers, currently. I’m having a lot of fun exploring pattern matching with semi-homomorphic encryption for the larger project, though I have my reservations, but it’s hopefully possible.
One of the more interesting bits of the project is that soft-real-time is not a requirement, so some simpler, slower and older algorithms become feasible (interactive ZKPs, even fully-HE systems perhaps). A very specific use case has allowed for the possibility. But it’s amazing to work on :)
One of the more interesting bits of the project is that soft-real-time is not a requirement, so some simpler, slower and older algorithms become feasible (interactive ZKPs, even fully-HE systems perhaps). A very specific use case has allowed for the possibility. But it’s amazing to work on :)
[deleted]
We have an encryption scheme where all user data has its own unique user based key. So compromising 1 user key only lets you have access to that user data and that key has access to nothing else. Your statement is correct when you said that automated systems which need access to all data will inevitably lead to mass decryption and compromise. In the system described above, there is no way for an automated system (or anything) to have access to all keys and therefor no system or person can access all data.
How does this help if you've got an API that decrypts for you?
It's possible that you've protected the data at rest, but if some 'get' operation is just going to serve it up, what is the effective difference?
It's possible that you've protected the data at rest, but if some 'get' operation is just going to serve it up, what is the effective difference?
You may have rate monitoring on the decryption requests, watching the traffic flow to the servers fronting your encrypted store.
An attacker is forced to either exfiltrate the data slowly (so the surge isn't noticed) or alert ops monitoring that the decryption service is unusually active.
Defense in depth raises the difficulty in going unnoticed and raises the time it takes to succeed.
An attacker is forced to either exfiltrate the data slowly (so the surge isn't noticed) or alert ops monitoring that the decryption service is unusually active.
Defense in depth raises the difficulty in going unnoticed and raises the time it takes to succeed.
The get operation provides parts of the key used to decrypt the data you are after. No key, no data.
Edit: the key comes from the user, its not stored anywhere on a server. The key can optionally never leave the user's device.
Edit: the key comes from the user, its not stored anywhere on a server. The key can optionally never leave the user's device.
> Edit: the key comes from the user, its not stored anywhere on a server. The key can optionally never leave the user's device.
Does it mean if user loses his key - he wont be able to get access to his data?
Does it mean if user loses his key - he wont be able to get access to his data?
If someone drains your db, do they get the keys along with it?
I guess you can have a key-per-row, or key-per-partition, and throttle and monitor access to that key. This isn't going to make operations like database indexing or joins very happy, so you're probably limited to payload-level data; hard to judge if that's okay since I don't know the requirements for the schema.
This presupposes you know what you're doing, security-wise, on your network, and with your backups, and with temporary data on servers. All of your interior traffic is encrypted, right? Right.
It doesn't sound like Equifax was even on the map.
This presupposes you know what you're doing, security-wise, on your network, and with your backups, and with temporary data on servers. All of your interior traffic is encrypted, right? Right.
It doesn't sound like Equifax was even on the map.
No, of course you would not store those keys in that database.
Remember that the users in this case are the banks. Their data wasn't what got leaked. Product data got leaked.
My understanding is that many businesses choose to encrypt their data because many laws requiring disclosure of data breaches have an exception for encrypted data (few of these laws have a good definition of 'encrypted'). Businesses are encrypting in a way that legally mitigates the PR risk, and not particularly paying attention to the actual security risks.
One good thing you get out of encryption at rest is that when some fool loses the backup tapes, or sells old servers to a "certified" recycling business that turns out to just put them on eBay without wiping anything, you may still be fine. So long as the keys weren't on the same tapes/ old servers.
It's small, but it is something.
It's small, but it is something.
It wouldn't have mattered, but they should absolutely still be doing it to mitigate exposure through loss of physical disks, and this question should be an easy yes.
The other reason to do it, frankly, is because when you end up in the news, this is the first thing everyone asks. It's easier to say yes than to "no, but..." and explain why this is a dumb question to ask (as you are trying to do here, with a far more technical audience).
The other reason to do it, frankly, is because when you end up in the news, this is the first thing everyone asks. It's easier to say yes than to "no, but..." and explain why this is a dumb question to ask (as you are trying to do here, with a far more technical audience).
I mostly agree, but my concern is that this is not the perspective most people, including practitioners, are bringing to the discussion when they talk about "encryption". They mean, "if you had encrypted, this data never would have been exfiltrated in a breach". Which, of course, is false.
Fair enough, but I think we should be careful not to encourage the replacement of this perspective with one that says Equifax (and other collectors of sensitive data) could not be expected to do / have done better. I was quite surprised (though I probably should not have been) by the number of IT people advocating that position.
Encryption wouldn't have mattered here
I think you mean "encryption wouldn't have mattered for the known attack", but there are lots of cases where encryption would help... even in cases that don't involve hacking, like hard-drive disposal.
I think you mean "encryption wouldn't have mattered for the known attack", but there are lots of cases where encryption would help... even in cases that don't involve hacking, like hard-drive disposal.
Isn't that what he means by specifying "here"?
Well, that depends. If the attackers gain complete control of the automated application, they can potentially decrypt the entire system (or, at least, the parts that application has access to). If they only gain access to just the datastore, they may or may not be able to decrypt the data -- the encryption keys might not be in the datastore at all. It depends on the manner and scope of the access that's gained.
As a general rule, if you get the database, you can assume remote code execution.
If you're a defender, I would go further and say you must assume it.
If you're a defender, I would go further and say you must assume it.
In a reasonable environment, gaining remote code execution on the database server wouldn't give you the ability to decrypt anything, the DB shouldn't have access to the decryption keys/oracle/whatever.
To get a dump you'd need to compromise two systems - a database server that has access to all the data, but in the data it stores and returns all the interesting columns are encrypted; and an app server that can decrypt data that it gets (and it has the keys only for the columns that this app server actually needs to use, if you have different classes of confidential data) but can't get all the data from the database freely, only a predefined subset in a limited and logged manner controlled by the database system.
Granted, if the attackers can get RCE on one of those systems then it's likely that with some effort they can get the other system as well in a similar manner, but still it's an useful defense in depth.
To get a dump you'd need to compromise two systems - a database server that has access to all the data, but in the data it stores and returns all the interesting columns are encrypted; and an app server that can decrypt data that it gets (and it has the keys only for the columns that this app server actually needs to use, if you have different classes of confidential data) but can't get all the data from the database freely, only a predefined subset in a limited and logged manner controlled by the database system.
Granted, if the attackers can get RCE on one of those systems then it's likely that with some effort they can get the other system as well in a similar manner, but still it's an useful defense in depth.
I'm trying to imagine a scenario where data is stored encrypted in the db and then decrypted in the app server (I've seen this in a bunch of random PHP apps over the years). A SQLi might be able to dump encrypted data or escalate to execution on the database (from which you could pivot back to the app server), but just the SQLi doesn't necessarily expose the encrypted data.
See the example vulnerable web service here: https://gist.github.com/emidln/a43b9fee4fc55273106c4b850f6b4...
Is the assumption that control over the db can pivot back to the server or that if there are basic issues with db access that there must be other exploitable issues (probably a fair assumption)?
See the example vulnerable web service here: https://gist.github.com/emidln/a43b9fee4fc55273106c4b850f6b4...
Is the assumption that control over the db can pivot back to the server or that if there are basic issues with db access that there must be other exploitable issues (probably a fair assumption)?
SQLI -> RCE -> Recover key or access to oracle function -> data.
No, I still disagree. An attacker could compromise the backup system, or access the file system and duplicate the database at the file level, or just steal a disk. Both Oracle and Microsoft SQL Server support transparent disk encryption to protect against precisely this type of attack.
> If you're a defender, I would go further and say you must assume it.
The assumptions you make when reacting to a known compromise are wildly different than what access an attacker actually has and what they might be able to do.
> If you're a defender, I would go further and say you must assume it.
The assumptions you make when reacting to a known compromise are wildly different than what access an attacker actually has and what they might be able to do.
I am not sure if thats necessarily true - a lot of folks are using cloud databases/datastores (Azure, S3 etc). Getting access to that is a different problem than remote code execution. Unless I am misunderstanding something, or you are specifically talking about on-site databases.
"Encryption" in cloud data stores (like KMS) is really just an expression of permissions; it's systems security, not cryptographic security. If you don't have permission to access a resource on another server, yes, you've protected that resource --- but you don't need cryptography to express that.
Since you mentioned KMS, S3 has ACL mechanisms, along with separate mechanisms to encrypt at rest using KMS, or any client based key. On cloud based stores, you can't basically guarantee systems security against the cloud provider or intrusions in their system, and for sensitive data need to encrypt it from your side.
In general I am not sure if we wish to conflate systems security and cryptographic security - cryptographic security ideally should guard against system security failures. Although in practice I grant you that broad system failures which expose crypto secrets (code execution would fall into that) would lead to crypto failures as well.
In general I am not sure if we wish to conflate systems security and cryptographic security - cryptographic security ideally should guard against system security failures. Although in practice I grant you that broad system failures which expose crypto secrets (code execution would fall into that) would lead to crypto failures as well.
[deleted]
What is moon math?
Anything where the underlying math hasn't been proven at Amazon/Apple/Google scale, and/or isn't available in production-ready form in open-source software, and/or is heavily patented.
Is "moon math" a term of art?
Just a couple days ago, I heard a mathematician call a certain complicated knot invariant "space math" because of how out there the approach was, but that was idiosyncratic.
Just a couple days ago, I heard a mathematician call a certain complicated knot invariant "space math" because of how out there the approach was, but that was idiosyncratic.
Presumably whiz-bang space-age cryptostuff, homomorphic encryption and differential privacy et. al.. Things that'd be spectacular if you found them in a startup two years from now, much less in an enterprise that hasn't done any core tech upgrades since 2005.
Thank you for bringing sense into the discussion. I don't know how many times I've been asked "but will our data be encrypted on your server, in case someone hacks it?" and I need to explain this basic concept to otherwise intelligent people. It's like demanding that the driver's side door in a car must have a child lock installed.
I'm interested in a genuine discussion about how to answer that. For all the commonsense explanations you could give like that ones in this thread, all a client tends to hear is "anyone can hack it".
For all the horrible stuff ups Equifax management has had, it sounds like congress would be substantively happier with them if they said "yes our SAN has an FDE feature". The media would certainly be kinder to them.
I'm in two minds about rolling something objectively pointless just so I can address these sorts of concerns.
For all the horrible stuff ups Equifax management has had, it sounds like congress would be substantively happier with them if they said "yes our SAN has an FDE feature". The media would certainly be kinder to them.
I'm in two minds about rolling something objectively pointless just so I can address these sorts of concerns.
Encryption would have reduced the damage if encryption was done right. There's no reason for a front-end system to have access to SSN and with modern secure storage like Vault you can grant encryption(Write) and decryption(Read) rights specific to each app on your platform.
Having separate read and write permissions is entirely orthogonal to having encryption. That certainly would help (assuming the compromised system didn't need to have read permissions), but you don't need encryption to implement that and adding encryption doesn't imply that you've done it.
Vault is designed for application configuration secrets, not for at-scale storage of raw business data.
The transit backend can be used to encrypt more general business data - https://www.hashicorp.com/blog/transparent-data-encryption-i....
Why encryption wont help?
Is it because the keys are easily comprimisable, or stolen?
Is it because the keys are easily comprimisable, or stolen?
Because the attacker is in a position to query the database. That (probably) means that they have compromised one of the machines that can legitimately query the database. But if that machine can query the database, and the data in the database is encrypted, then that machine must be able to decrypt it, or else it can't use it. So the keys must be on the machine - and the attacker has compromised that machine. Or else, that machine has authorization to send requests to some other machine that is the decrypting authority - and the attackers, by having compromised that machine, have gained the ability to send requests for decryption.
TL;DR: If a machine can actually use the data in the database, it has to be able to get the data in a decrypted form. If an attacker compromises that machine, the attacker can also get the data in decrypted form.
TL;DR: If a machine can actually use the data in the database, it has to be able to get the data in a decrypted form. If an attacker compromises that machine, the attacker can also get the data in decrypted form.
All the best locks in the world doesn't help one iota if your attack is to get the janitor to open the gate for you.
The compromised component at Equifax was the running application which is built to retrieve data from the database - it knows how to log in to the database and do whatever decryption is required to retrieve data. You don't particularly need to compromise passwords or encryption keys or whatever, because the application will just use them for you.
Encryption protects against compromising the server itself either physically or at the OS level, which is not nothing, but also doesn't help if you have an underpaid janitor with a gambling problem with all the keys in his pocket guarding the loading bays out back.
The compromised component at Equifax was the running application which is built to retrieve data from the database - it knows how to log in to the database and do whatever decryption is required to retrieve data. You don't particularly need to compromise passwords or encryption keys or whatever, because the application will just use them for you.
Encryption protects against compromising the server itself either physically or at the OS level, which is not nothing, but also doesn't help if you have an underpaid janitor with a gambling problem with all the keys in his pocket guarding the loading bays out back.
>none of the "encryption" done at scale at any Fortune 500 company in the US is more than a speed bump for attackers.
So why Fortune 500 companies only? I am just trying to understand what this has to do with the scale of a company.
So why Fortune 500 companies only? I am just trying to understand what this has to do with the scale of a company.
Simples use HSM's and use proper physical security
It's called defense in depth. Google the term, it's a useful mechanism for real security.
If that's true, why encrypt just once? Why not three times, and then add a rot14 just to be safe? Every millimeter of depth counts!
I don't think this answer is fair. If the encryption is deployed to ensure that only a subset of systems that process or transmit sensitive information can understand it, the attack surface that results in disclosure of the information has been reduced.
Elsewhere in this thread you said that a compromise of a database is likely associated with a compromise of systems that access that database, but this is not necessary true if the platforms and administration of these systems are very heterogeneous (say, different operating systems), and in any case it doesn't make it not an application of defense in depth. (Suppose that 90% of attacks that penetrate the database also penetrate the client; now this use of encryption has managed to beneficially mitigate 10% of these attacks.)
Elsewhere in this thread you said that a compromise of a database is likely associated with a compromise of systems that access that database, but this is not necessary true if the platforms and administration of these systems are very heterogeneous (say, different operating systems), and in any case it doesn't make it not an application of defense in depth. (Suppose that 90% of attacks that penetrate the database also penetrate the client; now this use of encryption has managed to beneficially mitigate 10% of these attacks.)
Because encrypting once adds noticeable depth against straightforward attacks. Encrypting multiple times adds practically nothing.
The problem is that encrypting once in a conventional database design does not add noticeable depth. The server needs to be able to decrypt automatically in order to function. Whatever the server does to decrypt, the attacker will do too.
It helps here to understand two things:
1. When we talk about protecting servers with encryption, we're stipulating attackers with RCE. That was the case with the Equifax attacker and is routinely the case in real-world applications.
2. SQLI, the app-layer non-RCE attack that gives you direct access to raw database rows (ie: the one non-RCE case in which you'd get access to the data we're encrypting) almost always equates to RCE anyways.
There are real designs that involve cryptography that mitigate these problems. They fall into two buckets:
1. HSM/Crypto "oracle" schemes that are backed by intensive staffing and monitoring. Yes: nobody disagrees that Equifax should have had a serious security team doing serious monitoring. But: if it had that, it wouldn't have had this breach, which involved a published critical framework vulnerability. In other words: in bucket 1, "encryption" isn't helping you, "better security team" is.
2. Moon math schemes. I'm all for moon math, but when people say "phwat!? Equifax worn't even encrypticated?", they do not as a rule have a particular moon math scheme in mind (or, likely, an appreciation for what it means to be the first at-scale deployment of a new moon math scheme).
I am not mounting an argument that people shouldn't encrypt things. Hard drives do get lost. I'm just saying that as an operational security mitigation, encryption isn't doing what 99.99% of developers think it's doing in this scenario.
(by the way, I can't take credit for the term "moon math" but it is super useful)
It helps here to understand two things:
1. When we talk about protecting servers with encryption, we're stipulating attackers with RCE. That was the case with the Equifax attacker and is routinely the case in real-world applications.
2. SQLI, the app-layer non-RCE attack that gives you direct access to raw database rows (ie: the one non-RCE case in which you'd get access to the data we're encrypting) almost always equates to RCE anyways.
There are real designs that involve cryptography that mitigate these problems. They fall into two buckets:
1. HSM/Crypto "oracle" schemes that are backed by intensive staffing and monitoring. Yes: nobody disagrees that Equifax should have had a serious security team doing serious monitoring. But: if it had that, it wouldn't have had this breach, which involved a published critical framework vulnerability. In other words: in bucket 1, "encryption" isn't helping you, "better security team" is.
2. Moon math schemes. I'm all for moon math, but when people say "phwat!? Equifax worn't even encrypticated?", they do not as a rule have a particular moon math scheme in mind (or, likely, an appreciation for what it means to be the first at-scale deployment of a new moon math scheme).
I am not mounting an argument that people shouldn't encrypt things. Hard drives do get lost. I'm just saying that as an operational security mitigation, encryption isn't doing what 99.99% of developers think it's doing in this scenario.
(by the way, I can't take credit for the term "moon math" but it is super useful)
Lol, if you don't encrypt what keeps some employee from just walking in and stealing the hard drives? Insider attacks are huge, learn this in sec 101. RCE is your area, I am sure, but you are missing a huge category of trivial attacks if you don't encrypt.
You mean because the data is used in a readable form at some point or another, a compromise would have resulted either way? Can't say I'm sold, my friend.
Yes: because the point of encryption is to protect you from a compromise in your server (that's what happened at Equifax), but for the server to be able to use the data, it has to have have some means of getting plaintext access to it. Once you've lost your server to an attacker, you've lost control of that mechanism as well.
This is a problem even with HSM designs; in real-world systems, HSMs usually just present an oracle interface to data. The hope is that with sufficient monitoring, you can use the oracle to buy time for defenders to detect a compromise before all your data is exfiltrated.
I think most penetration testers have the experience of owning up a server and going on the brief treasure hunt for the static key stored somewhere on the filesystem.
This is a problem even with HSM designs; in real-world systems, HSMs usually just present an oracle interface to data. The hope is that with sufficient monitoring, you can use the oracle to buy time for defenders to detect a compromise before all your data is exfiltrated.
I think most penetration testers have the experience of owning up a server and going on the brief treasure hunt for the static key stored somewhere on the filesystem.
Most people use encryption in the following way for passwords: user provides input, input is hashed, hash is stored, future attempts to log in are hashed and compared. This is very secure. Server compromised? No problem, all they get is a bunch of hashed stuff. Hashing is the main business of a bureau of any sort of public data. That is the business in 2017. If personal data were kept as fuzzy hashes that required partial knowledge to decrypt, systems would be more robust and information would be better protected. It is not a new idea, just an oft overlooked one.
The point of encryption is often just to prevent people from walking off with hard disks and getting at the data. Remember that companies often have backups managed by 3rd parties.
What is "HSM" in this context?
Among probable hits, "hierarchical storage management" and "hardware security module".
Among probable hits, "hierarchical storage management" and "hardware security module".
Once you have remote code execution with privilege escalation on box Z, no amount of encryption can save at least box Z
Well I heard from the FBI that only criminals encrypt data using these fancy counting machine things. So it seems like Equifax may have actually done the right thing here. /sarcasm>
On a serious note, we really need to make encryption a part of high school mathematics. What teenager doesn't want to write secret messages?
When I took an intro to security course in college we spent a couple of classes building a very elementary understanding of how encryption works with plenty of hands on examples (using laughably insecure algorithms, but still enough to get the points across). I think most students found it the most interesting part of the course since most everything else was more about security policy (a MBA could've probably easily taken the course successfully).
On a serious note, we really need to make encryption a part of high school mathematics. What teenager doesn't want to write secret messages?
When I took an intro to security course in college we spent a couple of classes building a very elementary understanding of how encryption works with plenty of hands on examples (using laughably insecure algorithms, but still enough to get the points across). I think most students found it the most interesting part of the course since most everything else was more about security policy (a MBA could've probably easily taken the course successfully).
Taking a chance of derailing the thread here, sorry:
SO taught HS freshmen in physics (close, but still). I'd say we need to make math a part of HS mathematics. ~60% of the kids can't do algebra in any way. Really. Trying to make encryption a part of it is essentially useless. I hear from time to time that a 'basic-adulting' course would be great to have had. HA! You think mortgage interest rates and basic car maintenance would be learned? Most HS students in the US can barely keep from snaping their genitals at each other during class. Find me a cell-phone jammer that the FCC will approve of for under $200 and EVERY teacher in the US will buy five that very same day. You'd make billions.
SO taught HS freshmen in physics (close, but still). I'd say we need to make math a part of HS mathematics. ~60% of the kids can't do algebra in any way. Really. Trying to make encryption a part of it is essentially useless. I hear from time to time that a 'basic-adulting' course would be great to have had. HA! You think mortgage interest rates and basic car maintenance would be learned? Most HS students in the US can barely keep from snaping their genitals at each other during class. Find me a cell-phone jammer that the FCC will approve of for under $200 and EVERY teacher in the US will buy five that very same day. You'd make billions.
Business idea: Faraday cage classroom kits.
Then some kid has a medical emergency, people take 5m extra to call an ambulance due to having to go outside or find a landline, and the school gets sued.
Get in line? The schools (in CO at least) are getting sued all the time. Most of them are frivolous (I want my kid to play on varsity, the school lunch smells bad so I need to bring my dog to class, I have ADHD but am allergic to plastic(?) so give me an A) . Some are legitimate and mostly about classroom sizes and racism/sexism. Some kids bring guns and knives to school, attempt/commit murder and then snapchat themselves doing it. Most of the district's caseload is made of 'slam-dunk' cases, but they do add up and funding for the legal department here is not going up. Classes are now about 37 students/room. They aren't teachers, they are wardens.
Faraday Cages may not be a bad idea though. Copper is fairly cheap. It's making new windows and certifying that the door to the classroom is closed and that no signals can get in. Heck, with the way battery life is going, maybe just take away electrical outlets and power-strips. Only 1st period would be effected with a bit of kids after lunch.
Faraday Cages may not be a bad idea though. Copper is fairly cheap. It's making new windows and certifying that the door to the classroom is closed and that no signals can get in. Heck, with the way battery life is going, maybe just take away electrical outlets and power-strips. Only 1st period would be effected with a bit of kids after lunch.
So, has the data been actually leaked, or do you still have to pony up a load of BTC to see this?
At this point I think there is literally nothing about Equifax incompetence that would surprise me. I mean nothing.
They could reveal tomorrow that their data center fire protection protocols mandate the use of printed backups, feeding them to the flames with hopes the god of data destruction would be appeased and leave their servers alone. I would not be surprised. Nor would I be surprised if the paper backups were only available as printouts on toilet paper, 1000 miles away, in the CEO's office.
No, my reaction would be, "sounds about right for them, though I guess it's +1 point for effort on keeping any backups at all"
They could reveal tomorrow that their data center fire protection protocols mandate the use of printed backups, feeding them to the flames with hopes the god of data destruction would be appeased and leave their servers alone. I would not be surprised. Nor would I be surprised if the paper backups were only available as printouts on toilet paper, 1000 miles away, in the CEO's office.
No, my reaction would be, "sounds about right for them, though I guess it's +1 point for effort on keeping any backups at all"
I would like to quote PostgreSQL Experts (this applies to all DBs): FULL DISK ENCRYPTION IS USELESS. [1]
FDE protects against… • … theft of the media. • That’s it. • That is about 0.00000002% of the actual intrusions that you have to worry about. • Easy rule: If psql can read it in cleartext, it’s not secure. • (It’s a great idea for laptops, of course.)
And then it recommends: "Always encrypt specific columns, not entire database or disk"
However encrypt your backups.
I think it is fairly sensible.
[1] Securing PostgreSQL [PDF], Page 31 : http://thebuild.com/presentations/pgconfeu-2016-securing-pos...
FDE protects against… • … theft of the media. • That’s it. • That is about 0.00000002% of the actual intrusions that you have to worry about. • Easy rule: If psql can read it in cleartext, it’s not secure. • (It’s a great idea for laptops, of course.)
And then it recommends: "Always encrypt specific columns, not entire database or disk"
However encrypt your backups.
I think it is fairly sensible.
[1] Securing PostgreSQL [PDF], Page 31 : http://thebuild.com/presentations/pgconfeu-2016-securing-pos...
[deleted]
If encryption is enriched with appropriate identity, authorisation and authentication systems then...
Encryption at network level is a must. Corporate routers/firewalls have been very vulnerable before and the risk of grabbing everything is a lot easier if you've comprised the network.
Encryption at rest is a must, as at some point you need to replace those disks and it's a lot easier if you can be cavalier with the handling afterwards because you know it is unreadable.
Encryption at application level (object encryption and between services) is a must. Which means if a service is hacked or you dump the dB you may not be able to read any of it or only those records accessed whilst the hack happens. You replicate access control patterns, like in a secure building... These may come down to one or more common denominators (can you trust the security receptionist), but better that than the whole chain is vulnerable... You then only have one set of alarms, logs, metrics, etc to keep an eye on and to test very thoroughly.
In the physical world: for security scenarios we have very strict procedures with locks, boxes, safes, multiple security door/gate entry systems, multiple participants and signatures involved in every action, etc to mitigate internal and external error, failure or attack - all of these can have an electronic information system equivalent and we should start designing security in web systems with these ideas in mind when it as significant as Equifax.
Encryption at network level is a must. Corporate routers/firewalls have been very vulnerable before and the risk of grabbing everything is a lot easier if you've comprised the network.
Encryption at rest is a must, as at some point you need to replace those disks and it's a lot easier if you can be cavalier with the handling afterwards because you know it is unreadable.
Encryption at application level (object encryption and between services) is a must. Which means if a service is hacked or you dump the dB you may not be able to read any of it or only those records accessed whilst the hack happens. You replicate access control patterns, like in a secure building... These may come down to one or more common denominators (can you trust the security receptionist), but better that than the whole chain is vulnerable... You then only have one set of alarms, logs, metrics, etc to keep an eye on and to test very thoroughly.
In the physical world: for security scenarios we have very strict procedures with locks, boxes, safes, multiple security door/gate entry systems, multiple participants and signatures involved in every action, etc to mitigate internal and external error, failure or attack - all of these can have an electronic information system equivalent and we should start designing security in web systems with these ideas in mind when it as significant as Equifax.
Do I need to contact all of my line item creditors and ask them to remove references to Equifax?