text
stringlengths 16
172k
| source
stringlengths 32
122
|
|---|---|
Upgradingis the process of replacing a product with a newer version of the same product. Incomputingandconsumer electronics, anupgradeis generally a replacement ofhardware,softwareorfirmwarewith a newer or better version, in order to bring the system up to date or to improve its characteristics.
Examples of common hardware upgrades include installing additional memory (RAM), adding largerhard disks, replacing microprocessor cards orgraphics cards, and installing new versions of software. Other upgrades are possible as well.
Common software upgrades include changing the version of anoperating system, anoffice suite, of an anti-virus program, or of various other tools.
Common firmware upgrades include the updating of theiPodcontrol menus, theXbox 360dashboard, or the non-volatile flash memory that contains theembedded operating systemfor aconsumer electronicsdevice.
Users can often download software and firmware upgrades from theInternet. Often the download is apatch—it does not contain the new version of the software in its entirety, just the changes that need to be made. Software patches usually aim to improve functionality or solve problems withsecurity. Rushed patches can cause more harm than good and are therefore sometimes regarded[by whom?]with skepticism for a short time after release.[1][original research?]Patches are generally free.
A software or firmware upgrade can be major or minor and therelease versioncode-number increases accordingly. A major upgrade will change the version number, whereas a minor update will often append a ".01", ".02", ".03", etc. For example, "version 10.03" might designate the third minor upgrade of version 10. Incommercial software, the minor upgrades (or updates) are generally free, but the major versions must be purchased.
Companies usually make software upgrades for the following reasons: 1.) to support industry regulatory requirements 2.) to accessemerging technologieswith new features, and tools 3.) to meet the demands of changing markets 4.) to continue to receive comprehensive product support.[2]
Although developers usually produce upgrades to improve a product, there are risks involved—including the possibility that the upgrade will worsen the product.
Upgrades of hardware involve a risk that new hardware will not be compatible with other pieces of hardware in a system. For example, an upgrade of RAM may not be compatible with existing RAM in a computer. Other hardware components may not be compatible after either an upgrade or downgrade, due to the non-availability of compatibledriversfor the hardware with a specificoperating system. Conversely, there is the same risk of non-compatibility when software is upgraded or downgraded for previously functioning hardware to no longer function.
Upgrades of software introduce the risk that the new version (or patch) will contain abug, causing the program to malfunction in some way or not to function at all. For example, in October 2005, a glitch in a software upgrade caused trading on theTokyo Stock Exchangeto shut down for most of the day.[3]Similar have occurred: from important government systems[4]tofreewareon the internet.
Upgrades can also worsen a product subjectively. A user may prefer an older version even if a newer version functions perfectly as designed. This may happen for a variety of reasons, including the user is already accustomed to the behavior of the old version or because the upgrade removed some features (seeiPhone jack removal controversyorOtherOS).
A further risk of software upgrades is that they canbrickthe device being upgraded, such as if power fails while the upgrade is in the middle of being installed. This is an especially big concern for embedded devices, in which upgrades are typically all-or-nothing (the upgrade is a firmware or filesystem image, which isn't usable if it's only partially written), and which have limited ability to recover from a failed upgrade.[5]Solutions to this generally involve keeping multiple copies of firmware, so that one can be upgraded while the other remains intact as a backup, but there are still holes which can cause this to fail.[5][6][7]Tools such asMender.io,[8]Sysup,[5]SWUpdate,RAUC,[7]andOSTree[9]provide more complete solutions that implement upgrades in a safeatomicway, and reduce or eliminate the need to customize bootloaders and other components. Desktop systems are more likely to use something likesnapshotsorrestore points; these are more efficient as they only require a small fraction of space to store the changes from the old system to the new one, but the lack of a turnkey implementation for embedded systems makes this impractical.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upgrade
|
Connascenceis a software design metric introduced by Meilir Page-Jones that quantifies the degree and type of dependency between software components, evaluating their strength (difficulty of change) and locality (proximity in the codebase). It can be categorized as static (analyzable at compile-time) or dynamic (detectable at runtime) and includes forms such as Connascence of Name, Type, and Position, each representing different dependency characteristics and levels of fragility.[1][2]
Coupling describes the degree and nature of dependency between software components, focusing on what they share (e.g., data, control flow, technology) and how tightly they are bound. It evaluates two key dimensions: strength, which measures how difficult it is to change the dependency, and scope (or visibility), which indicates how widely the dependency is exposed across modules or boundaries. Traditional coupling types typically include content coupling, common coupling, control coupling, stamp coupling, external coupling, and data coupling.[1][3][2]
Connascence, introduced by Meilir Page-Jones, provides a systematic framework for analyzing and measuring coupling dependencies. It evaluates dependencies based on three dimensions: strength, which measures the effort required to refactor or modify the dependency; locality, which considers how physically or logically close dependent components are in the codebase; and degree, which measures how many components are affected by the dependency. Connascence can be categorized into static (detectable at compile-time) and dynamic (detectable at runtime) forms. Static connascence refers to compile-time dependencies, such as method signatures, while dynamic connascence refers to runtime dependencies, which can manifest in forms like connascence of timing, values, or algorithm.[1][3][2]
Each coupling flavor can exhibit multiple types of connascence, a specific type, or, in rare cases, none at all, depending on how the dependency is implemented. Common types of connascence include connascence of name, type, position, and meaning. Certain coupling types naturally align with specific connascence types; for example, data coupling often involves connascence of name or type. However, not every combination of coupling and connascence is practically meaningful. Dependencies relying on parameter order in a method signature demonstrate connascence of position, which is fragile and difficult to refactor because reordering parameters breaks the interface. In contrast, connascence of name, which relies on field or parameter names, is generally more resilient to change. Connascence types themselves exhibit a natural hierarchy of strength, with connascence of name typically considered weaker than connascence of meaning.[1][3][2]
Dependencies spanning module boundaries or distributed systems typically have higher coordination costs, increasing the difficulty of refactoring and propagating changes across distant boundaries. Modern practices, such as dependency injection and interface-based programming, are often employed to reduce coupling strength and improve the maintainability of dependencies.[1][3][2]
While coupling identifies what is shared between components, connascence evaluates how those dependencies behave, how changes propagate, and how difficult they are to refactor. Strength, locality, and degree are interrelated; dependencies with high strength, wide scope, and spanning distant boundaries are significantly harder to refactor and maintain. Together, coupling provides a high-level overview of dependency relationships, while connascence offers a granular framework for analyzing dependency strength, locality, degree, and resilience to change, supporting the design of maintainable and robust systems.[1][3][2]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connascence_(computer_science)
|
Inphysics,two objects are saidto be coupled when they are interacting with each other. Inclassical mechanics, coupling is a connection between twooscillatingsystems, such aspendulumsconnected by a spring. The connection affects the oscillatory pattern of both objects. Inparticle physics,two particles are coupledif they are connected byone of the fourfundamental forces.
If twowavesare able to transmitenergyto each other, then these waves are said to be "coupled." This normally occurs when the waves share a common component. An example of this is two pendulums connected by aspring. If the pendulums are identical, then their equations of motion are given bymx¨=−mgxl1−k(x−y){\displaystyle m{\ddot {x}}=-mg{\frac {x}{l_{1}}}-k(x-y)}my¨=−mgyl2+k(x−y){\displaystyle m{\ddot {y}}=-mg{\frac {y}{l_{2}}}+k(x-y)}
These equations represent thesimple harmonic motionof the pendulum with an added coupling factor of the spring.[1]This behavior is also seen in certain molecules (such asCO2and H2O), wherein two of the atoms will vibrate around a central one in a similar manner.[1]
InLC circuits, charge oscillates between thecapacitorand theinductorand can therefore be modeled as a simple harmonic oscillator. When themagnetic fluxfromone inductor is ableto affect theinductanceof an inductor in an unconnected LC circuit, the circuits are said to be coupled.[1]The coefficient of coupling k defines how closely thetwo circuits are coupledand is given by the equationMLpLs=k{\displaystyle {\frac {M}{\sqrt {L_{p}L_{s}}}}=k}
where M is themutual inductanceof the circuits and Lpand Lsare the inductances of the primary and secondary circuits, respectively. If the flux lines of the primary inductor thread every line of the secondary one, then the coefficient of coupling is 1 andM=LpLs{\textstyle M={\sqrt {L_{p}L_{s}}}}In practice, however, there is often leakage, so most systems are not perfectly coupled.[1]
Spin-spin couplingoccurs when themagnetic fieldofone atom affects themagnetic field of another nearby atom. This is very common inNMR imaging. If the atoms are not coupled, then there will betwo individual peaks, known as a doublet, representing the individual atoms. If coupling is present, then there will be a triplet,one larger peak with two smaller ones toeither side. This occurs due to thespinsof the individual atoms oscillating in tandem.[2]
Objects in space which are coupled to each other are under the mutual influence of each other'sgravity. For instance, the Earth is coupled to both the Sun and the Moon, as it is under the gravitational influence of both. Common in space arebinary systems, two objects gravitationally coupled to each other. Examples of this arebinary starswhich circle each other. Multiple objects may also be coupled to each other simultaneously, such as withglobular clustersandgalaxy groups. When smaller particles, such as dust, which are coupled together over time accumulate into much larger objects,accretionis occurring. This is the major process by which stars and planets form.[3]
The coupling constant of aplasmais given by the ratio of its averageCoulomb-interactionenergy to its averagekinetic energy—or how strongly the electric force of each atom holds the plasma together.[4]Plasmas can therefore be categorized into weakly- and strongly-coupled plasmas depending upon the value of this ratio. Many of the typical classical plasmas, such as the plasma in thesolar corona, are weakly coupled, while the plasma in awhite dwarfstar is an example of a strongly coupled plasma.[4]
Two coupled quantum systems can be modeled by aHamiltonianof the form
H^=H^a+H^b+V^ab{\displaystyle {\hat {H}}={\hat {H}}_{a}+{\hat {H}}_{b}+{\hat {V}}_{ab}}which is the addition of the two Hamiltonians in isolation with an added interaction factor. In most simple systems,H^a{\displaystyle {\hat {H}}_{a}}andH^b{\displaystyle {\hat {H}}_{b}}can be solved exactly whileV^ab{\displaystyle {\hat {V}}_{ab}}can be solved throughperturbation theory.[5]If the two systems have similar total energy, then the system may undergoRabi oscillation.[5]
Whenangular momentafrom two separate sources interact with each other, they are said to be coupled.[6]For example, twoelectronsorbiting around the samenucleusmay have coupled angular momenta. Due to theconservation of angular momentumand the nature of theangular momentum operator, the total angular momentum is always the sum of the individual angular momenta of the electrons, or[6]J=J1+J2{\displaystyle \mathbf {J} =\mathbf {J_{1}} +\mathbf {J_{2}} }Spin-Orbit interaction(also known as spin-orbit coupling) is a special case of angular momentum coupling. Specifically, it is the interaction between theintrinsic spinof a particle,S, and its orbital angular momentum,L. As they are both forms of angular momentum, they must be conserved. Even if energy is transferred between the two, the total angular momentum,J, of the system must be constant,J=L+S{\displaystyle \mathbf {J} =\mathbf {L} +\mathbf {S} }.[6]
Particleswhich interact with each other are said to be coupled. This interaction is caused by one of the fundamental forces, whose strengths are usually given by a dimensionlesscoupling constant. Inquantum electrodynamics, this value is known as thefine-structure constantα, approximately equal to 1/137. Forquantum chromodynamics, the constant changes with respect to the distance between the particles. This phenomenon is known asasymptotic freedom.Forces which have a coupling constant greater than 1 are said to be "strongly coupled" while those with constants less than 1 are said to be "weakly coupled."[7]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_(physics)
|
Incompiler theory,dead-code elimination(DCE,dead-code removal,dead-code stripping, ordead-code strip) is acompiler optimizationto removedead code(code that does not affect the program results). Removing such code has several benefits: it shrinksprogramsize, an important consideration in some contexts, it reduces resource usage such as the number of bytes to be transferred[1]and it allows the running program to avoid executing irrelevantoperations, which reduces itsrunning time. It can also enable further optimizations by simplifying program structure. Dead code includes code that can never be executed (unreachable code), and code that only affectsdead variables(written to, but never read again), that is, irrelevant to the program.
Consider the following example written inC.
Simple analysis of the uses of values would show that the value ofbafter the first assignment is not used insidefoo. Furthermore,bis declared as a local variable insidefoo, so its value cannot be used outsidefoo. Thus, the variablebisdeadand an optimizer can reclaim its storage space and eliminate its initialization.
Furthermore, because the first return statement is executed unconditionally and there is no label after it which a "goto" could reach, no feasible execution path reaches the second assignment tob. Thus, the assignment isunreachableand can be removed.
If the procedure had a more complexcontrol flow, such as a label after the return statement and agotoelsewhere in the procedure, then a feasible execution path might exist to the assignment tob.
Also, even though some calculations are performed in the function, their values are not stored in locations accessible outside thescopeof this function. Furthermore, given the function returns a static value (96), it may be simplified to the value it returns (this simplification is calledconstant folding).
Most advanced compilers have options to activate dead-code elimination, sometimes at varying levels. A lower level might only remove instructions that cannot be executed. A higher level might also not reserve space for unused variables. A yet higher level might determine instructions or functions that serve no purpose and eliminate them.
A common use of dead-code elimination is as an alternative to optional code inclusion via apreprocessor. Consider the following code.
Because the expression 0 will always evaluate tofalse, the code inside the if statement can never be executed, and dead-code elimination would remove it entirely from the optimized program. This technique is common indebuggingto optionally activate blocks of code; using an optimizer with dead-code elimination eliminates the need for using apreprocessorto perform the same task.
In practice, much of the dead code that an optimizer finds is created by other transformations in the optimizer. For example, the classic techniques for operatorstrength reductioninsert new computations into the code and render the older, more expensive computations dead.[2]Subsequent dead-code elimination removes those calculations and completes the effect (without complicating the strength-reduction algorithm).
Historically, dead-code elimination was performed using information derived fromdata-flow analysis.[3]An algorithm based onstatic single-assignment form(SSA) appears in the original journal article onSSAform by Ron Cytron et al.[4]Robert Shillingsburg (aka Shillner) improved on the algorithm and developed a companion algorithm for removing useless control-flow operations.[5]
Dead code is normally considered deadunconditionally. Therefore, it is reasonable attempting to remove dead code through dead-code elimination atcompile time.
However, in practice it is also common for code sections to represent dead or unreachable code onlyunder certain conditions, which may not be known at the time of compilation or assembly. Such conditions may be imposed by differentruntime environments(for example different versions of an operating system, or different sets and combinations of drivers or services loaded in a particular target environment), which may require different sets of special cases in the code, but at the same time become conditionally dead code for the other cases.[6][7]Also, the software (for example, a driver or resident service) may be configurable to include or exclude certain features depending on user preferences, rendering unused code portions useless in a particular scenario.[6][7]While modular software may be developed to dynamically load libraries on demand only, in most cases, it is not possible to load only the relevant routines from a particular library, and even if this would be supported, a routine may still include code sections which can be considered dead code in a given scenario, but could not be ruled out at compile time, already.
The techniques used to dynamically detect demand, identify and resolve dependencies, remove such conditionally dead code, and to recombine the remaining code atloadorruntimeare calleddynamic dead-code elimination[8][9][10]ordynamic dead-instruction elimination.[11]
Most programming languages, compilers and operating systems offer no or little more support thandynamic loadingof libraries andlate linking, therefore software utilizing dynamic dead-code elimination is very rare in conjunction with languagescompiled ahead-of-timeor written inassembly language.[12][13][14]However, language implementations doingjust-in-time compilationmay dynamically optimize for dead-code elimination.[10][15][16]
Although with a rather different focus, similar approaches are sometimes also utilized fordynamic software updatingandhot patching.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_code_elimination
|
Dependency hellis acolloquial termfor the frustration of some software users who have installedsoftware packageswhich havedependencieson specificversionsof other software packages.[1]
The dependency issue arises when several packages have dependencies on the samesharedpackages or libraries, but they depend on different and incompatible versions of the shared packages. If the shared package or library can only be installed in a single version, the user may need to address the problem by obtaining newer or older versions of the dependent packages. This, in turn, may break other dependencies and push the problem to another set of packages.
Dependency hell takes several forms:
On specificcomputing platforms, "dependency hell" often goes by a local specific name, generally the name of components.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_hell
|
Efferent couplingis acouplingmetricinsoftware development. It measures the number ofdata typesaclassknows about.
This includesinheritance, interface implementation, parameter types, variable types, andexceptions.
This has also been referred to byRobert C. Martinas the Fan-out stability metric which in his book Clean Architecture he describes as Outgoing dependencies. This metric identifies the number of classes inside this component that depend on classes outside the component.[1]
This metric is often used to calculate instability of a component insoftware architectureasI= Fan-out / (Fan-in + Fan-out). This metric has a range [0,1].I= 0 is maximally stable whileI= 1 is maximally unstable.
Thisprogramming language theoryortype theory-related article is astub. You can help Wikipedia byexpanding it.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efferent_coupling
|
Insoftware engineering,inversion of control(IoC) is a design principle in which custom-written portions of acomputer programreceive theflow of controlfrom an external source (e.g. aframework). The term "inversion" is historical: asoftware architecturewith this design "inverts" control as compared toprocedural programming. In procedural programming, a program's custom codecallsreusable libraries to take care of generic tasks, but with inversion of control, it is the external code or framework that is in control and calls the custom code.
Inversion of control has been widely used by application development frameworks since the rise of GUI environments[1][2]and continues to be used both in GUI environments and inweb server application frameworks. Inversion of control makes the frameworkextensibleby the methods defined by the application programmer.[3]
Event-driven programmingis often implemented using IoC so that the custom code need only be concerned with the handling of events, while theevent loopand dispatch of events/messages is handled by the framework or the runtime environment. In web server application frameworks, dispatch is usually called routing, and handlers may be called endpoints.
The phrase "inversion of control" has separately also come to be used in the community of Java programmers to refer specifically to the patterns ofdependency injection(passing services to objects that need them) that occur with "IoC containers" in Java frameworks such as theSpring Framework.[4]In this different sense, "inversion of control" refers to granting the framework control over the implementations of dependencies that are used by application objects[5]rather than to the original meaning of granting the frameworkcontrol flow(control over the time of execution of application code, e.g. callbacks).
As an example, with traditional programming, themain functionof an application might make function calls into a menu library to display a list of availablecommandsand query the user to select one.[6]The library thus would return the chosen option as the value of the function call, and the main function uses this value to execute the associated command. This style was common intext-based interfaces. For example, anemail clientmay show a screen with commands to load new mail, answer the current mail, create new mail, etc., and the program execution would block until the user presses a key to select a command.
With inversion of control, on the other hand, the program would be written using asoftware frameworkthat knows common behavioral and graphical elements, such aswindowing systems, menus, controlling the mouse, and toolbars. The custom code "fills in the blanks" for the framework, such as supplying a table of menu items and registering a code subroutine for each item, but it is the framework that monitors the user's actions and invokes the subroutine when a menu item is selected. In the mail client example, the framework could follow both the keyboard and mouse inputs and call the command invoked by the user by either means and at the same time monitor thenetwork interfaceto find out if new messages arrive and refresh the screen when some network activity is detected. The same framework could be used as the skeleton for a spreadsheet program or a text editor. Conversely, the framework knows nothing about Web browsers, spreadsheets, or text editors; implementing their functionality takes custom code.
Inversion of control carries the strong connotation that the reusable code and the problem-specific code are developed independently even though they operate together in an application.Callbacks,schedulers,event loops, and thetemplate methodare examples ofdesign patternsthat follow the inversion of control principle, although the term is most commonly used in the context ofobject-oriented programming. (Dependency injectionis an example of the separate, specific idea of "inverting control over the implementations of dependencies" popularised by Java frameworks.)[4]
Inversion of control is sometimes referred to as the "Hollywood Principle: Don't call us, we'll call you," reflecting how frameworks dictate execution flow.[1]
Inversion of control is not a new term in computer science.Martin Fowlertraces the etymology of the phrase back to 1988,[7]but it is closely
related to the concept ofprogram inversiondescribed byMichael Jacksonin hisJackson Structured Programmingmethodology in the 1970s.[8]Abottom-up parsercan be seen as an inversion of atop-down parser: in the one case, the
control lies with the parser, while in the other case, it lies with the receiving application.
The term was used by Michael Mattsson in a thesis (with its original meaning of a framework calling application code instead of vice versa)[9]and was then taken from there[10]by Stefano Mazzocchi and popularized by him in 1999 in a defunct Apache Software Foundation project, Avalon, in which it referred to a parent object passing in a child object's dependencies in addition to controlling execution flow.[11]The phrase was further popularized in 2004 byRobert C. MartinandMartin Fowler, the latter of whom traces the term's origins to the 1980s.[7]
In traditional programming, theflowof thebusiness logicis determined by objects that arestatically boundto one another. With inversion of control, the flow depends on the object graph that is built up during program execution. Such a dynamic flow is made possible by object interactions that are defined through abstractions. Thisrun-time bindingis achieved by mechanisms such asdependency injectionor aservice locator. In IoC, the code could also be linked statically during compilation, but finding the code to execute by reading its description fromexternal configurationinstead of with a direct reference in the code itself.
In dependency injection, a dependentobjector module is coupled to the object it needs atrun time. Which particular object will satisfy the dependency during program execution typically cannot be known atcompile timeusingstatic analysis. While described in terms of object interaction here, the principle can apply to other programming methodologies besidesobject-oriented programming.
In order for the running program to bind objects to one another, the objects must possess compatibleinterfaces. For example, classAmay delegate behavior to interfaceIwhich is implemented by classB; the program instantiatesAandB, and then injectsBintoA.
Web browsers implement inversion of control for DOM events in HTML. The application developer usesdocument.addEventListener()to register a callback.
This example code for an ASP.NET Core web application creates a web application host, registers an endpoint, and then passes control to the framework:[12]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_of_control
|
This is a list of terms found inobject-oriented programming.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_object-oriented_programming_terms
|
Incomputingandsystems design, aloosely coupledsystem is one
Components in a loosely coupled system can be replaced with alternative implementations that provide the same services. Components in a loosely coupled system are less constrained to the same platform,language,operating system, or build environment.
If systems are decoupled in time, it is difficult to also provide transactional integrity; additional coordination protocols are required.Data replicationacross different systems provides loose coupling (in availability), but creates issues in maintainingconsistency(data synchronization).
Loose coupling in broaderdistributed systemdesign is achieved by the use of transactions, queues provided bymessage-oriented middleware, and interoperability standards.[2]
Four types of autonomy which promote loose coupling, are:reference autonomy,time autonomy,format autonomy, andplatform autonomy.[3]
Loose coupling is an architectural principle and design goal inservice-oriented architectures. Eleven forms of loose coupling and their tight coupling counterparts are listed in:[4]
Enterprise Service Bus(ESB) middleware was invented to achieve loose coupling in multiple dimensions.[5]However, overengineered and mispositioned ESBs can also have the contrary effect and create undesired tight coupling and a central architectural hotspot.
Event-driven architecturealso aims at promoting loose coupling.[6]
Loose coupling ofinterfacescan be enhanced by publishing data in a standard format (such asXMLorJSON).
Loose coupling between program components can be enhanced by using standard data types in parameters. Passing customized data types or objects requires both components to have knowledge of the custom data definition.
Loose coupling of services can be enhanced by reducing the information passed into a service to the key data. For example, a service that sends a letter is most reusable when just the customer identifier is passed and the customer address is obtained within the service. This decouples services because services do not need to be called in a specific order (e.g. GetCustomerAddress, SendLetter).
Coupling refers to the degree of direct knowledge that one component has of another. Loose coupling in computing is interpreted asencapsulationversus non-encapsulation.
An example of tight coupling is when a dependent class contains a pointer directly to a concrete class which provides the required behavior. The dependency cannot be substituted, or its "signature" changed, without requiring a change to the dependent class. Loose coupling occurs when the dependent class contains a pointer only to an interface, which can then be implemented by one or many concrete classes. This is known asdependency inversion. The dependent class's dependency is to a "contract" specified by the interface; a defined list of methods and/or properties that implementing classes must provide. Any class that implements the interface can thus satisfy the dependency of a dependent class without having to change the class. This allows for extensibility in software design. A new class implementing an interface can be written to replace a current dependency in some or all situations, without requiring a change to the dependent class; the new and old classes can be interchanged freely. Strong coupling does not allow this.
This is aUMLdiagram illustrating an example ofloosecoupling between a dependent class and a set of concrete classes, which provide the required behavior:
For comparison, this diagram illustrates the alternative design withstrongcoupling between the dependent class and a provider:
Computer programming languages having notions of either functions as the core module (seeFunctional programming) or functions as objects provide excellent examples of loosely coupled programming. Functional languages have patterns ofContinuations,Closure, or generators. SeeClojureandLispas examples of functional programming languages. Object-oriented languages likeSmalltalkandRubyhave code blocks, whereasEiffelhas agents. The basic idea is to objectify (encapsulate as an object) a function independent of any other enclosing concept (e.g. decoupling an object function from any direct knowledge of the enclosing object). SeeFirst-class functionfor further insight into functions as objects, which qualifies as one form of first-class function.
For example, in an object-oriented language, when a function of an object is referenced as an object (freeing it from having any knowledge of its enclosing host object) the new function object can be passed, stored, and called at a later time. Recipient objects (to whom these functional objects are given) can safely execute (call) the contained function at their own convenience without any direct knowledge of the enclosing host object. In this way, a program can execute chains or groups of functional objects, while safely decoupled from having any direct reference to the enclosing host object.
Phone numbers are an excellent analog and can easily illustrate the degree of this decoupling.
For example, some entity provides another with a phone number to get a particular job done. When the number is called, the calling entity is effectively saying, "Please do this job for me." The decoupling or loose coupling is immediately apparent. The entity receiving the number may have no knowledge of where the number came from (e.g. a reference to the supplier of the number). On the other side, the caller is decoupled from specific knowledge of who they are calling, where they are, and knowing how the receiver of the call operates internally.
Carrying the example a step further, the caller might say to the receiver of the call, "Please do this job for me. Call me back at this number when you are finished." The 'number' being offered to the receiver is referred to as a "Call-back". Again, the loose coupling or decoupled nature of this functional object is apparent. The receiver of the call-back is unaware of what or who is being called. It only knows that it can make the call and decides for itself when to call. In reality, the call-back may not even be to the one who provided the call-back in the first place. This level of indirection is what makes function objects an excellent technology for achieving loosely coupled programs.
Communication between loosely coupled components may be based on a flora of mechanisms, like the mentionedasynchronous communicationstyle or thesynchronous message passingstyle[7]
The degree of the loose coupling can be measured by noting the number of changes indata elementsthat could occur in the sending or receiving systems and determining if the computers would still continue communicating correctly. These changes include items such as:
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_coupling
|
Insoftware development,Makeis acommand-line interfacesoftware toolthat performs actions ordered by configureddependenciesas defined in aconfiguration filecalled amakefile. It is commonly used forbuild automationtobuildexecutable code(such as aprogramorlibrary) fromsource code. But, not limited to building, Make can perform any operation available via theoperating system shell.
Make is widely used, especially inUnixandUnix-likeoperating systems, even though many competing technologies and tools are available, including similar tools that perform actions based on dependencies, somecompilersand interactively via anintegrated development environment.
In addition to referring to the originalUnixtool, Make is also a technology since multiple tools have beenimplementedwith roughly the same functionality – including similar makefilesyntaxandsemantics.
Stuart Feldmancreated Make while atBell Labs. An early version was completed in April 1976.[1][2][3]Feldman received the 2003ACM Software System Awardfor authoring Make.[4]
Feldman describes the inspiration to write Make as arising from a coworker's frustration with the available tooling of the time:
Make originated with a visit fromSteve Johnson(author of yacc, etc.), storming into my office, cursing the Fates that had caused him to waste a morning debugging a correct program (bug had been fixed, file hadn't been compiled,cc *.owas therefore unaffected). As I had spent a part of the previous evening coping with the same disaster on a project I was working on, the idea of a tool to solve it came up. It began with an elaborate idea of a dependency analyzer, boiled down to something much simpler, and turned into Make that weekend. Use of tools that were still wet was part of the culture. Makefiles were text files, not magically encoded binaries, because that was theUnix ethos: printable, debuggable, understandable stuff.
Before Make, building on Unix mostly consisted ofshell scriptswritten for each program's codebase. Make's dependency ordering and out-of-date checking makes the build process more robust and more efficient. The makefile allowed for better organization of build logic and often fewer build files.
Make is widely used in part due to its early inclusion inUnix, starting withPWB/UNIX1.0, which featured a variety of software development tools.[3]
Make has beenimplementednumerous times, generally using the same makefile format and providing the same features, but some providing enhancements from the original. Examples:
POSIXincludes standardization of the basic features and operation of the Make utility, and is implemented with varying degrees of compatibility with Unix-based versions of Make. In general, simple makefiles may be used between various versions of Make with reasonable success. GNU Make, Makepp and some versions of BSD Make default to looking first for files named "GNUmakefile",[35]"Makeppfile"[36]and "BSDmakefile"[37]respectively, which allows one to put makefiles which use implementation-defined behavior in separate locations.
In general, based on a makefile, Make updates target files from source files if any source file has a newertimestampthan the target file or the target file does not exist. For example, this could include compilingCfiles (*.c) intoobject files, then linking the object files into an executable program. Or this could include compilingTypeScriptfiles (*.ts) toJavaScriptfor use in a browser. Other examples include: convert a source image file to another format, copy a file to a content management system, and send e-mail about build status.
A makefile defines targets where each is either a file to generate or is a user-defined concept, called aphonytarget.
Make updates the targets passed as arguments:
If no target is specified, Make updates the first target in the makefile which is often a phony target to perform the most commonly used action.
Make skips build actions if the target file timestamp is after that of the source files.[38]Doing so optimizes the build process by skipping actions when the target file is up-to-date, but sometimes updates are skipped erroneously due to file timestamp issues including restoring an older version of a source file, or when anetwork filesystemis a source of files and its clock or time zone is not synchronized with the machine running Make. Also, if a source file's timestamp is in the future, make repeatedly triggers unnecessary actions, causing longer build time.
When Make starts, it uses the makefile specified on the command-line or if not specified, then uses the one found by via specific search rules. Generally, Make defaults to using the file in theworking directorynamedMakefile. GNU Make searches for the first file matching:GNUmakefile,makefile, orMakefile.
Make processes the options of the command-line based on the loaded makefile.
Themakefilelanguage is partiallydeclarative programmingwhere end conditions are described but the order in which actions are to be taken is not.[40][41][42][43]This type of programming can be confusing to programmers used toimperative programming.
Makefiles can contain the following constructs:[44]
Each rule begins with adependency linewhich consists of the rule'stargetname followed by a colon (:), and optionally a list of targets (also known as prerequisites) on which the rule's target depends.[45]
Usually a rule has a single target, rather than multiple.
A dependency line may be followed by a recipe: a series ofTABindented command lines that define how to generate the target from the components (i.e. source files). If any prerequisite has a more recent timestamp than the target file or the target does not exist as a file, the recipe is performed.
The first command may appear on the same line after the prerequisites, separated by a semicolon,
for example,
Each command line must begin with a tab character. Even though aspaceis alsowhitespace, Make requires tab. Since this often leads to confusion and mistakes, this aspect of makefile syntax is subject to criticism.Eric S. Raymonddescribes it as "one of the worst design botches in the history of Unix"[46]andThe Unix-Haters Handbooksaid "using tabs as part of the syntax is like one of those pungee [sic] stick traps inThe Green Berets". Feldman explains the choice as caused by aworkaroundfor an early implementation difficulty, and preserved by a desire forbackward compatibilitywith the very first users:
Why the tab in column 1?Yaccwas new,Lexwas brand new. I hadn't tried either, so I figured this would be a good excuse to learn. After getting myself snarled up with my first stab at Lex, I just did something simple with the pattern newline-tab. It worked, it stayed. And then a few weeks later I had a user population of about a dozen, most of them friends, and I didn't want to screw up my embedded base. The rest, sadly, is history.
GNU Make since version 3.82 allows the choice of any symbol (one character) as the recipe prefix using the .RECIPEPREFIX special variable:
Each command is executed in a separateshell. Since operating systems use different shells, this can lead to unportable makefiles. For example, GNU Make (all POSIX Makes) executes commands with/bin/shby default, whereUnixcommands likecpare normally used. In contrast, Microsoft'snmakeexecutes commands with cmd.exe wherebatchcommands likecopyare available but not necessarily cp.
Since a recipe is optional, the dependency line can consist solely of components that refer to other targets:
The following example rule is evaluated when Make updates target file.txt viamake file.txt. If file.html is newer than file.txt or file.txt does not exist, then the command is run to generate file.txt from file.html.
A command can have one or more of the following prefixes (after the tab):
Ignoring errors and silencing echo can alternatively be obtained via the special targets.IGNOREand.SILENT.[47]
Microsoft's NMAKE has predefined rules that can be omitted from these makefiles, e.g.c.obj$(CC)$(CFLAGS).
A makefile can define and use macros. Macros are usually referred to asvariableswhen they hold simple string definitions, likeCC=clang. Macros in makefiles may be overridden in thecommand-line argumentspassed to the Make utility.Environment variablesare also available as macros.
For example, the macroCCis frequently used in makefiles to refer to the location of aCcompiler. If used consistently throughout the makefile, then the compiler used can be changed by changing the value of the macro rather than changing each rule command that invokes the compiler.
Macros are commonly named inall-caps:
A macro value can consist of other macro values. The value of macro is expanded on each uselazily.
A macro is used by expanding either via $NAMEor $(NAME). The latter is safer since omitting the parentheses leads to Make interpreting the next letter after the$as the entire variable name. An equivalent form uses curly braces rather than parentheses, i.e.${}, which is the style used inBSD.
Macros can be composed of shell commands by using thecommand substitutionoperator!=.[48]
The command-line syntax for overriding a macro is:
Makefiles can access predefinedinternal macros, with?and@being common.
A common syntax when defining macros, which works on BSD and GNU Make, is to use+=,?=, and!=instead of the equal sign (=).[49]
Suffix rules have "targets" with names in the form.FROM.TOand are used to launch actions based on file extension. In the command lines of suffix rules, POSIX specifies[50]that the internal macro$<refers to the first prerequisite and$@refers to the target. In this example, which converts any HTML file into text, the shell redirection token>is part of the command line, whereas$<is a macro referring to the HTML file:
When called from the command line, the example above expands:
Suffix rules cannot have any prerequisites of their own.[51]If they have any, they are treated as normal files with unusual names, not as suffix rules. GNU Make supports suffix rules for compatibility with old makefiles but otherwise encourages usage ofpattern rules.[52]
A pattern rule looks like an ordinary rule, except that its target contains exactly one%character within the string. The target is considered a pattern for matching file names: the%can match any substring of zero or more characters,[53]while other characters match only themselves. The prerequisites likewise use%to show how their names relate to the target name.
The example above of a suffix rule would look like the following pattern rule:
Single-linecommentsare started with thehash symbol(#).
A directive specifies special behavior such asincludinganother makefile.
Line continuationis indicated with a backslash\character at the end of a line.
The following commands are in the context of the makefile that follows.
Below is a simple makefile that by default (the "all" rule is listed first) compiles a source file called "helloworld.c" using the system's C compiler and also provides a "clean" target to remove the generated files if the user desires to start over. The$@and$<are two of the so-called internal macros (also known as automatic variables) and stand for the target name and "implicit" source, respectively. In the example below,$^expands to a space delimited list of the prerequisites. There are a number of other internal macros.[50][54]
Many systems come with predefined Make rules and macros to specify common tasks such as compilation based on file suffix. This lets users omit the actual (often unportable) instructions of how to generate the target from the source(s). On such a system the makefile above could be modified as follows:
That "helloworld.o" depends on "helloworld.c" is now automatically handled by Make. In such a simple example as the one illustrated here this hardly matters, but the real power of suffix rules becomes evident when the number of source files in a software project starts to grow. One only has to write a rule for the linking step and declare the object files as prerequisites. Make will then implicitly determine how to make all the object files and look for changes in all the source files.
Simple suffix rules work well as long as the source files do not depend on each other and on other files such as header files. Another route to simplify the build process is to use so-called pattern matching rules that can be combined with compiler-assisted dependency generation. As a final example requiring the gcc compiler and GNU Make, here is a generic makefile that compiles all C files in a folder to the corresponding object files and then links them to the final executable. Before compilation takes place, dependencies are gathered in makefile-friendly format into a hidden file ".depend" that is then included to the makefile. Portable programs ought to avoid constructs used below.
Makefile consist of dependencies and a forgotten or an extra one may not be immediately obvious to the user and may result in subtle bugs in the generated software that are hard to catch. Various approaches may be used to avoid this problem and keep dependencies in source and makefiles in sync. One approach is using the compiler to keep track of dependencies changes. GCC can statically analyze the source code and produce rules for the given file automatically by using the-MMswitch. The other approach would be makefiles or third-party tools that would generate makefiles with dependencies (e.g.Automaketoolchain by theGNU Project, can do so automatically).
Another approach is to use meta-build tools likeCMake,Mesonetc.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_(software)
|
Incomputer science,static program analysis(also known asstatic analysisorstatic simulation) is theanalysisof computer programs performed without executing them, in contrast withdynamic program analysis, which is performed on programs during their execution in the integrated environment.[1][2]
The term is usually applied to analysis performed by an automated tool, with human analysis typically being called "program understanding",program comprehension, orcode review. In the last of these,software inspectionandsoftware walkthroughsare also used. In most cases the analysis is performed on some version of a program'ssource code, and, in other cases, on some form of itsobject code.
The sophistication of the analysis performed by tools varies from those that only consider the behaviour of individual statements and declarations,[3]to those that include the completesource codeof a program in their analysis. The uses of the information obtained from the analysis vary from highlighting possible coding errors (e.g., thelinttool) toformal methodsthat mathematically prove properties about a given program (e.g., its behaviour matches that of its specification).
Software metricsandreverse engineeringcan be described as forms of static analysis. Deriving software metrics and static analysis are increasingly deployed together, especially in creation of embedded systems, by defining so-calledsoftware quality objectives.[4]
A growing commercial use of static analysis is in the verification of properties of software used insafety-criticalcomputer systems and
locating potentiallyvulnerablecode.[5]For example, the following industries have identified the use of static code analysis as a means of improving the quality of increasingly sophisticated and complex software:
A study in 2012 by VDC Research reported that 28.7% of the embedded software engineers surveyed use static analysis tools and 39.7% expect to use them within 2 years.[9]A study from 2010 found that 60% of the interviewed developers in European research projects made at least use of their basic IDE built-in static analyzers. However, only about 10% employed an additional other (and perhaps more advanced) analysis tool.[10]
In the application security industry the namestatic application security testing(SAST) is also used. SAST is an important part ofSecurity Development Lifecycles(SDLs) such as the SDL defined by Microsoft[11]and a common practice in software companies.[12]
The OMG (Object Management Group) published a study regarding the types of software analysis required forsoftware qualitymeasurement and assessment. This document on "How to Deliver Resilient, Secure, Efficient, and Easily Changed IT Systems in Line with CISQ Recommendations" describes three levels of software analysis.[13]
A further level of software analysis can be defined.
Formal methods is the term applied to the analysis ofsoftware(andcomputer hardware) whose results are obtained purely through the use of rigorous mathematical methods. The mathematical techniques used includedenotational semantics,axiomatic semantics,operational semantics, andabstract interpretation.
By a straightforward reduction to thehalting problem, it is possible to prove that (for anyTuring completelanguage), finding all possible run-time errors in an arbitrary program (or more generally any kind of violation of a specification on the final result of a program) isundecidable: there is no mechanical method that can always answer truthfully whether an arbitrary program may or may not exhibit runtime errors. This result dates from the works ofChurch,GödelandTuringin the 1930s (see:Halting problemandRice's theorem). As with many undecidable questions, one can still attempt to give useful approximate solutions.
Some of the implementation techniques of formal static analysis include:[14]
Data-driven static analysis leverages extensive codebases to infer coding rules and improve the accuracy of the analysis.[16][17]For instance, one can use all Java open-source packages available onGitHubto learn good analysis strategies. The rule inference can use machine learning techniques.[18]It is also possible to learn from a large amount of past fixes and warnings.[16]
Static analyzers produce warnings. For certain types of warnings, it is possible to design and implementautomated remediationtechniques. For example, Logozzo and Ball have proposed automated remediations for C#cccheck.[19]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_code_analysis
|
Attack treesare conceptual diagrams showing how an asset, or target, might be attacked.[1]Attack trees have been used in a variety of applications. In the field of information technology, they have been used to describethreats on computer systemsand possibleattacksto realize those threats. However, their use is not restricted to the analysis of conventional information systems. They are widely used in the fields of defense and aerospace for the analysis of threats against tamper resistant electronics systems (e.g., avionics on military aircraft).[2]Attack trees are increasingly being applied to computer control systems (especially relating to the electricpower grid).[3]Attack trees have also been used to understand threats to physical systems.
Some of the earliest descriptions of attack trees are found in papers and articles byBruce Schneier,[4]when he wasCTOofCounterpane Internet Security. Schneier was clearly involved in the development of attack tree concepts and was instrumental in publicizing them. However, the attributions in some of the early publicly available papers on attack trees[5]also suggest the involvement of theNational Security Agencyin the initial development.
Attack trees are very similar, if not identical, tothreat trees. Threat trees were developed by Jonathan Weiss of Bell Laboratories to comply with guidance in MIL STD 1785[6]for AT&T's work on Command and Control for federal applications, and were first described in his paper in 1982.[7]This work was later discussed in 1994 by Edward Amoroso.[8]
Attack trees are multi-leveled diagrams consisting of one root, leaves, and children. From the bottom up,child nodesare conditions which must be satisfied to make the direct parentnodetrue; when therootis satisfied, the attack is complete. Eachnodemay be satisfied only by its directchild nodes.
Anodemay be thechildof another node; in such a case, it becomes logical that multiple steps must be taken to carry out an attack. For example, consider classroom computers which are secured to the desks. To steal one, the securing cable must be cut or the lock unlocked. The lock may be unlocked by picking or by obtaining the key. The key may be obtained by threatening a key holder, bribing a keyholder, or taking it from where it is stored (e.g. under a mousemat). Thus a four level attack tree can be drawn, of which one path is (Bribe Keyholder,Obtain Key,Unlock Lock,Steal Computer).
An attack described in anodemay require one or more of many attacks described inchild nodesto be satisfied. Our above condition shows onlyOR conditions; however, anAND conditioncan be created, for example, by assuming an electronic alarm which must be disabled if and only if the cable will be cut. Rather than making this task achild nodeof cutting the lock, both tasks can simply reach a summing junction. Thus the path ((Disable Alarm,Cut Cable),Steal Computer) is created.
Attack trees are related to the established fault tree formalism.[9]Fault treemethodologyemploys boolean expressions to gate conditions when parent nodes are satisfied by leaf nodes. By including a priori probabilities with each node, it is possible to perform calculate probabilities with higher nodes usingBayes Rule. However, in reality accurate probability estimates are either unavailable or too expensive to gather. With respect to computer security with active participants (i.e., attackers), the probability distribution of events are probably not independent nor uniformly distributed, hence, naive Bayesian analysis is unsuitable.
Since the Bayesian analytic techniques used in fault tree analysis cannot legitimately be applied to attack trees, analysts instead use other techniques[10][11]to determine which attacks will be preferred by a particular attacker. These may involve comparing the attacker's capabilities (time, money, skill, equipment) with the resource requirements of the specified attack. Attacks which are near or beyond the attacker's ability to perform are less preferred than attacks that are perceived as cheap and easy. The degree to which an attack satisfies the adversary's objectives also affects the attacker's choices. Attacks that are both within the adversary's capabilities, and which satisfy their goals, are more likely than those that do not.
Attack trees can become large and complex, especially when dealing with specific attacks. A full attack tree may contain hundreds or thousands of different paths all leading to completion of the attack. Even so, these trees are very useful for determining what threats exist and how to deal with them.
Attack trees can lend themselves to defining aninformation assurancestrategy. It is important to consider, however, that implementing policy to execute this strategy changes the attack tree. For example, computer viruses may be protected against by refusing the system administrator access to directly modify existing programs and program folders, instead requiring apackage managerbe used. This adds to the attack tree the possibility of design flaws orexploitsin the package manager.
One could observe that the most effective way to mitigate a threat on the attack tree is to mitigate it as close to therootas possible. Although this is theoretically sound, it is not usually possible to simply mitigate a threat without other implications to the continued operation of the system. For example, the threat of viruses infecting aWindowssystem may be largely reduced by using a standard (non-administrator) account andNTFSinstead ofFATfile systemso that normal users are unable to modify the operating system. Implementing this negates any way, foreseen or unforeseen, that a normal user may come to infect the operating system with a virus[citation needed]; however, it also requires that users switch to an administrative account to carry out administrative tasks, thus creating a different set of threats on the tree and more operational overhead. Also, users are still able to infect files to which they have write permissions, which may include files and documents.
Systems using cooperative agents that dynamically examine and identifyvulnerabilitychains, creating attack trees, have been built since 2000.[12]
Several commercial packages andopen sourceproducts are available.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_tree
|
AnHTTPS Bicycle Attackrefers to a method of discoveringpasswordlength onpacketsencrypted withTLS/SSL protocols.[1]In preparation for a bicycle attack, the attacker must load the target page to compute the sizes of headers in the request made by a given web browser to theserver. Once the attacker intercepts andbrowser fingerprintsa victim's request, the length of the password can be deduced by subtracting known header lengths from the total length of the request.[2]
The term was first coined on December 30, 2015 by Guido Vranken, who wrote:
"The name TLS Bicycle Attack was chosen because of the conceptual similarity between how encryption hides content and gift wrapping hides physical objects. My attack relies heavily on the property ofstream-based ciphersin TLS that the size of TLS application data payloads is directly known to the attacker and this inadvertently reveals information about theplaintextsize;similar to how a draped or gift-wrapped bicycle is still identifiable as a bicycle, because cloaking it like that retains the underlying shape.The reason that I've named this attack at all is only to make referring to it easier for everyone."[2][emphasis added]
The bicycle attack makesbrute-forcingof passwords much easier, because only passwords of the known length need to be tested. It demonstrates thatTLS-encryptedHTTPtraffic does not completely obscure the exact size of its content.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_attack
|
Completely Automated Public Turing Test to tell Computers and Humans Apart(CAPTCHA) (/ˈkæp.tʃə/KAP-chə) is a type ofchallenge–responseturing testused incomputingto determine whether the user is human in order to deter bot attacks and spam.[1]
The term was coined in 2003 byLuis von Ahn,Manuel Blum, Nicholas J. Hopper, andJohn Langford.[2]It is acontrived acronymfor "Completely Automated PublicTuring testto tell Computers and Humans Apart."[3]A historically common type of CAPTCHA (displayed asreCAPTCHA v1) was first invented in 1997 by two groups working in parallel. This form of CAPTCHA requires entering a sequence of letters or numbers from a distorted image. Because the test is administered by a computer, in contrast to the standard Turing test that is administered by a human, CAPTCHAs are sometimes described asreverse Turing tests.[4]
Two widely used CAPTCHA services areGoogle'sreCAPTCHA[5][6]and the independent hCaptcha.[7][8]It takes the average person approximately 10 seconds to solve a typical CAPTCHA.[9]With the rising usage of AI, CAPTCHA scams are increasing and may be at risk of being circumvented.[10]
The purpose of CAPTCHAs is to prevent spam on websites, such as promotion spam, registration spam, and data scraping. Many websites use CAPTCHA effectively to prevent bot raiding. CAPTCHAs are designed so that humans can complete them, while most robots cannot.[11]Newer CAPTCHAs look at the user's behaviour on the internet, to prove that they are a human.[12]A normal CAPTCHA test only appears if the user acts like a bot, such as when they request webpages, or click links too fast.
Since the 1980s–1990s, users have wanted to make text illegible to computers.[13]The first such people werehackers, posting about sensitive topics toInternet forumsthey thought were being automatically monitored on keywords. To circumvent such filters, they replaced a word with look-alike characters.HELLOcould become|-|3|_|_()or)-(3££0, and others, such that a filter could not detectallof them. This later became known asleetspeak.[14]
One of the earliest commercial uses of CAPTCHAs was in the Gausebeck–Levchin test. In 2000, idrive.com began to protect its signup page[15]with a CAPTCHA and prepared to file a patent.[13]In 2001,PayPalused such tests as part of a fraud prevention strategy in which they asked humans to "retype distorted text that programs have difficulty recognizing."[16]PayPal co founder and CTOMax Levchinhelped commercialize this use.
A popular deployment of CAPTCHA technology,reCAPTCHA, was acquired by Google in 2009.[17]In addition to preventing bot fraud for its users, Google used reCAPTCHA and CAPTCHA technology to digitize the archives ofThe New York Timesand books from Google Books in 2011.[18]
CAPTCHAs are automated, requiring little human maintenance or intervention to administer, producing benefits in cost and reliability.[19]
Modern text-based CAPTCHAs are designed such that they require the simultaneous use of three separate abilities—invariant recognition,segmentation, and parsing to complete the task.[20]
Each of these problems poses a significant challenge for a computer, even in isolation. Therefore, these three techniques in tandem make CAPTCHAs difficult for computers to solve.[23]
Whilst primarily used for security reasons, CAPTCHAs can also serve as a benchmark task for artificial intelligence technologies. According to an article by Ahn, Blum and Langford,[24]"any program that passes the tests generated by a CAPTCHA can be used to solve a hard unsolved AI problem."[25]They argue that the advantages of usinghard AIproblems as a means for security are twofold. Either the problem goes unsolved and there remains a reliable method for distinguishing humans from computers, or the problem is solved and a difficult AI problem is resolved along with it.[24]
CAPTCHAs based on reading text—or other visual-perception tasks—preventblindorvisually impairedusers from accessing the protected resource.[26][27]Because CAPTCHAs are designed to be unreadable by machines, commonassistive technologytools such asscreen readerscannot interpret them. The use of CAPTCHA thus excludes a small percentage of users from using significant subsets of such common Web-based services as PayPal, Gmail, Orkut, Yahoo!, many forum and weblog systems, etc.[28]In certain jurisdictions, site owners could become targets of litigation if they are using CAPTCHAs that discriminate against certain people with disabilities. For example, a CAPTCHA may make a site incompatible withSection 508in the United States.
CAPTCHAs do not have to be visual. Any hardartificial intelligenceproblem, such asspeech recognition, can be used as CAPTCHA. Some implementations of CAPTCHAs permit users to opt for an audio CAPTCHA, such as reCAPTCHA, though a 2011 paper demonstrated a technique for defeating the popular schemes at the time.[29]
A method of improving CAPTCHA to ease the work with it was proposed by ProtectWebForm and named "Smart CAPTCHA".[30]Developers are advised to combine CAPTCHA with JavaScript. Since it is hard for most bots to parse and execute JavaScript, a combinatory method which fills the CAPTCHA fields and hides both the image and the field from human eyes was proposed.[31]
One alternative method involves displaying to the user a simple mathematical equation and requiring the user to enter the solution as verification. Although these are much easier to defeat using software, they are suitable for scenarios where graphical imagery is not appropriate, and they provide a much higher level of accessibility for blind users than the image-based CAPTCHAs. These are sometimes referred to as MAPTCHAs (M = "mathematical"). However, these may be difficult for users with a cognitive disorder, such asdyscalculia.[32]
Challenges such as a logic puzzle, or trivia question can also be used as a CAPTCHA. There is research into their resistance against countermeasures.[33]
Two main ways to bypass CAPTCHA include using cheap human labor to recognize them, and usingmachine learningto build an automated solver.[34]According to former Google "click fraudczar"Shuman Ghosemajumder, there are numerous services which solve CAPTCHAs automatically.[35]
There was not a systematic methodology for designing or evaluating early CAPTCHAs.[23]As a result, there were many instances in which CAPTCHAs were of a fixed length and therefore automated tasks could be constructed to successfully make educated guesses about where segmentation should take place. Other early CAPTCHAs contained limited sets of words, which made the test much easier to game. Still others[example needed]made the mistake of relying too heavily on background confusion in the image. In each case, algorithms were created that were successfully able to complete the task by exploiting these design flaws. However, light changes to the CAPTCHA could thwart them. Modern CAPTCHAs likereCAPTCHArely on present variations of characters that are collapsed together, making them hard to segment, and they have warded off automated tasks.[36]
In October 2013, artificial intelligence companyVicariousclaimed that it had developed a generic CAPTCHA-solving algorithm that was able to solve modern CAPTCHAs with character recognition rates of up to 90%.[37]However,Luis von Ahn, a pioneer of early CAPTCHA and founder of reCAPTCHA, said: "It's hard for me to be impressed since I see these every few months." 50 similar claims to that of Vicarious had been made since 2003.[38]
In August 2014 at Usenix WoOT conference,Burszteinet al. presented the first generic CAPTCHA-solving algorithm based on reinforcement learning and demonstrated its efficiency against many popular CAPTCHA schemas.[36]
In October 2018 atACMCCS'18 conference, Ye et al. presented a deep learning-based attack that could consistently solve all 11 text captcha schemes used by the top-50 popular websites in 2018. An effective CAPTCHA solver can be trained using as few as 500 real CAPTCHAs.[39]
It is possible to subvert CAPTCHAs by relaying them to asweatshopof human operators who are employed to decode CAPTCHAs. A 2005 paper from aW3Cworking group said that they could verify hundreds per hour.[26]In 2010, theUniversity of California at San Diegoconducted a large scale study of CAPTCHA farms. The retail price for solving one million CAPTCHAs was as low as $1,000.[40]
Another technique consists of using a script to re-post the target site's CAPTCHA as a CAPTCHA to the attacker's site, which unsuspecting humans visit and solve within a short while for the script to use.[41][42]
In 2023,ChatGPTtricked aTaskRabbitworker into solving a CAPTCHA by telling the worker it was not a robot and had impaired vision.[43]
There are multiple Internet companies like2CaptchaandDeathByCaptchathat offer human and machine backed CAPTCHA solving services for as low as US$0.50 per 1000 solved CAPTCHAs.[44]These services offer APIs and libraries that enable users to integrate CAPTCHA circumvention into the tools that CAPTCHAs were designed to block in the first place.[45]
Howard Yeend has identified two implementation issues with poorly designed CAPTCHA systems:[46]reusing the session ID of a known CAPTCHA image, and CAPTCHAs residing on shared servers.
Sometimes, if part of the software generating the CAPTCHA isclient-side(the validation is done on a server but the text that the user is required to identify is rendered on the client side), then users can modify the client to display the un-rendered text. Some CAPTCHA systems useMD5hashes stored client-side, which may leave the CAPTCHA vulnerable to abrute-force attack.[47]
Some researchers have proposed alternatives including image recognition CAPTCHAs which require users to identify simple objects in the images presented. The argument in favor of these schemes is that tasks like object recognition are more complex to perform than text recognition and therefore should be more resilient to machine learning based attacks.
Chew et al. published their work in the 7th International Information Security Conference, ISC'04, proposing three different versions of image recognition CAPTCHAs, and validating the proposal with user studies. It is suggested that one of the versions, the anomaly CAPTCHA, is best with 100% of human users being able to pass an anomaly CAPTCHA with at least 90% probability in 42 seconds.[48]Datta et al. published their paper in theACMMultimedia'05 Conference, named IMAGINATION (IMAge Generation for INternet AuthenticaTION), proposing a systematic way to image recognition CAPTCHAs. Images are distorted so image recognition approaches cannot recognise them.[49]
Microsoft (Jeremy Elson, John R. Douceur, Jon Howell, and Jared Saul) claim to have developed Animal Species Image Recognition for Restricting Access (ASIRRA) which ask users to distinguish cats from dogs. Microsoft had a beta version of this for websites to use.[50]They claim "Asirra is easy for users; it can be solved by humans 99.6% of the time in under 30 seconds. Anecdotally, users seemed to find the experience of using Asirra much more enjoyable than a text-based CAPTCHA." This solution was described in a 2007 paper to Proceedings of 14th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS).[51]It was closed in October 2014.[52]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAPTCHA
|
TheCenter for Internet Security(CIS) is a US501(c)(3)nonprofit organization,[2]formed in October 2000.[1]Its mission statement professes that the function of CIS is to " help people, businesses, and governments protect themselves against pervasivecyber threats."
The organization is headquartered inEast Greenbush, New York, US, with members including large corporations, government agencies, and academic institutions.[1]
CIS has several program areas, including MS-ISAC, CIS Controls, CIS Benchmarks, CIS Communities, and CIS CyberMarket. Through these program areas, CIS works with a wide range of entities, including those inacademia, the government, and both the private sector and the general public to increase their online security by providing them with products and services that improve security efficiency and effectiveness.[5][6]
The Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MS-ISAC) is a "round-the-clock cyber threat monitoring and mitigation center for state and local governments" operated by CIS under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security[7](DHS), Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency[8](CISA).[9]The MS-ISAC was established in late 2002, and officially launched in January 2003, by William F. Pelgrin, then Chief Security Officer of the state of New York.[10]Beginning from a small group of participating states in the Northeast, MS-ISAC came to include all 50 U.S. States and theDistrict of Columbia, as well as U.S. State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial (SLTT) governments. In order to facilitate its expanding scope, in late 2010, MS-ISAC "transitioned into a not-for-profit status under the auspices of the Center for Internet Security."[10][11]In March 2025, CISA ended funding for MC-ISAC.[12]
MS-ISAC "helps government agencies combat cyberthreats and works closely with federal law enforcement",[13][14]and is designated by DHS as a keycyber securityresource for the nation's SLTT governments.
The main objectives of MS-ISAC are described as follows:[15]
The MS-ISAC offers a variety of federally funded, no-cost, cybersecurity products and services to its members through the DHS CISA cooperative agreement. It also offers fee-based products and services for SLTT members who want additional protection in addition to what is offered under the cooperative agreement. In 2021, the MS-ISAC announced[16]it was undergoing a digital transformation, making major infrastructure upgrades including the implementation of a new cloud-based threat intelligence platform, security information and event management (SIEM) capability, security orchestration, automation, and response (SOAR) tool, anddata lakecapabilities for threat hunting.
Some of the offerings for SLTTs include:
The Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC), as established by the Election Infrastructure Subsector Government Coordinating Council (GCC), is a critical resource for cyber threat prevention, protection, response and recovery for the nation's state, local, territorial, and tribal (SLTT) election offices. The EI-ISAC is operated by the Center for Internet Security, Inc. under the same cooperative agreement with DHS CISA as the MS-ISAC. By nature of election offices being SLTT organizations, each EI-ISAC member is automatically an MS-ISAC member and can take full advantage of the products and services provided to both ISACs.
The mission of the EI-ISAC is to improve the overall cybersecurity posture of SLTT election offices, through collaboration and information sharing among members, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other federal partners, and private sector partners are the keys to success. The EI-ISAC provides a central resource for gathering information on cyber threats to election infrastructure and two-way sharing of information between and among public and private sectors in order to identify, protect, detect, respond and recover from attacks on public and private election infrastructure. And the EI-ISAC comprises representatives from SLTT election offices and contractors supporting SLTT election infrastructure.[21]
Formerly known as the SANS Critical Security Controls (SANS Top 20) and the CIS Critical Security Controls, theCIS Controlsas they are called today is a set of 18 prioritized safeguards to mitigate the most prevalent cyber-attacks against today's modern systems and networks. The CIS Controls are grouped into Implementation Groups[22](IGs), which allow organizations to use a risk assessment in order to determine the appropriate level of IG (one through three) that should be implemented for their organization. The CIS Controls can be downloaded from CIS, as can various mappings to other frameworks such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework[23](CSF), NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-53,[24]and many others. CIS also offers a free hosted software product called the CIS Controls Assessment Tool[25](CIS-CAT) that allows organizations to track and prioritize the implementation of the CIS Controls.
The CIS Controls advocate "a defense-in-depth model to help prevent and detect malware".[26]A May 2017 study showed that "on average, organizations fail 55% of compliance checks established by the Center for Internet Security", with more than half of these violations being high severity issues.[27]In March 2015, CIS launched CIS Hardened Images forAmazon Web Services, in response to "a growing concern surrounding the data safety of information housed on virtual servers in the cloud".[28]The resources were made available asAmazon Machine Images, for six "CIS benchmarks-hardened systems", includingMicrosoft Windows,LinuxandUbuntu, with additional images and cloud providers added later.[28]CIS released Companion Guides to CIS Controls, recommendations for actions to counter cybersecurity attacks, with new guides having been released in October and December 2015.[29]In April 2018, CIS launched aninformation securityrisk assessment method to implement CIS Controls, called CIS RAM which is based upon the risk assessment standard by the DoCRA (Duty of Care Risk Analysis) Council.[30]Version of CIS RAM v2.0[31]was released October 2021.[32]CIS RAM v2.1was released in 2022.
CIS Benchmarks are a collaboration of the Consensus Community andCIS SecureSuitemembers (a class of CIS members with access to additional sets of tools and resources).[33]The Consensus Community is made up of experts in the field of IT security who use their knowledge and experience to help the global Internet community. CIS SecureSuite members are made up of several different types of companies ranging in size, including government agencies, colleges and universities, nonprofits, IT auditors and consultants, security software vendors and other organizations. CIS Benchmarks and other tools that CIS provides at no cost allow IT workers to create reports that compare their system security to universal consensus standard. This fosters a new structure for internet security that everyone is accountable for and that is shared by top executives, technology professionals and other internet users throughout the globe. Further, CIS provides internet security tools with a scoring feature that rates the configuration security of the system at hand. For example, CIS provides SecureSuite members with access to CIS-CAT Pro, a "cross-platform Java app" which scans target systems and "produces a report comparing your settings to the published benchmarks".[5]This is intended to encourage and motivate users to improve the scores given by the software, which bolsters the security of their internet and systems. The universal consensus standard that CIS employs draws upon and uses the accumulated knowledge of skillful technology professionals. Since internet security professionals volunteer in contributing to this consensus, this reduces costs for CIS and makes it cost effective.[34]
CIS CyberMarket is a "collaborative purchasing program that serves U.S. State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial (SLTT) government organizations, nonprofit entities, and public health and education institutions to improve cybersecurity through cost-effective group procurement".[35]The intent of the CIS CyberMarket is to combine the purchasing power of governmental and nonprofit sectors to help participants improve their cybersecurity condition at a lower cost than they would have been able to attain on their own. The program assists with the "time intensive, costly, complex, and daunting" task of maintaining cybersecurity by working with the public and private sectors to bring their partners cost-effective tools and services. The combined purchasing opportunities are reviewed by domain experts.[15]
There are three main objectives of the CIS CyberMarket:
CIS CyberMarket, like the MS-ISAC, serves government entities and non-profits in achieving greater cyber security. On its "resources" page, multiple newsletters and documents are available free of charge, including the "Cybersecurity Handbook for Cities and Counties".[36]
CIS Communities are "a volunteer, global community of IT professionals" who "continuously refine and verify" CIS best practices and cybersecurity tools.[37]To develop and structure its benchmarks, CIS uses a strategy in which members of the organization first form into teams. These teams then each collect suggestions, advice, official work and recommendations from a few participating organizations. Then, the teams analyze their data and information to determine what the most vital configuration settings are that would improve internet system security the most in as many work settings as possible. Each member of a team constantly works with their teammates and critically analyzes and critiques a rough draft until a consensus forms among the team. Before the benchmark is released to the general public, they are available for download and testing among the community. After reviewing all of the feedback from testing and making any necessary adjustments or changes, the final benchmark and other relevant security tools are made available to the public for download through the CIS website. This process is so extensive and so carefully executed that thousands of security professionals across the globe participate in it. According to ISACA, "during the development of the CIS Benchmark forSun MicrosystemsSolaris, more than 2,500 users downloaded the benchmark and monitoring tools."[38]
The organizations that participated in the founding of CIS in October 2000 includeISACA, theAmerican Institute of Certified Public Accountants(AICPA), theInstitute of Internal Auditors(IIA), theInternational Information Systems Security Certification Consortium(ISC2) and theSANS Institute(System Administration, Networking and Security). CIS has since grown to have hundreds of members with varying degrees of membership and cooperates and works with a variety of organizations and members at both the national and international levels. Some of these organizations include those in both the public and private sectors, government, ISACs and law enforcement.[1]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Internet_Security
|
Cloud computing securityor, more simply,cloud security, refers to a broad set of policies, technologies, applications, and controls utilized to protect virtualized IP, data, applications, services, and the associated infrastructure ofcloud computing. It is a sub-domain ofcomputer security,network securityand, more broadly,information security.
Cloud computingand storage provide users with the capabilities to store and process their data in third-partydata centers.[1]Organizations use the cloud in a variety of different service models (with acronyms such asSaaS,PaaS, andIaaS) and deployment models (private,public,hybrid, andcommunity).[2]
Security concerns associated with cloud computing are typically categorized in two ways: as security issues faced by cloud providers (organizations providingsoftware-,platform-, orinfrastructure-as-a-servicevia the cloud) and security issues faced by their customers (companies or organizations who host applications or store data on the cloud).[3]The responsibility is shared, however, and is often detailed in a cloud provider's "shared security responsibility model" or "shared responsibility model."[4][5][6]The provider must ensure that their infrastructure is secure and that their clients’ data and applications are protected, while the user must take measures to fortify their application and use strong passwords and authentication measures.[5][6]
When an organization elects to store data or host applications on the public cloud, it loses its ability to have physical access to the servers hosting its information. As a result, potentially sensitive data is at risk from insider attacks. According to a 2010Cloud Security Alliancereport, insider attacks are one of the top seven biggest threats in cloud computing.[7]Therefore, cloud service providers must ensure that thorough background checks are conducted for employees who have physical access to the servers in the data center. Additionally, data centers are recommended to be frequently monitored for suspicious activity.
In order to conserve resources, cut costs, and maintain efficiency, cloud service providers often store more than one customer's data on the same server. As a result, there is a chance that one user's private data can be viewed by other users (possibly even competitors). To handle such sensitive situations, cloud service providers should ensure properdata isolationand logical storage segregation.[2]
The extensive use ofvirtualizationin implementing cloud infrastructure brings unique security concerns for customers or tenants of a public cloud service.[8]Virtualization alters the relationship between the OS and underlying hardware – be it computing, storage or even networking. This introduces an additional layer – virtualization – that itself must be properly configured, managed and secured.[9]Specific concerns include the potential to compromise the virtualization software, or "hypervisor". While these concerns are largely theoretical, they do exist.[10]For example, a breach in the administrator workstation with the management software of the virtualization software can cause the whole data center to go down or be reconfigured to an attacker's liking.
Cloud security architecture is effective only if the correct defensive implementations are in place. An efficient cloud security architecture should recognize the issues that will arise with security management and follow all of the best practices, procedures, and guidelines to ensure a secure cloud environment. Security management addresses these issues with security controls. These controls protect cloud environments and are put in place to safeguard any weaknesses in the system and reduce the effect of an attack. While there are many types of controls behind a cloud security architecture, they can usually be found in one of the following categories:
Cloud security engineering is characterized by the security layers, plan, design, programming, and best practices that exist inside a cloud security arrangement. Cloud security engineering requires the composed and visual model (design and UI) to be characterized by the tasks inside the Cloud. This cloud security engineering process includes such things as access to the executives, techniques, and controls to ensure applications and information. It also includes ways to deal with and keep up with permeability, consistency, danger stance, and by and large security. Processes for imparting security standards into cloud administrations and activities assume an approach that fulfills consistent guidelines and essential framework security parts.[15]
For interest in Cloud advancements to be viable, companies should recognize the various parts of the Cloud and how they remain to impact and help them. These interests may include investments in cloud computing and security, for example. This of course leads to leads to driving push for the Cloud advancements to succeed.
Though the idea ofcloud computingisn't new, associations are increasingly enforcing it because of its flexible scalability, relative trustability, and cost frugality of services. However, despite its rapid-fire relinquishment in some sectors and disciplines, it's apparent from exploration and statistics that security-related pitfalls are the most conspicuous hedge to its wide relinquishment.[citation needed]
It is generally recommended that information security controls be selected and implemented according to and in proportion to the risks, typically by assessing the threats, vulnerabilities and impacts. Cloud security concerns can be grouped in various ways; Gartner named seven[16]while theCloud Security Allianceidentified twelve areas of concern.[17]Cloud access security brokers(CASBs) are software that sits between cloud users and cloud applications to provide visibility into cloud application usage, data protection and governance to monitor all activity and enforce security policies.[18]
Any service without a "hardened" environment is considered a "soft" target. Virtual servers should be protected just like a physical server againstdata leakage,malware, and exploited vulnerabilities. "Data loss or leakage represents 24.6% and cloud related malware 3.4% of threats causing cloud outages”.[19]
Every enterprise will have its ownidentity management systemto control access to information and computing resources. Cloud providers either integrate the customer's identity management system into their own infrastructure, usingfederationorSSOtechnology or a biometric-based identification system,[1]or provide an identity management system of their own.[20]CloudID,[1]for instance, provides privacy-preserving cloud-based and cross-enterprise biometric identification. It links the confidential information of the users to their biometrics and stores it in an encrypted fashion. Making use of a searchable encryption technique, biometric identification is performed in the encrypted domain to make sure that the cloud provider or potential attackers do not gain access to any sensitive data or even the contents of the individual queries.[1]
Cloud service providers physically secure the IThardware(servers, routers, cables etc.) against unauthorized access, interference, theft, fires, floods etc. and ensure that essential supplies (such as electricity) are sufficiently robust to minimize the possibility of disruption. This is normally achieved by serving cloud applications from professionally specified, designed, constructed, managed, monitored and maintained data centers.
Various information security concerns relating to the IT and other professionals associated with cloud services are typically handled through pre-, para- and post-employment activities such as security screening potential recruits, security awareness and training programs, and proactive.
Providers ensure that all critical data (credit card numbers, for example) aremaskedor encrypted and that only authorized users have access to data in its entirety. Moreover, digital identities and credentials must be protected as should any data that the provider collects or produces about customer activity in the cloud.
Penetration testingis the process of performing offensive security tests on a system, service, orcomputer networkto find security weaknesses in it. Since the cloud is a shared environment with other customers or tenants, following penetration testing rules of engagement step-by-step is a mandatory requirement. Scanning and penetration testing from inside or outside the cloud should be authorized by the cloud provider. Violation of acceptable use policies can lead to termination of the service.[21]
Scanning the cloud from outside and inside using free or commercial products is crucial because without a hardened environment your service is considered a soft target. Virtual servers should be hardened just like a physical server againstdata leakage, malware, and exploited vulnerabilities. "Data loss or leakage represents 24.6% and cloud-related malware 3.4% of threats causing cloud outages”
Scanning and penetration testing from inside or outside the cloud must be authorized by the cloud provider. Since the cloud is a shared environment with other customers or tenants, following penetration testing rules of engagement step-by-step is a mandatory requirement. Violation of acceptable use policies can lead to the termination of the service. Some key terminology to grasp when discussing penetration testing is the difference between application and network layer testing. Understanding what is asked of you as the tester is sometimes the most important step in the process. The network-layer testing refers to testing that includes internal/external connections as well as the interconnected systems throughout the local network. Oftentimes, social engineering attacks are carried out, as the most vulnerable link in security is often the employee.
White-box testing
Testing under the condition that the “attacker” has full knowledge of the internal network, its design, and implementation.
Grey-box testing
Testing under the condition that the “attacker” has partial knowledge of the internal network, its design, and implementation.
Black-box testing
Testing under the condition that the “attacker” has no prior knowledge of the internal network, its design, and implementation.
There are numerous security threats associated with cloud data services. This includes traditional threats and non-traditional threats. Traditional threats include:network eavesdropping, illegal invasion, and denial of service attacks, but also specific cloud computing threats, such as side channel attacks, virtualization vulnerabilities, and abuse of cloud services. In order to mitigate these threats security controls often rely on monitoring the three areas of the CIA triad. The CIA Triad refers to confidentiality (including access controllability which can be further understood from the following.[22]), integrity and availability.
Many effective security measures cover several or all of the three categories. Encryption for example can be used to prevent unauthorized access, and also ensure integrity of the data). Backups on the other hand generally cover integrity and availability and firewalls only cover confidentiality and access controllability.[23]
Data confidentiality is the property in that data contents are not made available or disclosed to illegal users. Outsourced data is stored in a cloud and out of the owners' direct control. Only authorized users can access the sensitive data while others, including CSPs, should not gain any information about the data. Meanwhile, data owners expect to fully utilize cloud data services, e.g., data search, data computation, anddata sharing, without the leakage of the data contents to CSPs or other adversaries. Confidentiality refers to how data must be kept strictly confidential to the owner of said data
An example of security control that covers confidentiality is encryption so that only authorized users can access the data. Symmetric or asymmetric key paradigm can be used for encryption.[24]
Access controllability means that a data owner can perform the selective restriction of access to their data outsourced to the cloud. Legal users can be authorized by the owner to access the data, while others can not access it without permission. Further, it is desirable to enforce fine-grainedaccess controlto the outsourced data, i.e., different users should be granted different access privileges with regard to different data pieces. The access authorization must be controlled only by the owner in untrusted cloud environments.
Access control can also be referred to as availability. While unauthorized access should be strictly prohibited, access for administrative or even consumer uses should be allowed but monitored as well. Availability and Access control ensure that the proper amount of permissions is granted to the correct persons.
Data integritydemands maintaining and assuring the accuracy and completeness of data. A data owner always expects that her or his data in a cloud can be stored correctly and trustworthy. It means that the data should not be illegally tampered with, improperly modified, deliberately deleted, or maliciously fabricated. If any undesirable operations corrupt or delete the data, the owner should be able to detect the corruption or loss. Further, when a portion of the outsourced data is corrupted or lost, it can still be retrieved by the data users. Effective integrity security controls go beyond protection from malicious actors and protect data from unintentional alterations as well.
An example of security control that covers integrity is automated backups of information.
While cloud computing is on the cutting edge of information technology there are risks and vulnerabilities to consider before investing fully in it. Security controls and services do exist for the cloud but as with any security system they are not guaranteed to succeed. Furthermore, some risks extend beyond asset security and may involve issues in productivity and even privacy as well.[25]
Cloud computing is still an emerging technology and thus is developing in relatively new technological structures. As a result, all cloud services must undertake Privacy Impact Assessments or PIAs before releasing their platform. Consumers as well that intend to use clouds to store their customer's data must also be aware of the vulnerabilities of having non-physical storage for private information.[26]
Due to the autonomous nature of the cloud, consumers are often given management interfaces to monitor their databases. By having controls in such a congregated location and by having the interface be easily accessible for convenience for users, there is a possibility that a single actor could gain access to the cloud's management interface; giving them a great deal of control and power over the database.[27]
The cloud's capabilities with allocating resources as needed often result in resources in memory and otherwise being recycled to another user at a later event. For these memory or storage resources, it could be possible for current users to access information left by previous ones.[27]
The cloud requires an internet connection and therefore internet protocols to access. Therefore, it is open to many internet protocol vulnerabilities such as man-in-the-middle attacks. Furthermore, by having a heavy reliance on internet connectivity, if the connection fails consumers will be completely cut off from any cloud resources.[27]
Cryptography is an ever-growing field and technology. What was secure 10 years ago may be considered a significant security risk by today's standards. As technology continues to advance and older technologies grow old, new methods of breaking encryptions will emerge as well as fatal flaws in older encryption methods. Cloud providers must keep up to date with their encryption as the data they typically contain is especially valuable.[28]
Privacy legislation often varies from country to country. By having information stored via the cloud it is difficult to determine under which jurisdictions the data falls under. Transborder clouds are especially popular given that the largest companies transcend several countries. Other legal dilemmas from the ambiguity of the cloud refer to how there is a difference in privacy regulation between information shared between and information shared inside of organizations.[26]
There are several different types of attacks on cloud computing, one that is still very much untapped is infrastructure compromise. Though not completely known it is listed as the attack with the highest amount of payoff.[29]What makes this so dangerous is that the person carrying out the attack is able to gain a level of privilege of having essentially root access to the machine. It is very hard to defend against attacks like these because they are so unpredictable and unknown, attacks of this type are also calledzero day exploitsbecause they are difficult to defend against since the vulnerabilities were previously unknown and unchecked until the attack has already occurred.
DoSattacks aim to have systems be unavailable to their users. Since cloud computing software is used by large numbers of people, resolving these attacks is increasingly difficult. Now with cloud computing on the rise, this has left new opportunities for attacks because of the virtualization of data centers and cloud services being utilized more.[30]
With the global pandemic that started early in 2020 taking effect, there was a massive shift to remote work, because of this companies became more reliant on the cloud. This massive shift has not gone unnoticed, especially by cybercriminals and bad actors, many of which saw the opportunity to attack the cloud because of this new remote work environment. Companies have to constantly remind their employees to keep constant vigilance especially remotely. Constantly keeping up to date with the latest security measures and policies, mishaps in communication are some of the things that these cybercriminals are looking for and will prey upon.
Moving work to the household was critical for workers to be able to continue, but as the move to remote work happened, several security issues arose quickly. The need for data privacy, using applications, personal devices, and the internet all came to the forefront. The pandemic has had large amounts of data being generated especially in the healthcare sector. Big data is accrued for the healthcare sector now more than ever due to the growing coronavirus pandemic. The cloud has to be able to organize and share the data with its users securely. Quality of data looks for four things: accuracy, redundancy, completeness and consistency.[31]
Users had to think about the fact that massive amounts of data are being shared globally. Different countries have certain laws and regulations that have to be adhered to. Differences in policy and jurisdiction give rise to the risk involved with the cloud. Workers are using their personal devices more now that they are working from home. Criminals see this increase as an opportunity to exploit people, software is developed to infect people's devices and gain access to their cloud. The current pandemic has put people in a situation where they are incredibly vulnerable and susceptible to attacks. The change to remote work was so sudden that many companies simply were unprepared to deal with the tasks and subsequent workload they have found themselves deeply entrenched in. Tighter security measures have to be put in place to ease that newfound tension within organizations.
The attacks that can be made on cloud computing systems includeman-in-the middleattacks,phishingattacks, authentication attacks, and malware attacks. One of the largest threats is considered to be malware attacks, such asTrojan horses.
Recent research conducted in 2022 has revealed that the Trojan horse injection method is a serious problem with harmful impacts on cloud computing systems. A Trojan attack on cloud systems tries to insert an application or service into the system that can impact the cloud services by changing or stopping the functionalities. When the cloud system identifies the attacks as legitimate, the service or application is performed which can damage and infect the cloud system.[32]
Some advancedencryptionalgorithms which have been applied to cloud computing increase the protection of privacy. In a practice calledcrypto-shredding, the keys can simply be deleted when there is no more use of the data.
Attribute-based encryptionis a type ofpublic-key encryptionin which thesecret keyof a user and the ciphertext are dependent upon attributes (e.g. the country in which he lives, or the kind of subscription he has). In such a system, the decryption of a ciphertext is possible only if the set of attributes of the user key matches the attributes of the ciphertext.
Some of the strengths of Attribute-based encryption are that it attempts to solve issues that exist in current public-key infrastructure(PKI) and identity-based encryption(IBE) implementations. By relying on attributes ABE circumvents needing to share keys directly, as with PKI, as well as having to know the identity of the receiver, as with IBE.
These benefits come at a cost as ABE suffers from the decryption key re-distribution problem. Since decryption keys in ABE only contain information regarding access structure or the attributes of the user it is hard to verify the user's actual identity. Thus malicious users can intentionally leak their attribute information so that unauthorized users can imitate and gain access.[33]
Ciphertext-policy ABE (CP-ABE) is a type of public-key encryption. In the CP-ABE, the encryptor controls the access strategy. The main research work of CP-ABE is focused on the design of the access structure. A Ciphertext-policy attribute-based encryption scheme consists of four algorithms: Setup, Encrypt, KeyGen, and Decrypt.[34]The Setup algorithm takes security parameters and an attribute universe description as input and outputs public parameters and a master key. The encryption algorithm takes data as input. It then encrypts it to produce ciphertext that only a user that possesses a set of attributes that satisfies the access structure will decrypt the message. The KeyGen algorithm then takes the master key and the user's attributes to develop a private key. Finally, the Decrypt algorithm takes the public parameters, the ciphertext, the private key, and user attributes as input. With this information, the algorithm first checks if the users’ attributes satisfy the access structure and then decrypts the ciphertext to return the data.
Key-policy Attribute-Based Encryption, or KP-ABE, is an important type ofAttribute-Based Encryption. KP-ABE allows senders to encrypt their messages under a set of attributes, much like any Attribute Based Encryption system. For each encryption, private user keys are then generated which contain decryption algorithms for deciphering the message and these private user keys grant users access to specific messages that they correspond to. In a KP-ABE system,ciphertexts, or the encrypted messages, are tagged by the creators with a set of attributes, while the user's private keys are issued that specify which type of ciphertexts the key can decrypt.[35]The private keys control which ciphertexts a user is able to decrypt.[36]In KP-ABE, the attribute sets are used to describe the encrypted texts and the private keys are associated to the specified policy that users will have for the decryption of the ciphertexts. A drawback to KP-ABE is that in KP-ABE the encryptor does not control who has access to the encrypted data, except through descriptive attributes, which creates a reliance on the key-issuer granting and denying access to users. Hence, the creation of other ABE systems such as Ciphertext-Policy Attribute-Based Encryption.[37]
Fully Homomorphic Encryptionis a cryptosystem that supports arbitrary computation on ciphertext and also allows computing sum and product for the encrypted data without decryption. Another interesting feature of Fully Homomorphic Encryption or FHE for short is that it allows operations to be executed without the need for a secret key.[38]FHE has been linked not only to cloud computing but to electronic voting as well. Fully Homomorphic Encryption has been especially helpful with the development of cloud computing and computing technologies. However, as these systems are developing the need for cloud security has also increased. FHE aims to secure data transmission as well as cloud computing storage with its encryption algorithms.[39]Its goal is to be a much more secure and efficient method of encryption on a larger scale to handle the massive capabilities of the cloud.
Searchable encryption is a cryptographic system that offers secure search functions over encrypted data.[40][41]SE schemes can be classified into two categories: SE based on secret-key (or symmetric-key) cryptography, and SE based on public-key cryptography. In order to improve search efficiency, symmetric-key SE generally builds keyword indexes to answer user queries. This has the obvious disadvantage of providing multimodal access routes for unauthorized data retrieval, bypassing the encryption algorithm by subjecting the framework to alternative parameters within the shared cloud environment.[42]
Numerous laws and regulations pertaining to the storage and use of data. In the US these include privacy or data protection laws,Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard(PCI DSS), theHealth Insurance Portability and Accountability Act(HIPAA), theSarbanes-Oxley Act, theFederal Information Security Management Act of 2002(FISMA), andChildren's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998, among others. Similar standards exist in other jurisdictions, e.g. Singapore'sMulti-Tier Cloud Security Standard.
Similar laws may apply in different legal jurisdictions and may differ quite markedly from those enforced in the US. Cloud service users may often need to be aware of the legal and regulatory differences between the jurisdictions. For example, data stored by a cloud service provider may be located in, say, Singapore and mirrored in the US.[43]
Many of these regulations mandate particular controls (such as strong access controls and audit trails) and require regular reporting. Cloud customers must ensure that their cloud providers adequately fulfill such requirements as appropriate, enabling them to comply with their obligations since, to a large extent, they remain accountable.
Aside from the security and compliance issues enumerated above, cloud providers and their customers will negotiate terms around liability (stipulating how incidents involving data loss or compromise will be resolved, for example),intellectual property, and end-of-service (when data and applications are ultimately returned to the customer). In addition, there are considerations for acquiring data from the cloud that may be involved in litigation.[46]These issues are discussed inservice-level agreements(SLA).
Legal issues may also includerecords-keepingrequirements in thepublic sector, where many agencies are required by law to retain and make availableelectronic recordsin a specific fashion. This may be determined by legislation, or law may require agencies to conform to the rules and practices set by a records-keeping agency. Public agencies using cloud computing and storage must take these concerns into account.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computing_security
|
The term "on-demand scan" refers to the possibility of performing a manual scan (by the user) on the entire computer/device, while "on-access scan" refers to the ability of a product to automatically scan every file at its creation or subsequent modification.
The term "CloudAV" refers to the ability of a product to automatically perform scans on the cloud.
The term "Email security" refers to the protection of email fromvirusesandmalware, while "Antispam" refers to the protection fromspam,scamandphishingattacks.
The term "Web protection" usually includes protection from: infected and maliciousURLs,phishingwebsites, online identity (privacy) protection and online banking protection. Many antivirus products use "third-party antivirus engine". This means that the antivirus engine is made by another producer; however, the malware signature and/or other parts of the product may (or may not) be done from the owner of the product itself.
and Bruce Harrison
Currently in 'Limited Support' doesn't have all functions available via GUI interface. EOL March 16 2023[13]
This list excludesWindows Phone 7andWindows Phone 8as they do not support running protection programs.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_antivirus_software
|
Content Disarm & Reconstruction(CDR) is acomputer securitytechnology for removing potentiallymalicious codefrom files. Unlikemalware analysis, CDR technology does not determine or detect malware's functionality but removes all file components that are not approved within the system's definitions and policies.[1]
It is used to prevent cyber security threats from entering a corporate network perimeter. Channels that CDR can be used to protect include email and website traffic. Advanced solutions can also provide similar protection on computer endpoints, or cloud email and file sharing services.
There are three levels of CDR; 1) flattening and converting the original file to a PDF, 2) stripping active content while keeping the original file type, and 3) eliminating all file-borne risk while maintaining file type, integrity and active content. Beyond these three levels, there are also more advanced forms of CDR that is able to perform "soft conversion" and "hard conversion", based on the user's preference in balancing usability and security.[2]
CDR works by processing all incoming files of an enterprise network, deconstructing them, and removing the elements that do not match the file type's standards or set policies.[3]CDR technology then rebuilds the files into clean versions that can be sent on to end users as intended.[4]
Because CDR removes all potentially malicious code, it can be effective againstzero-dayvulnerabilities that rely on being an unknown threat that other security technologies would need to patch against to maintain protection.
CDR can be used to prevent cyber threats from variety of sources:
CDR can be applied to a variety of file formats including:
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_Disarm_%26_Reconstruction
|
Content Security Policy(CSP) is acomputer securitystandard introduced to preventcross-site scripting(XSS),clickjackingand othercode injectionattacks resulting from execution of malicious content in the trustedweb pagecontext.[1]It is a Candidate Recommendation of theW3Cworking group on Web Application Security,[2]widely supported by modernweb browsers.[3]CSP provides a standard method for website owners to declare approved origins of content that browsers should be allowed to load on that website—covered types areJavaScript,CSS,HTML frames,web workers,fonts, images, embeddable objects such asJava applets,ActiveX, audio and video files, and otherHTML5features.
The standard, originally named Content Restrictions, was proposed by Robert Hansen in 2004,[4]first implemented inFirefox 4and quickly picked up by other browsers. Version 1 of the standard was published in 2012 as W3C candidate recommendation[5]and quickly with further versions (Level 2) published in 2014. As of 2023[update], the draft of Level 3 is being developed with the new features being quickly adopted by the web browsers.[6]
The following header names are in use as part of experimental CSP implementations:[3]
A website can declare multiple CSP headers, also mixing enforcement and report-only ones. Each header will be processed separately by the browser.
CSP can also be delivered within the HTML code using ameta tag, although in this case its effectiveness will be limited.[14]
Internet Explorer 10andInternet Explorer 11also support CSP, but only sandbox directive, using the experimentalX-Content-Security-Policyheader.[15]
A number of web application frameworks support CSP, for exampleAngularJS[16](natively) andDjango(middleware).[17]Instructions forRuby on Railshave been posted byGitHub.[18]Web framework support is however only required if the CSP contents somehow depend on the web application's state—such as usage of thenonceorigin. Otherwise, the CSP is rather static and can be delivered fromweb application tiersabove the application, for example onload balancerorweb server.
In December 2015[19]and December 2016,[20]a few methods of bypassing'nonce'allowlisting origins were published. In January 2016,[21]another method was published, which leverages server-wide CSP allowlisting to exploit old and vulnerable versions of JavaScript libraries hosted at the same server (frequent case with CDN servers). In May 2017[22]one more method was published to bypass CSP using web application frameworks code.
If theContent-Security-Policyheader is present in the server response, a compliant client enforces the declarative allowlist policy. One example goal of a policy is a stricter execution mode for JavaScript in order to prevent certain cross-site scripting attacks. In practice this means that a number of features are disabled by default:
While using CSP in a new application may be quite straightforward, especially with CSP-compatibleJavaScriptframework,[d]existing applications may require some refactoring—or relaxing the policy. Recommended coding practice for CSP-compatible web applications is to load code from external source files (<script src>), parseJSONinstead of evaluating it and useEventTarget.addEventListener()to set event handlers.[23]
Any time a requested resource or script execution violates the policy, the browser will fire aPOSTrequest to the value specified inreport-uri[24]orreport-to[25]containing details of the violation.
CSP reports are standardJSONstructures and can be captured either by application's ownAPI[26]or public CSP report receivers.[citation needed]
In 2018 security researchers showed how to send false positive reports to the designated receiver specified inreport-uri. This allows potential attackers to arbitrarily trigger those alarms and might render them less useful in case of a real attack.[27]This behaviour is intended and cannot be fixed, as the browser (client) is sending the reports.
According to the original CSP (1.0) Processing Model (2012–2013),[28]CSP should not interfere with the operation of browser add-ons or extensions installed by the user. This feature of CSP would have effectively allowed any add-on, extension, orBookmarkletto inject script into web sites, regardless of the origin of that script, and thus be exempt from CSP policies.
However, this policy has since been modified (as of CSP 1.1[29]) with the following wording. Note the use of the word "may" instead of the prior absolute "should (not)" wording:
Note: User agentsmayallow users to modify or bypass policy enforcement through user preferences, bookmarklets, third-party additions to the user agent, and other such mechanisms.
The absolute "should" wording was being used by browser users to request/demand adherence to the policy and have changes installed in popular browsers (Firefox, Chrome, Safari) to support it. This was particularly contentious when sites like Twitter and GitHub started using strong CSP policies, which 'broke' the use of Bookmarklets.[30]
TheW3CWeb Application Security Working Group considers such script to be part of theTrusted Computing Baseimplemented by the browser; however, it has been argued to the working group by a representative ofCox Communicationsthat this exemption is a potential security hole that could be exploited by malicious or compromised add-ons or extensions.[31][32]
As of 2015[update]a number of new browser security standards are being proposed by W3C, most of them complementary to CSP:[33]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_Security_Policy
|
Incomputer securityacountermeasureis an action,device, procedure, or technique that reduces athreat,vulnerability, orattack, eliminating or preventing it by minimizing theharmit can cause. It can also include discovering and reporting vunerabilities so that corrective action can be taken.
The definition is given inIETFRFC 2828[1]and CNSS Instruction No. 4009 dated 26 April 2010 by theCommittee on National Security Systems.[2]
According to the Glossary[3]byInfosecToday, the meaning of countermeasure is:
A synonym issecurity control.[2][4]In telecommunications, communication countermeasures are defined assecurity servicesas part of theOSI Reference modelby ITU-T X.800 Recommendation.
X.800 and ISO ISO 7498-2 (Information processing systems – Open systems interconnection – Basic Reference Model – Part 2: Security architecture are technically aligned.
The following picture explains the relationships between these concepts and terms:
A resource (both physical or logical) can have one or more vulnerabilities that can be exploited by a threat agent in a threat action. The result can potentially compromise theconfidentiality,integrityoravailabilityproperties of these resources (potentially different than the vulnerable one) of the organization and other involved parties (customers, suppliers).The so-called CIA triad is the basis ofinformation security.
The attack can be active when it attempts to alter system resources or affect their operation: so it compromises integrity or availability. A "passive attack" attempts to learn or make use of information from the system but does not affect system resources, compromising confidentiality.
A threat is a potential for violation of security, which exists when there is a circumstance, capability, action, or event that could breach security and cause harm. That is, a threat is a possible danger enabling the exploitation of a vulnerability. A threat can be either "intentional" (i.e., intelligent; e.g., an individual cracker or a criminal organization) or "accidental" (e.g., the possibility of a computer malfunctioning, or the possibility of an "act of God" such as an earthquake, fire, or tornado).[1]
A set of policies concerned with information security management, theinformation security management systems(ISMS), has been developed to manage, according torisk managementprinciples, the countermeasures in order to accomplish to a security strategy set up following rules and regulations applicable in a country.[4]
If a potential malicious actor has physical access to a computer system, they have a greater chance of inflicting harm upon it.
Devices such as aUSB Killermay be used to damage or render completely unusable anything with a connection to themotherboardof a computer, such as a USB port, video port, Ethernet port, or serial port.[5]Without proper protection, these devices may result in the destruction of ports,adapter cards, storage devices,RAM, motherboards, CPUs, or anything physically connected to the device attacked, such as monitors, flash drives, orwired switches. These types of devices can even be used to damage smartphones and cars, as well.[6]
This threat can be mitigated by not installing or restricting physical access to easily accessible ports in situations where they are not necessary. A port-closing lock which permanently disables access to a port short of the actual port being disassembled.[7]When it is necessary for a port to be accessible, anoptocouplercan allow for a port to send and receive data to a computer or device without a direct electrical connection, preventing the computer or device from receiving any dangerous voltage from an external device.[8]
In an unsecured scenario, a malicious actor may steal or destroy storage devices such as hard drives or SSDs, resulting in the destruction or theft of valuable data.
If the data of a storage device is no longer necessary, data theft is best prevented against by physically destroying or shredding the storage device.[9]
If the data of a storage device is in use and must be secured, one can useencryptionto encrypt the contents of a storage device, or evenencrypt the whole storage devicesave for the master boot record. The device can then be unlocked with a password,biometric authentication, a physicaldongle, a network interchange, aone-time password, or any combination thereof. If this device is aboot drive, however, it must be unencrypted in a pre-boot environment so the operating system can be accessed.Striping, or breaking data into chunks stored upon multiple drives which must be assembled in order to access the data, is a possible solution to physical drive theft, provided that the drives are stored in multiple, individually secured locations, and are enough in number that no one drive can be used to piece together meaningful information.
Not to be neglected is the process of adding physical barriers to the storage devices themselves. Locked cases or physically hidden drives, with a limited number of personnel with knowledge and access to the keys or locations, may prove to be a good first line against physical theft.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countermeasure_(computer)
|
Cyber insuranceis a specialtyinsuranceproduct intended to protect businesses from Internet-basedrisks, and more generally from risks relating toinformation technologyinfrastructure and activities. Risks of this nature are typically excluded from traditionalcommercial general liabilitypolicies or at least are not specifically defined in traditional insurance products. Coverage provided by cyber-insurance policies may include first and third parties coverage against losses such as data destruction, extortion, theft, hacking, anddenial of service attacks; liability coverage indemnifying companies for losses to others caused, for example, by errors and omissions, failure to safeguard data, or defamation; and other benefits including regularsecurity-audit, post-incident public relations and investigative expenses, and criminal reward funds.
Because the cyber insurance market in many countries is relatively small compared to other insurance products, its overall impact on emerging cyber threats is difficult to quantify.[1]As the impact to people and businesses from cyber threats is also relatively broad when compared to the scope of protection provided by insurance products, insurance companies continue to develop their services.
As well as directly improving security, cyber insurance is beneficial in the event of a large-scale security breach. Insurance provides a smooth funding mechanism for recovery from major losses, helping businesses to return to normal and reducing the need for government assistance.[2][3]
As a side benefit, many cyber-insurance policies require entities attempting to procure cyber insurance policies to participate in an IT security audit before the insurance carrier will bind the policy. This will help companies determine their current vulnerabilities and allow the insurance carrier to gauge the risk they are taking on by offering the policy to the entity. By completing the IT security audit the entity procuring the policy will be required, in some cases, to make necessary improvements to their IT security vulnerabilities before the cyber-insurance policy can be procured. This will in-turn help reduce risk of cyber crime against the company procuring cyber insurance.[4]
Finally, insurance allows cyber-security risks to be distributed fairly, with the cost of premiums commensurate with the size of expected loss from such risks. This avoids potentially dangerous concentrations of risk while also preventing free-riding.
According to Josephine Wolff’s research into the history of cyber insurance, its origins trace back to an April 1997 International Risk Insurance Management Society convention at which Steven Haase presented the launch of the first cyber insurance product, including first and third party coverages.[5][6][7]Haase first came up with the concept of cyber insurance a few years earlier and had discussed it with various industry colleagues at times, but this 1997 event marked a breakthrough moment when the first cyber insurance policy and underwriting platform were actually launched. The event resulted in the creation of the first policy designed to focus on the risks of internet commerce, which was the Internet Security Liability (ISL) policy, developed by Haase and underwritten by AIG.[8]Around this same time, in 1999, David Walsh founded CFC Underwriting in the United Kingdom, a company which treats cyber as one of its main focus areas.[9][10]Chris Cotterell founded Safeonline around the same time, which soon became another significant player in the cyber insurance space.[11][12]The early meeting between Haase and 20 industry colleagues in Hawaii is now commonly referred to as the “Breach on the Beach” and is considered a pivotal moment at which cyber insurance was first recognized and celebrated.[13][14]
After a significant malware incident in 2017, however,Reckitt Benckiserreleased information on how much the cyberattack would impact financial performance, leading some analysts to believe the trend is for companies to be more transparent with data from cyber incidents.[15]Purchases of cyber insurance has increased due to the rise in internet-based attacks, such as ransomware attacks. Government Accountability Office, "Insurance clients are opting in for cyber coverage—up from 26% in 2016 to 47% in 2020. At the same time, U.S. insurance entities saw the costs of cyberattacks nearly double between 2016 and 2019. As a result, insurance premiums also saw major increases."[16]
A key area to manage risk is to establish what is an acceptable risk for each organization or what is'reasonable security'for their specific working environment. Practicing 'duty of care' helps protect all interested parties - executives, regulators, judges, the public who can be affected by those risks. The Duty of Care Risk Analysis Standard (DoCRA)[17]provides practices and principles to help balance compliance, security, and business objectives when developing security controls.
Legislation
In 2022, Kentucky and Maryland enacted insurance data security legislation based upon the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (“NAIC”) Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668).[18]Maryland's SB 207[19]takes effect on October 1, 2023. Kentucky's House Bill 474[20]goes into effect on January 1, 2023.
During 2005, a “second generation" of cyber-insurance literature emerged targeting risk management of current cyber-networks. The authors of such literature link themarket failurewith fundamental properties of information technology, specially correlated risk information asymmetries between insurers and insureds, and inter-dependencies.[21]
According to Josephine Wolff, cyber insurance has been "ineffective at curbing cybersecurity losses because it normalizes the payment of online ransoms, whereas the goal of cybersecurity is the opposite—to disincentivize such payments to make ransomware less profitable."[22]
FM Global in 2019 conducted a survey of CFOs at companies with over $1 billion in turnover. The survey found that 71% of CFOs believed that their insurance provider would cover "most or all" of the losses their company would suffer in a cyber security attack or crime. Nevertheless, many of those CFOs reported that they expected damages related with cyber attacks that are not covered by typical cyber attack policies. Specifically, 50% of the CFOs mentioned that they anticipated after a cyber attack a devaluation of their company's brand while more than 30% expected a decline in revenue.[23]
Like other insurance policies, cyber insurance typically includes awar exclusion clause- explicitly excluding damage from acts of war. While the majority of cyber insurance claims will relate to simple criminal behaviour, increasingly companies are likely to fall victim tocyberwarfareattacks by nation-states or terrorist organizations - whether specifically targeted or simply collateral damage. After the US and UK, governments characterized theNotPetyaattack as a Russian military cyber-attack insurers are arguing that they do not cover such events.[24][25][26]
In a recent academic effort, researchers Pal, Madnick, and Siegel from the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology were the first to analyze the economic feasibility of cyber-CAT bond markets. They applied economic theory and data science to propose conditions under which is it economically efficient to either have re-insurance markets transferring risk (without the existence of CAT bond markets), CAT bond markets transferring risk (in the presence of re-insurance markets), or self-insurance markets (in the absence of re-insurance and CAT bond markets) to cover residual cyber-risk.[27][28]
As of 2019, the average cost of cyber liability insurance in the United States was estimated to be $1,501 per year for $1 million in liability coverage, with a $10,000 deductible.[29]The average annual premium for a cyber liability limit of $500,000 with a $5,000 deductible was $1,146, and the average annual premium for a cyber liability limit of $250,000 with a $2,500 deductible was $739.[30]In addition to location, the main drivers of cost for cyber insurance include the type of business, the number of credit/debit card transactions performed, and the storage of sensitive personal information such as date of birth and Social Security numbers.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_insurance
|
Computer security(alsocybersecurity,digital security, orinformation technology (IT) security) is a subdiscipline within the field ofinformation security. It consists of the protection ofcomputer software,systemsandnetworksfromthreatsthat can lead to unauthorized information disclosure, theft or damage tohardware,software, ordata, as well as from the disruption or misdirection of theservicesthey provide.[1][2]
The significance of the field stems from the expanded reliance oncomputer systems, theInternet,[3]andwireless network standards. Its importance is further amplified by the growth ofsmart devices, includingsmartphones,televisions, and the various devices that constitute theInternet of things(IoT). Cybersecurity has emerged as one of the most significant new challenges facing the contemporary world, due to both the complexity ofinformation systemsand the societies they support. Security is particularly crucial for systems that govern large-scale systems with far-reaching physical effects, such aspower distribution,elections, andfinance.[4][5]
Although many aspects of computer security involve digital security, such as electronicpasswordsandencryption,physical securitymeasures such asmetal locksare still used to prevent unauthorized tampering. IT security is not a perfect subset ofinformation security, therefore does not completely align into thesecurity convergenceschema.
A vulnerability refers to a flaw in the structure, execution, functioning, or internal oversight of a computer or system that compromises its security. Most of the vulnerabilities that have been discovered are documented in theCommon Vulnerabilities and Exposures(CVE) database.[6]Anexploitablevulnerability is one for which at least one workingattackorexploitexists.[7]Actors maliciously seeking vulnerabilities are known asthreats. Vulnerabilities can be researched, reverse-engineered, hunted, or exploited usingautomated toolsor customized scripts.[8][9]
Various people or parties are vulnerable to cyber attacks; however, different groups are likely to experience different types of attacks more than others.[10]
In April 2023, theUnited KingdomDepartment for Science, Innovation & Technology released a report on cyber attacks over the previous 12 months.[11]They surveyed 2,263 UK businesses, 1,174 UK registered charities, and 554 education institutions. The research found that "32% of businesses and 24% of charities overall recall any breaches or attacks from the last 12 months." These figures were much higher for "medium businesses (59%), large businesses (69%), and high-income charities with £500,000 or more in annual income (56%)."[11]Yet, although medium or large businesses are more often the victims, since larger companies have generally improved their security over the last decade,small and midsize businesses(SMBs) have also become increasingly vulnerable as they often "do not have advanced tools to defend the business."[10]SMBs are most likely to be affected by malware, ransomware, phishing,man-in-the-middle attacks, and Denial-of Service (DoS) Attacks.[10]
Normal internet users are most likely to be affected by untargeted cyberattacks.[12]These are where attackers indiscriminately target as many devices, services, or users as possible. They do this using techniques that take advantage of the openness of the Internet. These strategies mostly includephishing,ransomware,water holingand scanning.[12]
To secure a computer system, it is important to understand the attacks that can be made against it, and thesethreatscan typically be classified into one of the following categories:
Abackdoorin a computer system, acryptosystem, or analgorithmis any secret method of bypassing normalauthenticationor security controls. These weaknesses may exist for many reasons, including original design or poor configuration.[13]Due to the nature of backdoors, they are of greater concern to companies and databases as opposed to individuals.
Backdoors may be added by an authorized party to allow some legitimate access or by an attacker for malicious reasons.Criminalsoften usemalwareto install backdoors, giving them remote administrative access to a system.[14]Once they have access, cybercriminals can "modify files, steal personal information, install unwanted software, and even take control of the entire computer."[14]
Backdoors can be difficult to detect, as they often remain hidden within the source code or system firmware intimate knowledge of theoperating systemof the computer.
Denial-of-service attacks(DoS) are designed to make a machine or network resource unavailable to its intended users.[15]Attackers can deny service to individual victims, such as by deliberately entering a wrong password enough consecutive times to cause the victim's account to be locked, or they may overload the capabilities of a machine or network and block all users at once. While a network attack from a singleIP addresscan be blocked by adding a new firewall rule, many forms ofdistributed denial-of-service(DDoS) attacks are possible, where the attack comes from a large number of points. In this case, defending against these attacks is much more difficult. Such attacks can originate from thezombie computersof abotnetor from a range of other possible techniques, includingdistributed reflective denial-of-service(DRDoS), where innocent systems are fooled into sending traffic to the victim.[15]With such attacks, the amplification factor makes the attack easier for the attacker because they have to use little bandwidth themselves. To understand why attackers may carry out these attacks, see the 'attacker motivation' section.
A direct-access attack is when an unauthorized user (an attacker) gains physical access to a computer, most likely to directly copy data from it or steal information.[16]Attackers may also compromise security by making operating system modifications, installingsoftware worms,keyloggers,covert listening devicesor using wireless microphones. Even when the system is protected by standard security measures, these may be bypassed by booting another operating system or tool from aCD-ROMor other bootable media.Disk encryptionand theTrusted Platform Modulestandard are designed to prevent these attacks.
Direct service attackers are related in concept todirect memory attackswhich allow an attacker to gain direct access to a computer's memory.[17]The attacks "take advantage of a feature of modern computers that allows certain devices, such as external hard drives, graphics cards, or network cards, to access the computer's memory directly."[17]
Eavesdroppingis the act of surreptitiously listening to a private computer conversation (communication), usually between hosts on a network. It typically occurs when a user connects to a network where traffic is not secured or encrypted and sends sensitive business data to a colleague, which, when listened to by an attacker, could be exploited.[18]Data transmitted across anopen networkallows an attacker to exploit a vulnerability and intercept it via various methods.
Unlikemalware, direct-access attacks, or other forms of cyber attacks, eavesdropping attacks are unlikely to negatively affect the performance of networks or devices, making them difficult to notice.[18]In fact, "the attacker does not need to have any ongoing connection to the software at all. The attacker can insert the software onto a compromised device, perhaps by direct insertion or perhaps by a virus or other malware, and then come back some time later to retrieve any data that is found or trigger the software to send the data at some determined time."[19]
Using avirtual private network(VPN), which encrypts data between two points, is one of the most common forms of protection against eavesdropping. Using the best form of encryption possible for wireless networks is best practice, as well as usingHTTPSinstead of an unencryptedHTTP.[20]
Programs such asCarnivoreandNarusInSighthave been used by theFederal Bureau of Investigation(FBI) and NSA to eavesdrop on the systems ofinternet service providers. Even machines that operate as a closed system (i.e., with no contact with the outside world) can be eavesdropped upon by monitoring the faintelectromagnetictransmissions generated by the hardware.TEMPESTis a specification by the NSA referring to these attacks.
Malicious software (malware) is any software code or computer program "intentionally written to harm a computer system or its users."[21]Once present on a computer, it can leak sensitive details such as personal information, business information and passwords, can give control of the system to the attacker, and can corrupt or delete data permanently.[22][23]
Man-in-the-middle attacks(MITM) involve a malicious attacker trying to intercept, surveil or modify communications between two parties by spoofing one or both party's identities and injecting themselves in-between.[24]Types of MITM attacks include:
Surfacing in 2017, a new class of multi-vector,[25]polymorphic[26]cyber threats combine several types of attacks and change form to avoid cybersecurity controls as they spread.
Multi-vector polymorphic attacks, as the name describes, are both multi-vectored and polymorphic.[27]Firstly, they are a singular attack that involves multiple methods of attack. In this sense, they are "multi-vectored (i.e. the attack can use multiple means of propagation such as via the Web, email and applications." However, they are also multi-staged, meaning that "they can infiltrate networks and move laterally inside the network."[27]The attacks can be polymorphic, meaning that the cyberattacks used such as viruses, worms or trojans "constantly change ("morph") making it nearly impossible to detect them using signature-based defences."[27]
Phishingis the attempt of acquiring sensitive information such as usernames, passwords, and credit card details directly from users by deceiving the users.[28]Phishing is typically carried out byemail spoofing,instant messaging,text message, or on aphonecall. They often direct users to enter details at a fake website whoselook and feelare almost identical to the legitimate one.[29]The fake website often asks for personal information, such as login details and passwords. This information can then be used to gain access to the individual's real account on the real website.
Preying on a victim's trust, phishing can be classified as a form ofsocial engineering. Attackers can use creative ways to gain access to real accounts. A common scam is for attackers to send fake electronic invoices[30]to individuals showing that they recently purchased music, apps, or others, and instructing them to click on a link if the purchases were not authorized. A more strategic type of phishing is spear-phishing which leverages personal or organization-specific details to make the attacker appear like a trusted source. Spear-phishing attacks target specific individuals, rather than the broad net cast by phishing attempts.[31]
Privilege escalationdescribes a situation where an attacker with some level of restricted access is able to, without authorization, elevate their privileges or access level.[32]For example, a standard computer user may be able to exploit avulnerabilityin the system to gain access to restricted data; or even becomerootand have full unrestricted access to a system. The severity of attacks can range from attacks simply sending an unsolicited email to aransomware attackon large amounts of data. Privilege escalation usually starts withsocial engineeringtechniques, oftenphishing.[32]
Privilege escalation can be separated into two strategies, horizontal and vertical privilege escalation:
Any computational system affects its environment in some form. This effect it has on its environment can range from electromagnetic radiation, to residual effect on RAM cells which as a consequence make aCold boot attackpossible, to hardware implementation faults that allow for access or guessing of other values that normally should be inaccessible. In Side-channel attack scenarios, the attacker would gather such information about a system or network to guess its internal state and as a result access the information which is assumed by the victim to be secure. The target information in a side channel can be challenging to detect due to its low amplitude when combined with other signals[33]
Social engineering, in the context of computer security, aims to convince a user to disclose secrets such as passwords, card numbers, etc. or grant physical access by, for example, impersonating a senior executive, bank, a contractor, or a customer.[34]This generally involves exploiting people's trust, and relying on theircognitive biases. A common scam involves emails sent to accounting and finance department personnel, impersonating their CEO and urgently requesting some action. One of the main techniques of social engineering arephishingattacks.
In early 2016, theFBIreported that suchbusiness email compromise(BEC) scams had cost US businesses more than $2 billion in about two years.[35]
In May 2016, theMilwaukee BucksNBAteam was the victim of this type of cyber scam with a perpetrator impersonating the team's presidentPeter Feigin, resulting in the handover of all the team's employees' 2015W-2tax forms.[36]
Spoofing is an act of pretending to be a valid entity through the falsification of data (such as an IP address or username), in order to gain access to information or resources that one is otherwise unauthorized to obtain. Spoofing is closely related tophishing.[37][38]There are several types of spoofing, including:
In 2018, the cybersecurity firmTrellixpublished research on the life-threatening risk of spoofing in the healthcare industry.[40]
Tamperingdescribes amalicious modificationor alteration of data. It is an intentional but unauthorized act resulting in the modification of a system, components of systems, its intended behavior, or data. So-calledEvil Maid attacksand security services planting ofsurveillancecapability into routers are examples.[41]
HTMLsmuggling allows an attacker tosmugglea malicious code inside a particular HTML or web page.[42]HTMLfiles can carry payloads concealed as benign, inert data in order to defeatcontent filters. These payloads can be reconstructed on the other side of the filter.[43]
When a target user opens the HTML, the malicious code is activated; the web browser thendecodesthe script, which then unleashes the malware onto the target's device.[42]
Employee behavior can have a big impact oninformation securityin organizations. Cultural concepts can help different segments of the organization work effectively or work against effectiveness toward information security within an organization. Information security culture is the "...totality of patterns of behavior in an organization that contributes to the protection of information of all kinds."[44]
Andersson and Reimers (2014) found that employees often do not see themselves as part of their organization's information security effort and often take actions that impede organizational changes.[45]Indeed, the Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report 2020, which examined 3,950 security breaches, discovered 30% of cybersecurity incidents involved internal actors within a company.[46]Research shows information security culture needs to be improved continuously. In "Information Security Culture from Analysis to Change", authors commented, "It's a never-ending process, a cycle of evaluation and change or maintenance." To manage the information security culture, five steps should be taken: pre-evaluation, strategic planning, operative planning, implementation, and post-evaluation.[47]
In computer security, acountermeasureis an action, device, procedure or technique that reduces a threat, a vulnerability, or anattackby eliminating or preventing it, by minimizing the harm it can cause, or by discovering and reporting it so that corrective action can be taken.[48][49][50]
Some common countermeasures are listed in the following sections:
Security by design, or alternately secure by design, means that the software has been designed from the ground up to be secure. In this case, security is considered a main feature.
The UK government's National Cyber Security Centre separates secure cyber design principles into five sections:[51]
These design principles of security by design can include some of the following techniques:
Security architecture can be defined as the "practice of designing computer systems to achieve security goals."[52]These goals have overlap with the principles of "security by design" explored above, including to "make initial compromise of the system difficult," and to "limit the impact of any compromise."[52]In practice, the role of a security architect would be to ensure the structure of a system reinforces the security of the system, and that new changes are safe and meet the security requirements of the organization.[53][54]
Similarly, Techopedia defines security architecture as "a unified security design that addresses the necessities and potential risks involved in a certain scenario or environment. It also specifies when and where to apply security controls. The design process is generally reproducible." The key attributes of security architecture are:[55]
Practicing security architecture provides the right foundation to systematically address business, IT and security concerns in an organization.
A state of computer security is the conceptual ideal, attained by the use of three processes: threat prevention, detection, and response. These processes are based on various policies and system components, which include the following:
Today, computer security consists mainly of preventive measures, likefirewallsor anexit procedure. A firewall can be defined as a way of filtering network data between a host or a network and another network, such as theInternet. They can be implemented as software running on the machine, hooking into thenetwork stack(or, in the case of mostUNIX-based operating systems such asLinux, built into the operating systemkernel) to provide real-time filtering and blocking.[56]Another implementation is a so-calledphysical firewall, which consists of a separate machine filtering network traffic. Firewalls are common amongst machines that are permanently connected to the Internet.
Some organizations are turning tobig dataplatforms, such asApache Hadoop, to extend data accessibility andmachine learningto detectadvanced persistent threats.[58]
In order to ensure adequate security, the confidentiality, integrity and availability of a network, better known as the CIA triad, must be protected and is considered the foundation to information security.[59]To achieve those objectives, administrative, physical and technical security measures should be employed. The amount of security afforded to an asset can only be determined when its value is known.[60]
Vulnerability management is the cycle of identifying, fixing or mitigatingvulnerabilities,[61]especially in software andfirmware. Vulnerability management is integral to computer security andnetwork security.
Vulnerabilities can be discovered with avulnerability scanner, which analyzes a computer system in search of known vulnerabilities,[62]such asopen ports, insecure software configuration, and susceptibility tomalware. In order for these tools to be effective, they must be kept up to date with every new update the vendor release. Typically, these updates will scan for the new vulnerabilities that were introduced recently.
Beyond vulnerability scanning, many organizations contract outside security auditors to run regularpenetration testsagainst their systems to identify vulnerabilities. In some sectors, this is a contractual requirement.[63]
The act of assessing and reducing vulnerabilities to cyber attacks is commonly referred to asinformation technology security assessments. They aim to assess systems for risk and to predict and test for their vulnerabilities. Whileformal verificationof the correctness of computer systems is possible,[64][65]it is not yet common. Operating systems formally verified includeseL4,[66]andSYSGO'sPikeOS[67][68]– but these make up a very small percentage of the market.
It is possible to reduce an attacker's chances by keeping systems up to date with security patches and updates and by hiring people with expertise in security. Large companies with significant threats can hire Security Operations Centre (SOC) Analysts. These are specialists in cyber defences, with their role ranging from "conducting threat analysis to investigating reports of any new issues and preparing and testing disaster recovery plans."[69]
Whilst no measures can completely guarantee the prevention of an attack, these measures can help mitigate the damage of possible attacks. The effects of data loss/damage can be also reduced by carefulbacking upandinsurance.
Outside of formal assessments, there are various methods of reducing vulnerabilities.Two factor authenticationis a method for mitigating unauthorized access to a system or sensitive information.[70]It requiressomething you know:a password or PIN, andsomething you have: a card, dongle, cellphone, or another piece of hardware. This increases security as an unauthorized person needs both of these to gain access.
Protecting against social engineering and direct computer access (physical) attacks can only happen by non-computer means, which can be difficult to enforce, relative to the sensitivity of the information. Training is often involved to help mitigate this risk by improving people's knowledge of how to protect themselves and by increasing people's awareness of threats.[71]However, even in highly disciplined environments (e.g. military organizations), social engineering attacks can still be difficult to foresee and prevent.
Inoculation, derived frominoculation theory, seeks to prevent social engineering and other fraudulent tricks and traps by instilling a resistance to persuasion attempts through exposure to similar or related attempts.[72]
Hardware-based or assisted computer security also offers an alternative to software-only computer security. Using devices and methods such asdongles,trusted platform modules, intrusion-aware cases, drive locks, disabling USB ports, and mobile-enabled access may be considered more secure due to the physical access (or sophisticated backdoor access) required in order to be compromised. Each of these is covered in more detail below.
One use of the termcomputer securityrefers to technology that is used to implementsecure operating systems. Using secure operating systems is a good way of ensuring computer security. These are systems that have achieved certification from an external security-auditing organization, the most popular evaluations areCommon Criteria(CC).[86]
In software engineering,secure codingaims to guard against the accidental introduction of security vulnerabilities. It is also possible to create software designed from the ground up to be secure. Such systems aresecure by design. Beyond this, formal verification aims to prove thecorrectnessof thealgorithmsunderlying a system;[87]important forcryptographic protocolsfor example.
Within computer systems, two of the mainsecurity modelscapable of enforcing privilege separation areaccess control lists(ACLs) androle-based access control(RBAC).
Anaccess-control list(ACL), with respect to a computer file system, is a list of permissions associated with an object. An ACL specifies which users or system processes are granted access to objects, as well as what operations are allowed on given objects.
Role-based access control is an approach to restricting system access to authorized users,[88][89][90]used by the majority of enterprises with more than 500 employees,[91]and can implementmandatory access control(MAC) ordiscretionary access control(DAC).
A further approach,capability-based securityhas been mostly restricted to research operating systems. Capabilities can, however, also be implemented at the language level, leading to a style of programming that is essentially a refinement of standard object-oriented design. An open-source project in the area is theE language.
The end-user is widely recognized as the weakest link in the security chain[92]and it is estimated that more than 90% of security incidents and breaches involve some kind of human error.[93][94]Among the most commonly recorded forms of errors and misjudgment are poor password management, sending emails containing sensitive data and attachments to the wrong recipient, the inability to recognize misleading URLs and to identify fake websites and dangerous email attachments. A common mistake that users make is saving their user id/password in their browsers to make it easier to log in to banking sites. This is a gift to attackers who have obtained access to a machine by some means. The risk may be mitigated by the use of two-factor authentication.[95]
As the human component of cyber risk is particularly relevant in determining the global cyber risk[96]an organization is facing, security awareness training, at all levels, not only provides formal compliance with regulatory and industry mandates but is considered essential[97]in reducing cyber risk and protecting individuals and companies from the great majority of cyber threats.
The focus on the end-user represents a profound cultural change for many security practitioners, who have traditionally approached cybersecurity exclusively from a technical perspective, and moves along the lines suggested by major security centers[98]to develop a culture of cyber awareness within the organization, recognizing that a security-aware user provides an important line of defense against cyber attacks.
Related to end-user training,digital hygieneorcyber hygieneis a fundamental principle relating to information security and, as the analogy withpersonal hygieneshows, is the equivalent of establishing simple routine measures to minimize the risks from cyber threats. The assumption is that good cyber hygiene practices can give networked users another layer of protection, reducing the risk that one vulnerable node will be used to either mount attacks or compromise another node or network, especially from common cyberattacks.[99]Cyber hygiene should also not be mistaken forproactive cyber defence, a military term.[100]
The most common acts of digital hygiene can include updating malware protection, cloud back-ups, passwords, and ensuring restricted admin rights and network firewalls.[101]As opposed to a purely technology-based defense against threats, cyber hygiene mostly regards routine measures that are technically simple to implement and mostly dependent on discipline[102]or education.[103]It can be thought of as an abstract list of tips or measures that have been demonstrated as having a positive effect on personal or collective digital security. As such, these measures can be performed by laypeople, not just security experts.
Cyber hygiene relates to personal hygiene as computer viruses relate to biological viruses (or pathogens). However, while the termcomputer viruswas coined almost simultaneously with the creation of the first working computer viruses,[104]the termcyber hygieneis a much later invention, perhaps as late as 2000[105]by Internet pioneerVint Cerf. It has since been adopted by theCongress[106]andSenateof the United States,[107]the FBI,[108]EUinstitutions[99]and heads of state.[100]
Responding to attemptedsecurity breachesis often very difficult for a variety of reasons, including:
Where an attack succeeds and a breach occurs, many jurisdictions now have in place mandatorysecurity breach notification laws.
The growth in the number of computer systems and the increasing reliance upon them by individuals, businesses, industries, and governments means that there are an increasing number of systems at risk.
The computer systems of financial regulators and financial institutions like theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SWIFT, investment banks, and commercial banks are prominent hacking targets forcybercriminalsinterested in manipulating markets and making illicit gains.[109]Websites and apps that accept or storecredit card numbers, brokerage accounts, andbank accountinformation are also prominent hacking targets, because of the potential for immediate financial gain from transferring money, making purchases, or selling the information on theblack market.[110]In-store payment systems andATMshave also been tampered with in order to gather customer account data andPINs.
TheUCLAInternet Report: Surveying the Digital Future (2000) found that the privacy of personal data created barriers to online sales and that more than nine out of 10 internet users were somewhat or very concerned aboutcredit cardsecurity.[111]
The most common web technologies for improving security between browsers and websites are named SSL (Secure Sockets Layer), and its successor TLS (Transport Layer Security),identity managementandauthenticationservices, anddomain nameservices allow companies and consumers to engage in secure communications and commerce. Several versions of SSL and TLS are commonly used today in applications such as web browsing, e-mail, internet faxing,instant messaging, andVoIP(voice-over-IP). There are variousinteroperableimplementations of these technologies, including at least one implementation that isopen source. Open source allows anyone to view the application'ssource code, and look for and report vulnerabilities.
The credit card companiesVisaandMasterCardcooperated to develop the secureEMVchip which is embedded in credit cards. Further developments include theChip Authentication Programwhere banks give customers hand-held card readers to perform online secure transactions. Other developments in this arena include the development of technology such as Instant Issuance which has enabled shoppingmall kiosksacting on behalf of banks to issue on-the-spot credit cards to interested customers.
Computers control functions at many utilities, including coordination oftelecommunications, thepower grid,nuclear power plants, and valve opening and closing in water and gas networks. The Internet is a potential attack vector for such machines if connected, but theStuxnetworm demonstrated that even equipment controlled by computers not connected to the Internet can be vulnerable. In 2014, theComputer Emergency Readiness Team, a division of theDepartment of Homeland Security, investigated 79 hacking incidents at energy companies.[112]
Theaviationindustry is very reliant on a series of complex systems which could be attacked.[113]A simple power outage at one airport can cause repercussions worldwide,[114]much of the system relies on radio transmissions which could be disrupted,[115]and controlling aircraft over oceans is especially dangerous because radar surveillance only extends 175 to 225 miles offshore.[116]There is also potential for attack from within an aircraft.[117]
Implementing fixes in aerospace systems poses a unique challenge because efficient air transportation is heavily affected by weight and volume. Improving security by adding physical devices to airplanes could increase their unloaded weight, and could potentially reduce cargo or passenger capacity.[118]
In Europe, with the (Pan-European Network Service)[119]and NewPENS,[120]and in the US with the NextGen program,[121]air navigation service providersare moving to create their own dedicated networks.
Many modern passports are nowbiometric passports, containing an embeddedmicrochipthat stores a digitized photograph and personal information such as name, gender, and date of birth. In addition, more countries[which?]are introducingfacial recognition technologyto reduceidentity-related fraud. The introduction of the ePassport has assisted border officials in verifying the identity of the passport holder, thus allowing for quick passenger processing.[122]Plans are under way in the US, theUK, andAustraliato introduce SmartGate kiosks with both retina andfingerprint recognitiontechnology.[123]The airline industry is moving from the use of traditional paper tickets towards the use ofelectronic tickets(e-tickets). These have been made possible by advances in online credit card transactions in partnership with the airlines. Long-distance bus companies[which?]are also switching over to e-ticketing transactions today.
The consequences of a successful attack range from loss of confidentiality to loss of system integrity,air traffic controloutages, loss of aircraft, and even loss of life.
Desktop computers and laptops are commonly targeted to gather passwords or financial account information or to construct a botnet to attack another target.Smartphones,tablet computers,smart watches, and othermobile devicessuch asquantified selfdevices likeactivity trackershave sensors such as cameras, microphones, GPS receivers, compasses, andaccelerometerswhich could be exploited, and may collect personal information, including sensitive health information. WiFi, Bluetooth, and cell phone networks on any of these devices could be used as attack vectors, and sensors might be remotely activated after a successful breach.[124]
The increasing number ofhome automationdevices such as theNest thermostatare also potential targets.[124]
Today many healthcare providers andhealth insurancecompanies use the internet to provide enhanced products and services. Examples are the use oftele-healthto potentially offer better quality and access to healthcare, or fitness trackers to lower insurance premiums.[citation needed]Patient records are increasingly being placed on secure in-house networks, alleviating the need for extra storage space.[125]
Large corporations are common targets. In many cases attacks are aimed at financial gain throughidentity theftand involvedata breaches. Examples include the loss of millions of clients' credit card and financial details byHome Depot,[126]Staples,[127]Target Corporation,[128]andEquifax.[129]
Medical records have been targeted in general identify theft, health insurance fraud, and impersonating patients to obtain prescription drugs for recreational purposes or resale.[130]Although cyber threats continue to increase, 62% of all organizations did not increase security training for their business in 2015.[131]
Not all attacks are financially motivated, however: security firmHBGary Federalhad a serious series of attacks in 2011 fromhacktivistgroupAnonymousin retaliation for the firm's CEO claiming to have infiltrated their group,[132][133]andSony Pictureswashacked in 2014with the apparent dual motive of embarrassing the company through data leaks and crippling the company by wiping workstations and servers.[134][135]
Vehicles are increasingly computerized, with engine timing,cruise control,anti-lock brakes, seat belt tensioners, door locks,airbagsandadvanced driver-assistance systemson many models. Additionally,connected carsmay use WiFi and Bluetooth to communicate with onboard consumer devices and the cell phone network.[136]Self-driving carsare expected to be even more complex. All of these systems carry some security risks, and such issues have gained wide attention.[137][138][139]
Simple examples of risk include a maliciouscompact discbeing used as an attack vector,[140]and the car's onboard microphones being used for eavesdropping. However, if access is gained to a car's internalcontroller area network, the danger is much greater[136]– and in a widely publicized 2015 test, hackers remotely carjacked a vehicle from 10 miles away and drove it into a ditch.[141][142]
Manufacturers are reacting in numerous ways, withTeslain 2016 pushing out some security fixesover the airinto its cars' computer systems.[143]In the area of autonomous vehicles, in September 2016 theUnited States Department of Transportationannounced some initial safety standards, and called for states to come up with uniform policies.[144][145][146]
Additionally, e-Drivers' licenses are being developed using the same technology. For example, Mexico's licensing authority (ICV) has used a smart card platform to issue the first e-Drivers' licenses to the city ofMonterrey, in the state ofNuevo León.[147]
Shipping companies[148]have adoptedRFID(Radio Frequency Identification) technology as an efficient, digitally secure,tracking device. Unlike abarcode, RFID can be read up to 20 feet away. RFID is used byFedEx[149]andUPS.[150]
Government andmilitarycomputer systems are commonly attacked by activists[151][152][153]and foreign powers.[154][155][156][157]Local and regional government infrastructure such astraffic lightcontrols, police and intelligence agency communications,personnel records, as well as student records.[158]
TheFBI,CIA, andPentagon, all utilize secure controlled access technology for any of their buildings. However, the use of this form of technology is spreading into the entrepreneurial world. More and more companies are taking advantage of the development of digitally secure controlled access technology. GE's ACUVision, for example, offers a single panel platform for access control, alarm monitoring and digital recording.[159]
TheInternet of things(IoT) is the network of physical objects such as devices, vehicles, and buildings that areembeddedwithelectronics,software,sensors, andnetwork connectivitythat enables them to collect and exchange data.[160]Concerns have been raised that this is being developed without appropriate consideration of the security challenges involved.[161][162]
While the IoT creates opportunities for more direct integration of the physical world into computer-based systems,[163][164]it also provides opportunities for misuse. In particular, as the Internet of Things spreads widely, cyberattacks are likely to become an increasingly physical (rather than simply virtual) threat.[165]If a front door's lock is connected to the Internet, and can be locked/unlocked from a phone, then a criminal could enter the home at the press of a button from a stolen or hacked phone. People could stand to lose much more than their credit card numbers in a world controlled by IoT-enabled devices. Thieves have also used electronic means to circumvent non-Internet-connected hotel door locks.[166]
An attack aimed at physical infrastructure or human lives is often called a cyber-kinetic attack. As IoT devices and appliances become more widespread, the prevalence and potential damage of cyber-kinetic attacks can increase substantially.
Medical deviceshave either been successfully attacked or had potentially deadly vulnerabilities demonstrated, including both in-hospital diagnostic equipment[167]and implanted devices includingpacemakers[168]andinsulin pumps.[169]There are many reports of hospitals and hospital organizations getting hacked, includingransomwareattacks,[170][171][172][173]Windows XPexploits,[174][175]viruses,[176][177]and data breaches of sensitive data stored on hospital servers.[178][171][179][180]On 28 December 2016 the USFood and Drug Administrationreleased its recommendations for how medicaldevice manufacturersshould maintain the security of Internet-connected devices – but no structure for enforcement.[181][182]
In distributed generation systems, the risk of a cyber attack is real, according toDaily Energy Insider. An attack could cause a loss of power in a large area for a long period of time, and such an attack could have just as severe consequences as a natural disaster. The District of Columbia is considering creating a Distributed Energy Resources (DER) Authority within the city, with the goal being for customers to have more insight into their own energy use and giving the local electric utility,Pepco, the chance to better estimate energy demand. The D.C. proposal, however, would "allow third-party vendors to create numerous points of energy distribution, which could potentially create more opportunities for cyber attackers to threaten the electric grid."[183]
Perhaps the most widely known digitally secure telecommunication device is theSIM(Subscriber Identity Module) card, a device that is embedded in most of the world's cellular devices before any service can be obtained. The SIM card is just the beginning of this digitally secure environment.
The Smart Card Web Servers draft standard (SCWS) defines the interfaces to anHTTP serverin asmart card.[184]Tests are being conducted to secure OTA ("over-the-air") payment and credit card information from and to a mobile phone.
Combination SIM/DVD devices are being developed through Smart Video Card technology which embeds aDVD-compliantoptical discinto the card body of a regular SIM card.
Other telecommunication developments involving digital security includemobile signatures, which use the embedded SIM card to generate a legally bindingelectronic signature.
Serious financial damage has been caused bysecurity breaches, but because there is no standard model for estimating the cost of an incident, the only data available is that which is made public by the organizations involved. "Several computer security consulting firms produce estimates of total worldwide losses attributable tovirusand worm attacks and to hostile digital acts in general. The 2003 loss estimates by these firms range from $13 billion (worms and viruses only) to $226 billion (for all forms of covert attacks). The reliability of these estimates is often challenged; the underlying methodology is basically anecdotal."[185]
However, reasonable estimates of the financial cost of security breaches can actually help organizations make rational investment decisions. According to the classicGordon-Loeb Modelanalyzing the optimal investment level in information security, one can conclude that the amount a firm spends to protect information should generally be only a small fraction of the expected loss (i.e., theexpected valueof the loss resulting from a cyber/informationsecurity breach).[186]
As withphysical security, the motivations for breaches of computer security vary between attackers. Some are thrill-seekers orvandals, some are activists, others are criminals looking for financial gain. State-sponsored attackers are now common and well resourced but started with amateurs such as Markus Hess who hacked for theKGB, as recounted byClifford StollinThe Cuckoo's Egg.
Attackers motivations can vary for all types of attacks from pleasure to political goals.[15]For example, hacktivists may target a company or organization that carries out activities they do not agree with. This would be to create bad publicity for the company by having its website crash.
High capability hackers, often with larger backing or state sponsorship, may attack based on the demands of their financial backers. These attacks are more likely to attempt more serious attack. An example of a more serious attack was the2015 Ukraine power grid hack, which reportedly utilised the spear-phising, destruction of files, and denial-of-service attacks to carry out the full attack.[187][188]
Additionally, recent attacker motivations can be traced back to extremist organizations seeking to gain political advantage or disrupt social agendas.[189]The growth of the internet, mobile technologies, and inexpensive computing devices have led to a rise in capabilities but also to the risk to environments that are deemed as vital to operations. All critical targeted environments are susceptible to compromise and this has led to a series of proactive studies on how to migrate the risk by taking into consideration motivations by these types of actors. Several stark differences exist between the hacker motivation and that ofnation stateactors seeking to attack based on an ideological preference.[190]
A key aspect of threat modeling for any system is identifying the motivations behind potential attacks and the individuals or groups likely to carry them out. The level and detail of security measures will differ based on the specific system being protected. For instance, a home personal computer, a bank, and a classified military network each face distinct threats, despite using similar underlying technologies.[191]
Computer security incident managementis an organized approach to addressing and managing the aftermath of a computer security incident or compromise with the goal of preventing a breach or thwarting a cyberattack. An incident that is not identified and managed at the time of intrusion typically escalates to a more damaging event such as adata breachor system failure. The intended outcome of a computer security incident response plan is to contain the incident, limit damage and assist recovery to business as usual. Responding to compromises quickly can mitigate exploited vulnerabilities, restore services and processes and minimize losses.[192]Incident response planning allows an organization to establish a series of best practices to stop an intrusion before it causes damage. Typical incident response plans contain a set of written instructions that outline the organization's response to a cyberattack. Without a documented plan in place, an organization may not successfully detect an intrusion or compromise and stakeholders may not understand their roles, processes and procedures during an escalation, slowing the organization's response and resolution.
There are four key components of a computer security incident response plan:
Some illustrative examples of different types of computer security breaches are given below.
In 1988, 60,000 computers were connected to the Internet, and most were mainframes, minicomputers and professional workstations. On 2 November 1988, many started to slow down, because they were running a malicious code that demanded processor time and that spread itself to other computers – the first internetcomputer worm.[194]The software was traced back to 23-year-oldCornell Universitygraduate studentRobert Tappan Morriswho said "he wanted to count how many machines were connected to the Internet".[194]
In 1994, over a hundred intrusions were made by unidentified crackers into theRome Laboratory, the US Air Force's main command and research facility. Usingtrojan horses, hackers were able to obtain unrestricted access to Rome's networking systems and remove traces of their activities. The intruders were able to obtain classified files, such as air tasking order systems data and furthermore able to penetrate connected networks ofNational Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goddard Space Flight Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, some Defense contractors, and other private sector organizations, by posing as a trusted Rome center user.[195]
In early 2007, American apparel and home goods companyTJXannounced that it was the victim of anunauthorized computer systems intrusion[196]and that the hackers had accessed a system that stored data oncredit card,debit card,check, and merchandise return transactions.[197]
In 2010, the computer worm known asStuxnetreportedly ruined almost one-fifth of Iran'snuclear centrifuges.[198]It did so by disrupting industrialprogrammable logic controllers(PLCs) in a targeted attack. This is generally believed to have been launched by Israel and the United States to disrupt Iran's nuclear program[199][200][201][202]– although neither has publicly admitted this.
In early 2013, documents provided byEdward Snowdenwere published byThe Washington PostandThe Guardian[203][204]exposing the massive scale ofNSAglobal surveillance. There were also indications that the NSA may have inserted a backdoor in aNISTstandard for encryption.[205]This standard was later withdrawn due to widespread criticism.[206]The NSA additionally were revealed to have tapped the links betweenGoogle's data centers.[207]
A Ukrainian hacker known asRescatorbroke intoTarget Corporationcomputers in 2013, stealing roughly 40 million credit cards,[208]and thenHome Depotcomputers in 2014, stealing between 53 and 56 million credit card numbers.[209]Warnings were delivered at both corporations, but ignored; physical security breaches usingself checkout machinesare believed to have played a large role. "The malware utilized is absolutely unsophisticated and uninteresting," says Jim Walter, director of threat intelligence operations at security technology company McAfee – meaning that the heists could have easily been stopped by existingantivirus softwarehad administrators responded to the warnings. The size of the thefts has resulted in major attention from state and Federal United States authorities and the investigation is ongoing.
In April 2015, theOffice of Personnel Managementdiscovered it had been hackedmore than a year earlier in a data breach, resulting in the theft of approximately 21.5 million personnel records handled by the office.[210]The Office of Personnel Management hack has been described by federal officials as among the largest breaches of government data in the history of the United States.[211]Data targeted in the breach includedpersonally identifiable informationsuch asSocial Security numbers, names, dates and places of birth, addresses, and fingerprints of current and former government employees as well as anyone who had undergone a government background check.[212][213]It is believed the hack was perpetrated by Chinese hackers.[214]
In July 2015, a hacker group is known as The Impact Team successfully breached the extramarital relationship website Ashley Madison, created by Avid Life Media. The group claimed that they had taken not only company data but user data as well. After the breach, The Impact Team dumped emails from the company's CEO, to prove their point, and threatened to dump customer data unless the website was taken down permanently.[215]When Avid Life Media did not take the site offline the group released two more compressed files, one 9.7GB and the second 20GB. After the second data dump, Avid Life Media CEO Noel Biderman resigned; but the website remained to function.
In June 2021, the cyber attack took down the largest fuel pipeline in the U.S. and led to shortages across the East Coast.[216]
International legal issues of cyber attacks are complicated in nature. There is no global base of common rules to judge, and eventually punish, cybercrimes and cybercriminals - and where security firms or agencies do locate the cybercriminal behind the creation of a particular piece ofmalwareor form ofcyber attack, often the local authorities cannot take action due to lack of laws under which to prosecute.[217][218]Provingattribution for cybercrimes and cyberattacksis also a major problem for all law enforcement agencies. "Computer virusesswitch from one country to another, from one jurisdiction to another – moving around the world, using the fact that we don't have the capability to globally police operations like this. So the Internet is as if someone [had] given free plane tickets to all the online criminals of the world."[217]The use of techniques such asdynamic DNS,fast fluxandbullet proof serversadd to the difficulty of investigation and enforcement.
The role of the government is to makeregulationsto force companies and organizations to protect their systems, infrastructure and information from any cyberattacks, but also to protect its own national infrastructure such as the nationalpower-grid.[219]
The government's regulatory role incyberspaceis complicated. For some, cyberspace was seen as avirtual spacethat was to remain free of government intervention, as can be seen in many of today's libertarianblockchainandbitcoindiscussions.[220]
Many government officials and experts think that the government should do more and that there is a crucial need for improved regulation, mainly due to the failure of the private sector to solve efficiently the cybersecurity problem.R. Clarkesaid during a panel discussion at theRSA Security ConferenceinSan Francisco, he believes that the "industry only responds when you threaten regulation. If the industry doesn't respond (to the threat), you have to follow through."[221]On the other hand, executives from the private sector agree that improvements are necessary, but think that government intervention would affect their ability to innovate efficiently. Daniel R. McCarthy analyzed this public-private partnership in cybersecurity and reflected on the role of cybersecurity in the broader constitution of political order.[222]
On 22 May 2020, the UN Security Council held its second ever informal meeting on cybersecurity to focus on cyber challenges tointernational peace. According to UN Secretary-GeneralAntónio Guterres, new technologies are too often used to violate rights.[223]
Many different teams and organizations exist, including:
On 14 April 2016, theEuropean Parliamentand theCouncil of the European Unionadopted theGeneral Data Protection Regulation(GDPR). The GDPR, which came into force on 25 May 2018, grants individuals within the European Union (EU) and the European Economic Area (EEA) the right to theprotection of personal data. The regulation requires that any entity that processes personal data incorporate data protection by design and by default. It also requires that certain organizations appoint a Data Protection Officer (DPO).
The IT Security AssociationTeleTrusTexist inGermanysince June 1986, which is an international competence network for IT security.
Most countries have their own computer emergency response team to protect network security.
Since 2010, Canada has had a cybersecurity strategy.[229][230]This functions as a counterpart document to the National Strategy and Action Plan for Critical Infrastructure.[231]The strategy has three main pillars: securing government systems, securing vital private cyber systems, and helping Canadians to be secure online.[230][231]There is also a Cyber Incident Management Framework to provide a coordinated response in the event of a cyber incident.[232][233]
TheCanadian Cyber Incident Response Centre(CCIRC) is responsible for mitigating and responding to threats to Canada's critical infrastructure and cyber systems. It provides support to mitigate cyber threats, technical support to respond & recover from targeted cyber attacks, and provides online tools for members of Canada's critical infrastructure sectors.[234]It posts regular cybersecurity bulletins[235]& operates an online reporting tool where individuals and organizations can report a cyber incident.[236]
To inform the general public on how to protect themselves online, Public Safety Canada has partnered with STOP.THINK.CONNECT, a coalition of non-profit, private sector, and government organizations,[237]and launched the Cyber Security Cooperation Program.[238][239]They also run the GetCyberSafe portal for Canadian citizens, and Cyber Security Awareness Month during October.[240]
Public Safety Canada aims to begin an evaluation of Canada's cybersecurity strategy in early 2015.[231]
Australian federal governmentannounced an $18.2 million investment to fortify thecybersecurityresilience of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and enhance their capabilities in responding to cyber threats. This financial backing is an integral component of the soon-to-be-unveiled2023-2030 Australian Cyber Security Strategy, slated for release within the current week. A substantial allocation of $7.2 million is earmarked for the establishment of a voluntary cyber health check program, facilitating businesses in conducting a comprehensive and tailored self-assessment of their cybersecurity upskill.
This avant-garde health assessment serves as a diagnostic tool, enabling enterprises to ascertain the robustness ofAustralia's cyber security regulations. Furthermore, it affords them access to a repository of educational resources and materials, fostering the acquisition of skills necessary for an elevated cybersecurity posture. This groundbreaking initiative was jointly disclosed by Minister for Cyber SecurityClare O'Neiland Minister for Small BusinessJulie Collins.[241]
Some provisions for cybersecurity have been incorporated into rules framed under the Information Technology Act 2000.[242]
TheNational Cyber Security Policy 2013is a policy framework by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) which aims to protect the public and private infrastructure from cyberattacks, and safeguard "information, such as personal information (of web users), financial and banking information and sovereign data".CERT- Inis the nodal agency which monitors the cyber threats in the country. The post ofNational Cyber Security Coordinatorhas also been created in thePrime Minister's Office (PMO).
The Indian Companies Act 2013 has also introduced cyber law and cybersecurity obligations on the part of Indian directors. Some provisions for cybersecurity have been incorporated into rules framed under the Information Technology Act 2000 Update in 2013.[243]
Following cyberattacks in the first half of 2013, when the government, news media, television stations, and bank websites were compromised, the national government committed to the training of 5,000 new cybersecurity experts by 2017. The South Korean government blamed its northern counterpart for these attacks, as well as incidents that occurred in 2009, 2011,[244]and 2012, but Pyongyang denies the accusations.[245]
TheUnited Stateshas its first fully formed cyber plan in 15 years, as a result of the release of this National Cyber plan.[246]In this policy, the US says it will: Protect the country by keeping networks, systems, functions, and data safe; Promote American wealth by building a strong digital economy and encouraging strong domestic innovation; Peace and safety should be kept by making it easier for the US to stop people from using computer tools for bad things, working with friends and partners to do this; and increase the United States' impact around the world to support the main ideas behind an open, safe, reliable, and compatible Internet.[247]
The new U.S. cyber strategy[248]seeks to allay some of those concerns by promoting responsible behavior incyberspace, urging nations to adhere to a set of norms, both through international law and voluntary standards. It also calls for specific measures to harden U.S. government networks from attacks, like the June 2015 intrusion into theU.S. Office of Personnel Management(OPM), which compromised the records of about 4.2 million current and former government employees. And the strategy calls for the U.S. to continue to name and shame bad cyber actors, calling them out publicly for attacks when possible, along with the use of economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure.[249]
The 198618 U.S.C.§ 1030, theComputer Fraud and Abuse Actis the key legislation. It prohibits unauthorized access or damage ofprotected computersas defined in18 U.S.C.§ 1030(e)(2). Although various other measures have been proposed[250][251]– none have succeeded.
In 2013,executive order13636Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecuritywas signed, which prompted the creation of theNIST Cybersecurity Framework.
In response to theColonial Pipeline ransomware attack[252]PresidentJoe Bidensigned Executive Order 14028[253]on May 12, 2021, to increase software security standards for sales to the government, tighten detection and security on existing systems, improve information sharing and training, establish a Cyber Safety Review Board, and improve incident response.
TheGeneral Services Administration(GSA) has[when?]standardized thepenetration testservice as a pre-vetted support service, to rapidly address potential vulnerabilities, and stop adversaries before they impact US federal, state and local governments. These services are commonly referred to as Highly Adaptive Cybersecurity Services (HACS).
TheDepartment of Homeland Securityhas a dedicated division responsible for the response system,risk managementprogram and requirements for cybersecurity in the United States called theNational Cyber Security Division.[254][255]The division is home to US-CERT operations and the National Cyber Alert System.[255]The National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center brings together government organizations responsible for protecting computer networks and networked infrastructure.[256]
The third priority of the FBI is to: "Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes",[257]and they, along with theNational White Collar Crime Center(NW3C), and theBureau of Justice Assistance(BJA) are part of the multi-agency task force, TheInternet Crime Complaint Center, also known as IC3.[258]
In addition to its own specific duties, the FBI participates alongside non-profit organizations such asInfraGard.[259][260]
TheComputer Crime and Intellectual Property Section(CCIPS) operates in theUnited States Department of Justice Criminal Division. The CCIPS is in charge of investigatingcomputer crimeandintellectual propertycrime and is specialized in the search and seizure ofdigital evidencein computers andnetworks.[261]In 2017, CCIPS published A Framework for a Vulnerability Disclosure Program for Online Systems to help organizations "clearly describe authorized vulnerability disclosure and discovery conduct, thereby substantially reducing the likelihood that such described activities will result in a civil or criminal violation of law under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030)."[262]
TheUnited States Cyber Command, also known as USCYBERCOM, "has the mission to direct, synchronize, and coordinate cyberspace planning and operations to defend and advance national interests in collaboration with domestic and international partners."[263]It has no role in the protection of civilian networks.[264][265]
The U.S.Federal Communications Commission's role in cybersecurity is to strengthen the protection of critical communications infrastructure, to assist in maintaining the reliability of networks during disasters, to aid in swift recovery after, and to ensure that first responders have access to effective communications services.[266]
TheFood and Drug Administrationhas issued guidance for medical devices,[267]and theNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration[268]is concerned with automotive cybersecurity. After being criticized by theGovernment Accountability Office,[269]and following successful attacks on airports and claimed attacks on airplanes, theFederal Aviation Administrationhas devoted funding to securing systems on board the planes of private manufacturers, and theAircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System.[270]Concerns have also been raised about the futureNext Generation Air Transportation System.[271]
The US Department of Defense (DoD) issued DoD Directive 8570 in 2004, supplemented by DoD Directive 8140, requiring all DoD employees and all DoD contract personnel involved in information assurance roles and activities to earn and maintain various industry Information Technology (IT) certifications in an effort to ensure that all DoD personnel involved in network infrastructure defense have minimum levels of IT industry recognized knowledge, skills and abilities (KSA). Andersson and Reimers (2019) report these certifications range from CompTIA's A+ and Security+ through the ICS2.org's CISSP, etc.[272]
Computer emergency response teamis a name given to expert groups that handle computer security incidents. In the US, two distinct organizations exist, although they do work closely together.
In the context ofU.S. nuclear power plants, theU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)outlines cybersecurity requirements under10 CFR Part 73, specifically in §73.54.[274]
TheNuclear Energy Institute's NEI 08-09 document,Cyber Security Plan for Nuclear Power Reactors,[275]outlines a comprehensive framework forcybersecurityin thenuclear power industry. Drafted with input from theU.S. NRC, this guideline is instrumental in aidinglicenseesto comply with theCode of Federal Regulations (CFR), which mandates robust protection of digital computers and equipment and communications systems at nuclear power plants against cyber threats.[276]
There is growing concern that cyberspace will become the next theater of warfare. As Mark Clayton fromThe Christian Science Monitorwrote in a 2015 article titled "The New Cyber Arms Race":
In the future, wars will not just be fought by soldiers with guns or with planes that drop bombs. They will also be fought with the click of a mouse a half a world away that unleashes carefully weaponized computer programs that disrupt or destroy critical industries like utilities, transportation, communications, and energy. Such attacks could also disable military networks that control the movement of troops, the path of jet fighters, the command and control of warships.[277]
This has led to new terms such ascyberwarfareandcyberterrorism. TheUnited States Cyber Commandwas created in 2009[278]and many other countrieshave similar forces.
There are a few critical voices that question whether cybersecurity is as significant a threat as it is made out to be.[279][280][281]
Cybersecurity is a fast-growing field ofITconcerned with reducing organizations' risk of hack or data breaches.[282]According to research from the Enterprise Strategy Group, 46% of organizations say that they have a "problematic shortage" of cybersecurity skills in 2016, up from 28% in 2015.[283]Commercial, government and non-governmental organizations all employ cybersecurity professionals. The fastest increases in demand for cybersecurity workers are in industries managing increasing volumes of consumer data such as finance, health care, and retail.[284]However, the use of the termcybersecurityis more prevalent in government job descriptions.[285]
Typical cybersecurity job titles and descriptions include:[286]
Student programs are also available for people interested in beginning a career in cybersecurity.[290][291]Meanwhile, a flexible and effective option for information security professionals of all experience levels to keep studying is online security training, including webcasts.[292][293]A wide range of certified courses are also available.[294]
In the United Kingdom, a nationwide set of cybersecurity forums, known as theU.K Cyber Security Forum, were established supported by the Government's cybersecurity strategy[295]in order to encourage start-ups and innovation and to address the skills gap[296]identified by theU.K Government.
In Singapore, theCyber Security Agencyhas issued a Singapore Operational Technology (OT) Cybersecurity Competency Framework (OTCCF). The framework defines emerging cybersecurity roles in Operational Technology. The OTCCF was endorsed by theInfocomm Media Development Authority(IMDA). It outlines the different OT cybersecurity job positions as well as the technical skills and core competencies necessary. It also depicts the many career paths available, including vertical and lateral advancement opportunities.[297]
The following terms used with regards to computer security are explained below:
Since theInternet's arrival and with the digital transformation initiated in recent years, the notion of cybersecurity has become a familiar subject in both our professional and personal lives. Cybersecurity and cyber threats have been consistently present for the last 60 years of technological change. In the 1970s and 1980s, computer security was mainly limited toacademiauntil the conception of the Internet, where, with increased connectivity, computer viruses and network intrusions began to take off. After the spread of viruses in the 1990s, the 2000s marked the institutionalization of organized attacks such asdistributed denial of service.[301]This led to the formalization of cybersecurity as a professional discipline.[302]
TheApril 1967 sessionorganized byWillis Wareat theSpring Joint Computer Conference, and the later publication of theWare Report, were foundational moments in the history of the field of computer security.[303]Ware's work straddled the intersection of material, cultural, political, and social concerns.[303]
A 1977NISTpublication[304]introduced theCIA triadof confidentiality, integrity, and availability as a clear and simple way to describe key security goals.[305]While still relevant, many more elaborate frameworks have since been proposed.[306][307]
However, in the 1970s and 1980s, there were no grave computer threats because computers and the internet were still developing, and security threats were easily identifiable. More often, threats came from malicious insiders who gained unauthorized access to sensitive documents and files. Although malware and network breaches existed during the early years, they did not use them for financial gain. By the second half of the 1970s, established computer firms likeIBMstarted offering commercial access control systems and computer security software products.[308]
One of the earliest examples of an attack on a computer network was thecomputer wormCreeperwritten by Bob Thomas atBBN, which propagated through theARPANETin 1971.[309]The program was purely experimental in nature and carried no malicious payload. A later program,Reaper, was created byRay Tomlinsonin 1972 and used to destroy Creeper.[citation needed]
Between September 1986 and June 1987, a group of German hackers performed the first documented case of cyber espionage.[310]The group hacked into American defense contractors, universities, and military base networks and sold gathered information to the Soviet KGB. The group was led byMarkus Hess, who was arrested on 29 June 1987. He was convicted of espionage (along with two co-conspirators) on 15 Feb 1990.
In 1988, one of the first computer worms, called theMorris worm, was distributed via the Internet. It gained significant mainstream media attention.[311]
Netscapestarted developing the protocolSSL, shortly after the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) launched Mosaic 1.0, the first web browser, in 1993.[312][313]Netscape had SSL version 1.0 ready in 1994, but it was never released to the public due to many serious security vulnerabilities.[312]However, in 1995, Netscape launched Version 2.0.[314]
TheNational Security Agency(NSA) is responsible for theprotectionof U.S. information systems and also for collecting foreign intelligence.[315]The agency analyzes commonly used software and system configurations to find security flaws, which it can use for offensive purposes against competitors of the United States.[316]
NSA contractors created and soldclick-and-shootattack tools to US agencies and close allies, but eventually, the tools made their way to foreign adversaries.[317]In 2016, NSAs own hacking tools were hacked, and they have been used by Russia and North Korea.[citation needed]NSA's employees and contractors have been recruited at high salaries by adversaries, anxious to compete incyberwarfare.[citation needed]In 2007, the United States andIsraelbegan exploiting security flaws in theMicrosoft Windowsoperating system to attack and damage equipment used in Iran to refine nuclear materials. Iran responded by heavily investing in their own cyberwarfare capability, which it began using against the United States.[316]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_self-defense
|
Cyberbiosecurityis an emerging field at the intersection ofcybersecurityandbiosecurity.[1][2][3]The objective of cyberbiosecurity has been described as addressing "the potential for or actual malicious destruction, misuse, or exploitation of valuable information, processes, and material at the interface of the life sciences and digital worlds".[2]Cyberbiosecurity is part of a system of measures that collectively aim to "Safeguard the Bioeconomy", an objective described by theNational Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicineof the United States.[4][5]
Cyberbiosecurity threats are becoming increasingly important as technological progress continues to accelerate in fields such asartificial intelligence,automation, andsynthetic biology.[2][6]Moreover, not only is the pace of progress in these fields accelerating, but they are also becoming increasingly integrated, leading to a growing overlap that is generating new security vulnerabilities.[4][7]Many of the potential risks from future progress in bioengineering that were identified by researchers fall within the bounds of cyberbiosecurity, for instance, the use of cyberattacks to exploit bio-automation for malicious purposes.[8]Against this background, cyberbiosecurity measures are becoming increasingly important to prevent or protect against the misuse of innovations in the life sciences, including to reduce the proliferation risk ofbiological weapons. In recent years, there has been a growing amount of research characterizing cyberbiosecurity threats, including by conducting surveys on cyberbiosecurity risk perceptions in the biotech sector,[9]and offering first recommendations for measures to prevent or protect against these threats.[10][11][12][13]Researchers have observed that in the future it may be critical to consider the risk of computer systems being exploited by adversarially created DNA.[14][15]
In light of theCOVID-19 pandemic, some research has focused on the cyberbiosecurity implications of the pandemic.[16]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberbiosecurity
|
This is alist of cybersecurity information technologies.Cybersecurityconcerns all technologies that store, manipulate, or move computerdata, such ascomputers,data networks, and all devices connected to or included in said networks, such asroutersandswitches. Allinformation technologydevices and facilities need to be secured againstintrusion, unauthorized use, andvandalism. Users of information technology are to be protected from theft of assets,extortion,identity theft, loss of privacy, damage to equipment,business processcompromise, and general disruption. The public should be protected against acts ofcyberterrorism, such as compromise ordenial of service.
Cybersecurity is a major endeavor in theIT industry. There are a number ofprofessional certificationsgiven for cybersecurity training andexpertise.[1]Billions of dollars are spent annually on cybersecurity, but no computer or network is immune from attacks or can be considered completely secure.
This article attempts to list important Wikipedia articles about cybersecurity.
Introductory articles about cybersecurity subjects:
The art of secret writing or code. A "plaintext" message is converted by the sender to "ciphertext" by means of a mathematicalalgorithmthat uses a secret key. The receiver of the message then reverses the process and converts the ciphertext back to the original plaintext.[6]
Steganographyis the process of hiding data within other data, most commonly by hiding data inside images.[8]
The process by which a potential client is granted authorized use of an IT facility by proving its identity.[10]
A framework for managing digital certificates and encryption keys.
Computerized utilities designed to study and analyze the security of IT facilities and/or break into them on an unauthorized and potentially criminal basis.[11]
Modes of potential attacks on IT facilities.[12]
Security exploits affecting computers.[13]
Violation of the law by means of breaking into and/or misusing IT facilities. Laws that attempt to prevent these crimes.[14]
Countries and their governments that use, misuse, and/or violate IT facilities to achieve national goals.[15]
The securing of networked computers, mobile devices and terminals.[16]
The protection of the means by which data is moved from one IT facility to another.[17]
The securing of IT facilities that manipulate data, such as computer servers, often by means of specialized cybersecurity hardware.[18]
The protection of data in its non-moving state, usually on magnetic or optical media or in computer memory.[19]
The processes by which security technology is monitored for faults, deployed and configured, measured for its usage, queried for performance metrics and log files, and/or monitored for intrusions.[20]
Officially agreed architectures and conceptual structures for designing, building, and conducting cybersecurity.[21][22]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersecurity_information_technology_list
|
Incomputer security, "dancing pigs" is a term or problem that explains computer users' attitudes towards computer security. It states that users will continue to pick an amusing graphic even if they receive a warning from security software that it is potentially dangerous.[1]In other words, users choose their primary desire features without considering the security. "Dancing pigs" is generally used by tech experts and can be found in IT articles.
The term originates from a remark made byEdward Felten, an associate professor at Princeton University:
Given a choice between dancing pigs and security, users will pick dancing pigs every time.[2]
Bruce Schneierstates:
The user's going to pick dancing pigs over security every time.[3]
Bruce Schneier expands on this remark as follows:
IfJ. Random Websurferclicks on a button that promises dancing pigs on his computer monitor, and instead gets a hortatory message describing the potential dangers of the applet—he's going to choose dancing pigs over computer security any day. If the computer prompts him with a warning screen like: "The applet DANCING PIGS could contain malicious code that might do permanent damage to your computer, steal your life's savings, and impair your ability to have children," he'll click OK without even reading it. Thirty seconds later he won't even remember that the warning screen even existed.[4]
TheMozillaSecurity Reviewers' Guide states:
Many of our potential users are inexperienced computer users, who do not understand the risks involved in using interactive Web content. This means we must rely on the user's judgement as little as possible.[5]
A widely publicized 2009 paper[6]directly addresses the dancing pigs quotation and argues that users' behavior is plausibly rational:
While amusing, this is unfair: users are never offered security, either on its own or as an alternative to anything else. They are offered long, complex and growing sets of advice, mandates, policy updates and tips. These sometimes carry vague and tentative suggestions of reduced risk, never security.[7]
One study ofphishingfound that people really do prefer dancing animals to security. The study showed participants a number of phishing sites, including one that copied theBank of the Westhome page:[8]
For many participants the "cute" design, the level of detail and the fact that the site does not ask for a great deal of information were the most convincing factors. Two participants mentioned the animated bear video that appears on the page, (e.g., "because that would take a lot of effort to copy"). Participants in general found this animation appealing and many reloaded the page just to see the animation again.
Schneier believes the dancing pigs problem will lead to crime, a key threat. He said: "The tactics might change ... as security measures make some tactics harder and others easier, but the underlying issue is constant." Ignoring computer security can inflict various types of damage resulting in significant losses.[9]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_pigs
|
Data securityordata protectionmeans protectingdigital data, such as those in adatabase, from destructive forces and from the unwanted actions of unauthorized users,[1]such as acyberattackor adata breach.[2]
Disk encryptionrefers toencryptiontechnology that encrypts data on ahard disk drive. Disk encryption typically takes form in eithersoftware(seedisk encryption software) orhardware(seedisk encryption hardware). Disk encryption is often referred to ason-the-fly encryption(OTFE) or transparent encryption.
Software-based security solutions encrypt the data to protect it from theft. However, amalicious programor ahackercouldcorrupt the datato make it unrecoverable, making the system unusable. Hardware-based security solutions prevent read and write access to data, which provides very strong protection against tampering and unauthorized access.
Hardware-based security or assistedcomputer securityoffers an alternative to software-only computer security.Security tokenssuch as those usingPKCS#11or a mobile phone may be more secure due to the physical access required in order to be compromised.[3]Access is enabled only when the token is connected and the correctPINis entered (seetwo-factor authentication). However, dongles can be used by anyone who can gain physical access to it. Newer technologies in hardware-based security solve this problem by offering full proof of security for data.[4]
Working off hardware-based security: A hardware device allows a user to log in, log out and set different levels through manual actions. The device usesbiometric technologyto prevent malicious users from logging in, logging out, and changing privilege levels. The current state of a user of the device is read by controllers inperipheral devicessuch as hard disks. Illegal access by a malicious user or a malicious program is interrupted based on the current state of a user by hard disk and DVD controllers making illegal access to data impossible. Hardware-based access control is more secure than the protection provided by the operating systems as operating systems are vulnerable to malicious attacks byvirusesand hackers. The data on hard disks can be corrupted after malicious access is obtained. With hardware-based protection, the software cannot manipulate the user privilege levels. Ahackeror a malicious program cannot gain access to secure data protected by hardware or perform unauthorized privileged operations. This assumption is broken only if the hardware itself is malicious or contains a backdoor.[5]The hardware protects the operating system image and file system privileges from being tampered with. Therefore, a completely secure system can be created using a combination of hardware-based security and secure system administration policies.
Backupsare used to ensure data that is lost can be recovered from another source. It is considered essential to keep a backup of any data in most industries and the process is recommended for any files of importance to a user.[6]
Data maskingof structured data is the process of obscuring (masking) specific data within a database table or cell to ensure that data security is maintained and sensitive information is not exposed to unauthorized personnel.[7]This may include masking the data from users (for example so banking customer representatives can only see the last four digits of a customer's national identity number), developers (who need real production data to test new software releases but should not be able to see sensitive financial data), outsourcing vendors, etc.[8]
Data erasureis a method of software-based overwriting that completely wipes all electronic data residing on a hard drive or other digital media to ensure that no sensitive data is lost when an asset is retired or reused.[9]
In theUK, theData Protection Actis used to ensure that personal data is accessible to those whom it concerns, and provides redress to individuals if there are inaccuracies.[10]This is particularly important to ensure individuals are treated fairly, for example for credit checking purposes. The Data Protection Act states that only individuals and companies with legitimate and lawful reasons can process personal information and cannot be shared.Data Privacy Dayis an internationalholidaystarted by theCouncil of Europethat occurs every January 28.[11]
Since theGeneral Data Protection Regulation(GDPR) of theEuropean Union(EU) became law on May 25, 2018, organizations may face significant penalties of up to €20 million or 4% of their annual revenue if they do not comply with the regulation.[12]It is intended that GDPR will force organizations to understand theirdata privacyrisks and take the appropriate measures to reduce the risk of unauthorized disclosure of consumers’ private information.[13]
The international standardsISO/IEC 27001:2013 andISO/IEC 27002:2013 cover data security under the topic ofinformation security, and one of its cardinal principles is that all stored information, i.e. data, should be owned so that it is clear whose responsibility it is to protect and control access to that data.[14][15]The following are examples of organizations that help strengthen and standardize computing security:
TheTrusted Computing Groupis an organization that helps standardize computing security technologies.
ThePayment Card Industry Data Security Standard(PCI DSS) is a proprietary international information security standard for organizations that handle cardholder information for the majordebit,credit, prepaid,e-purse,automated teller machines, and point of sale cards.[16]
TheGeneral Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)proposed by the European Commission will strengthen and unify data protection for individuals within the EU, whilst addressing the export of personal data outside the EU.
The four types of technical safeguards are access controls, flow controls, inference controls, anddata encryption. Access controls manage user entry and data manipulation, while flow controls regulate data dissemination. Inference controls prevent deduction of confidential information from statistical databases and data encryption prevents unauthorized access to confidential information.[17]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_security
|
In computing,defense strategyis a concept and practice used by computer designers, users, and IT personnel to reducecomputer securityrisks.[1]
Boundary protection employs security measures and devices to prevent unauthorized access to computer systems (referred to as controlling the system border). The approach is based on the assumption that the attacker did not penetrate the system. Examples of this strategy include usinggateways,routers,firewalls, andpasswordchecks, deleting suspicious emails/messages, and limiting physical access.
Boundary protection is typically the main strategy for computing systems; if this type of defense is successful, no other strategies are required. This is a resource-consuming strategy with a known scope. External information system monitoring is part of boundary protection.[2]
Information System Monitoring employs security measures to find intruders or the damage done by them. This strategy is used when the system has been penetrated, but the intruder did not gain full control. Examples of this strategy includeantivirus software, applying apatch, andnetwork behavior anomaly detection.
This strategy's success is based on competition of offence and defence. This is a time and resource-consuming strategy, affecting performance. The scope is variable in time. It cannot be fully successful if not supported by other strategies.
Unavoidable actions employ security measures that cannot be prevented or neutralized. This strategy is based on the assumption that the system has been penetrated, but an intruder cannot prevent the defensive mechanism from being employed. Examples of this strategy includerebooting, usingphysical unclonable functions, and using asecurity switch.
Secure enclave is a strategy that employs security measures that prevent access to some parts of the system. This strategy is used when the system has been penetrated, but an intruder cannot access its special parts. Examples of this strategy include using theAccess level, using aTrusted Platform Module, using amicrokernel, using Diode (unidirectional network device), and usingair gaps.
This is a supporting strategy for boundary protection, information system monitoring and unavoidable action strategies. This is a time and resource-consuming strategy with a known scope. Even if this strategy is fully successful, it does not guarantee the overall success of the larger defense strategy.
False target is a strategy that deploys non-real targets for an intruder. It is used when the system has been penetrated, but the intruder does not know the system architecture. Examples of this strategy includehoneypots,virtual computers,virtual security switches, fake files, and address/password copies.
This is a supporting strategy for information system monitoring. It is a time-consuming strategy, and the scope is determined by the designer. It cannot be fully successful if not supported by other strategies.
Moving target is a security strategy based on frequent changes of data and processes. This strategy is based on the assumption that the system has been penetrated, but the intruder does not know the architecture of the system and its processes. Examples of this strategy are regular changes ofpasswordsorkeys (cryptography), using a dynamic platform, etc.
This is a supporting strategy for information system monitoring. It is a time-consuming strategy, and the scope is determined by the designer. It cannot be fully successful if not supported by other strategies. Actions are activated on a scheduled basis or as a response to a detected threat.
Useless information comprises security measures to turn important information into useless data for an intruder. The strategy is based on the assumption that the system has been penetrated, but the intruder is not able to decrypt information, or does not have enough time to decrypt it. For example,encrypting the file systemor usingencryption softwarecan render the data useless even if an attacker gets access to the file system, or usingdata masking, where sensitive data is hidden in non-sensitive data with modified content.
This is a supporting strategy for information system monitoring. It is a time and resource-consuming strategy, affecting performance. The scope is known. It cannot be successful if not supported by other strategies.Claude Shannon'stheorems show that if the encryption key is smaller than the secured information, theinformation-theoretic securitycan not be achieved. There is only one known unbreakable cryptographic system: theone-time pad. This strategy is not generally possible to use because of the difficulties involved in exchanging one-time pads without the risk of being compromised. Other cryptographic systems are only buying time or can be broken (seeCryptographic hash function#Degree_of_difficulty). This strategy needs to be supported by the moving target or deletes strategies.
Deletion is a strategy using security measures to prevent an intruder from gaining sensitive information at all costs. The strategy is based on the assumption that the damage from information disclosure would be greater than the damage caused by deleting the information or disabling the system required to gain access to the information. The strategy is part of thedata-centric securityapproach. Examples of this strategy include information deletion as a response to a security violation (such as unauthorized access attempts) andpasswordresets.
This is a supporting strategy for information system monitoring. It is a resource-consuming strategy, and the scope is determined by the designer. It cannot be fully successful on its own since the detected intrusion is not quarantined.
Information redundancy is a strategy performing security measures to keep redundancy for information and using it in case of damage. The strategy is based on the assumption that finding and repairing the damage is more complicated than the restoration of the system. Examples of this strategy include using system restoration, keeping backup files, and using a backup computer.
This is a supporting strategy for information system monitoring. This strategy consumes considerable resources, and the scope is known. It can be fully successful in its part.
Limiting of actions made by a robot is a strategy performing security measures to limit a robot's (software bot) actions. The strategy is based on the assumption that a robot can take more actions, or create damage that a human cannot create. Examples of this strategy include usinganti-spam techniques, usingCAPTCHAand otherhuman presence detectiontechniques, and usingDOS-based defense (protection fromDenial-of-service attack).
This is a supporting strategy for boundary protection and information system monitoring. It is a time and resource-consuming strategy, and the scope is determined by the designer. This strategy cannot be fully successful on its own.
Active defenseis a strategy performing security measures attacking the potential intruders. The strategy is based on the assumption that a potential intruder under attack has fewer abilities. Examples of this strategy include creating and using lists of trusted networks, devices, and applications, blocking untrusted addresses, and vendor management.
This is a supporting strategy for boundary protection and information system monitoring. It is a time and resource-consuming strategy, and the scope is determined by the designer. This strategy cannot be fully successful on its own.
This strategy can support any other strategy.[3][4][5][6][clarification needed]This is a resource-consuming strategy, and the scope is determined by the designer. An implementation may have a wide impact on devices.[7]This strategy can be fully successful, but in most cases, there is a trade-off of full system functionality for security. This strategy can be usedproactivelyor reactively. Actions done in response to an already detected problem may be too late.[8]Any implementation needs to be supported by the secure enclave strategy in order to prevent neutralizing action by unauthorized access to the protection mechanism.
Actions can be of the following types:
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_strategy_(computing)
|
Fault toleranceis the ability of asystemto maintain proper operation despite failures or faults in one or more of its components. This capability is essential forhigh-availability,mission-critical, or evenlife-critical systems.
Fault tolerance specifically refers to a system's capability to handle faults without any degradation or downtime. In the event of an error, end-users remain unaware of any issues. Conversely, a system that experiences errors with some interruption in service or graceful degradation of performance is termed 'resilient'. In resilience, the system adapts to the error, maintaining service but acknowledging a certain impact on performance.
Typically, fault tolerance describescomputer systems, ensuring the overall system remains functional despitehardwareorsoftwareissues. Non-computing examples include structures that retain their integrity despite damage fromfatigue,corrosionor impact.
The first known fault-tolerant computer wasSAPO, built in 1951 inCzechoslovakiabyAntonín Svoboda.[1]: 155Its basic design wasmagnetic drumsconnected via relays, with a voting method ofmemory errordetection (triple modular redundancy). Several other machines were developed along this line, mostly for military use. Eventually, they separated into three distinct categories:
Most of the development in the so-called LLNM (Long Life, No Maintenance) computing was done by NASA during the 1960s,[2]in preparation forProject Apolloand other research aspects. NASA's first machine went into aspace observatory, and their second attempt, the JSTAR computer, was used inVoyager. This computer had a backup of memory arrays to use memory recovery methods and thus it was called the JPL Self-Testing-And-Repairing computer. It could detect its own errors and fix them or bring up redundant modules as needed. The computer is still working, as of early 2022.[3]
Hyper-dependable computers were pioneered mostly byaircraftmanufacturers,[1]: 210nuclear powercompanies, and therailroad industryin the United States. These entities needed computers with massive amounts of uptime that wouldfail gracefullyenough during a fault to allow continued operation, while relying on constant human monitoring of computer output to detect faults. Again, IBM developed the first computer of this kind for NASA for guidance ofSaturn Vrockets, but later onBNSF,Unisys, andGeneral Electricbuilt their own.[1]: 223
In the 1970s, much work happened in the field.[4][5][6]For instance,F14 CADChadbuilt-in self-testand redundancy.[7]
In general, the early efforts at fault-tolerant designs were focused mainly on internal diagnosis, where a fault would indicate something was failing and a worker could replace it. SAPO, for instance, had a method by which faulty memory drums would emit a noise before failure.[8]Later efforts showed that to be fully effective, the system had to be self-repairing and diagnosing – isolating a fault and then implementing a redundant backup while alerting a need for repair. This is known as N-model redundancy, where faults cause automatic fail-safes and a warning to the operator, and it is still the most common form of level one fault-tolerant design in use today.
Voting was another initial method, as discussed above, with multiple redundant backups operating constantly and checking each other's results. For example, if four components reported an answer of 5 and one component reported an answer of 6, the other four would "vote" that the fifth component was faulty and have it taken out of service. This is called M out of N majority voting.
Historically, the trend has been to move away from N-model and toward M out of N, as the complexity of systems and the difficulty of ensuring the transitive state from fault-negative to fault-positive did not disrupt operations.
Tandem Computers, in 1976[9]andStratuswere among the first companies specializing in the design of fault-tolerant computer systems foronline transaction processing.
Hardware fault tolerance sometimes requires that broken parts be taken out and replaced with new parts while the system is still operational (in computing known ashot swapping). Such a system implemented with a single backup is known assingle point tolerantand represents the vast majority of fault-tolerant systems. In such systems themean time between failuresshould be long enough for the operators to have sufficient time to fix the broken devices (mean time to repair) before the backup also fails. It is helpful if the time between failures is as long as possible, but this is not specifically required in a fault-tolerant system.
Fault tolerance is notably successful in computer applications.Tandem Computersbuilt their entire business on such machines, which used single-point tolerance to create theirNonStopsystems withuptimesmeasured in years.
Fail-safearchitectures may encompass also the computer software, for example by processreplication.
Data formats may also be designed to degrade gracefully.HTMLfor example, is designed to beforward compatible, allowingWeb browsersto ignore new and unsupported HTML entities without causing the document to be unusable. Additionally, some sites, including popular platforms such as Twitter (until December 2020), provide an optional lightweight front end that does not rely onJavaScriptand has aminimallayout, to ensure wideaccessibilityandoutreach, such as ongame consoleswith limited web browsing capabilities.[10][11]
A highly fault-tolerant system might continue at the same level of performance even though one or more components have failed. For example, a building with a backup electrical generator will provide the same voltage to wall outlets even if the grid power fails.
A system that is designed tofail safe, or fail-secure, orfail gracefully, whether it functions at a reduced level or fails completely, does so in a way that protects people, property, or data from injury, damage, intrusion, or disclosure. In computers, a program might fail-safe by executing agraceful exit(as opposed to an uncontrolled crash) to prevent data corruption after an error occurs.[12]A similar distinction is made between "failing well" and "failing badly".
A system designed to experiencegraceful degradation, or tofail soft(used in computing, similar to "fail safe"[13]) operates at a reduced level of performance after some component fails. For example, if grid power fails, a building may operate lighting at reduced levels or elevators at reduced speeds. In computing, if insufficient network bandwidth is available to stream an online video, a lower-resolution version might be streamed in place of the high-resolution version.Progressive enhancementis another example, where web pages are available in a basic functional format for older, small-screen, or limited-capability web browsers, but in an enhanced version for browsers capable of handling additional technologies or that have a larger display.
In fault-tolerant computer systems, programs that are consideredrobustare designed to continue operation despite an error, exception, or invalid input, instead of crashing completely.Software brittlenessis the opposite of robustness.Resilient networkscontinue to transmit data despite the failure of some links or nodes.Resilient buildings and infrastructureare likewise expected to prevent complete failure in situations like earthquakes, floods, or collisions.
A system with highfailure transparencywill alert users that a component failure has occurred, even if it continues to operate with full performance, so that failure can be repaired or imminent complete failure anticipated.[14]Likewise, afail-fastcomponent is designed to report at the first point of failure, rather than generating reports when downstream components fail. This allows easier diagnosis of the underlying problem, and may prevent improper operation in a broken state.
Asingle fault conditionis a situation where one means forprotectionagainst ahazardis defective. If a single fault condition results unavoidably in another single fault condition, the two failures are considered one single fault condition.[15]A source offers the following example:
Asingle-fault conditionis a condition when a single means for protection against hazard in equipment is defective or a single external abnormal condition is present, e.g. short circuit between the live parts and the applied part.[16]
Providing fault-tolerant design for every component is normally not an option. Associated redundancy brings a number of penalties: increase in weight, size, power consumption, cost, as well as time to design, verify, and test. Therefore, a number of choices have to be examined to determine which components should be fault tolerant:[17]
An example of a component that passes all the tests is a car's occupant restraint system. While theprimaryoccupant restraint system is not normally thought of, it isgravity. If the vehicle rolls over or undergoes severe g-forces, then this primary method of occupant restraint may fail. Restraining the occupants during such an accident is absolutely critical to safety, so the first test is passed. Accidents causing occupant ejection were quite common beforeseat belts, so the second test is passed. The cost of a redundant restraint method like seat belts is quite low, both economically and in terms of weight and space, so the third test is passed. Therefore, adding seat belts to all vehicles is an excellent idea. Other "supplemental restraint systems", such asairbags, are more expensive and so pass that test by a smaller margin.
Another excellent and long-term example of this principle being put into practice is the braking system: whilst the actual brake mechanisms are critical, they are not particularly prone to sudden (rather than progressive) failure, and are in any case necessarily duplicated to allow even and balanced application of brake force to all wheels. It would also be prohibitively costly to further double-up the main components and they would add considerable weight. However, the similarly critical systems for actuating the brakes under driver control are inherently less robust, generally using a cable (can rust, stretch, jam, snap) or hydraulic fluid (can leak, boil and develop bubbles, absorb water and thus lose effectiveness). Thus in most modern cars the footbrake hydraulic brake circuit is diagonally divided to give two smaller points of failure, the loss of either only reducing brake power by 50% and not causing as much dangerous brakeforce imbalance as a straight front-back or left-right split, and should the hydraulic circuit fail completely (a relatively very rare occurrence), there is a failsafe in the form of the cable-actuated parking brake that operates the otherwise relatively weak rear brakes, but can still bring the vehicle to a safe halt in conjunction with transmission/engine braking so long as the demands on it are in line with normal traffic flow. The cumulatively unlikely combination of total foot brake failure with the need for harsh braking in an emergency will likely result in a collision, but still one at lower speed than would otherwise have been the case.
In comparison with the foot pedal activated service brake, the parking brake itself is a less critical item, and unless it is being used as a one-time backup for the footbrake, will not cause immediate danger if it is found to be nonfunctional at the moment of application. Therefore, no redundancy is built into it per se (and it typically uses a cheaper, lighter, but less hardwearing cable actuation system), and it can suffice, if this happens on a hill, to use the footbrake to momentarily hold the vehicle still, before driving off to find a flat piece of road on which to stop. Alternatively, on shallow gradients, the transmission can be shifted into Park, Reverse or First gear, and the transmission lock / engine compression used to hold it stationary, as there is no need for them to include the sophistication to first bring it to a halt.
On motorcycles, a similar level of fail-safety is provided by simpler methods; first, the front and rear brake systems are entirely separate, regardless of their method of activation (that can be cable, rod or hydraulic), allowing one to fail entirely while leaving the other unaffected. Second, the rear brake is relatively strong compared to its automotive cousin, being a powerful disc on some sports models, even though the usual intent is for the front system to provide the vast majority of braking force; as the overall vehicle weight is more central, the rear tire is generally larger and has better traction, so that the rider can lean back to put more weight on it, therefore allowing more brake force to be applied before the wheel locks. On cheaper, slower utility-class machines, even if the front wheel should use a hydraulic disc for extra brake force and easier packaging, the rear will usually be a primitive, somewhat inefficient, but exceptionally robust rod-actuated drum, thanks to the ease of connecting the footpedal to the wheel in this way and, more importantly, the near impossibility of catastrophic failure even if the rest of the machine, like a lot of low-priced bikes after their first few years of use, is on the point of collapse from neglected maintenance.
The basic characteristics of fault tolerance require:
In addition, fault-tolerant systems are characterized in terms of both planned service outages and unplanned service outages. These are usually measured at the application level and not just at a hardware level. The figure of merit is calledavailabilityand is expressed as a percentage. For example, afive ninessystem would statistically provide 99.999% availability.
Fault-tolerant systems are typically based on the concept of redundancy.
Research into the kinds of tolerances needed for critical systems involves a large amount of interdisciplinary work. The more complex the system, the more carefully all possible interactions have to be considered and prepared for. Considering the importance of high-value systems in transport,public utilitiesand the military, the field of topics that touch on research is very wide: it can include such obvious subjects assoftware modelingand reliability, orhardware design, to arcane elements such asstochasticmodels,graph theory, formal or exclusionary logic,parallel processing, remotedata transmission, and more.[18]
Spare components address the first fundamental characteristic of fault tolerance in three ways:
All implementations ofRAID,redundant array of independent disks, except RAID 0, are examples of a fault-tolerantstorage devicethat usesdata redundancy.
Alockstepfault-tolerant machine uses replicated elements operating in parallel. At any time, all the replications of each element should be in the same state. The same inputs are provided to eachreplication, and the same outputs are expected. The outputs of the replications are compared using a voting circuit. A machine with two replications of each element is termeddual modular redundant(DMR). The voting circuit can then only detect a mismatch and recovery relies on other methods. A machine with three replications of each element is termedtriple modular redundant(TMR). The voting circuit can determine which replication is in error when a two-to-one vote is observed. In this case, the voting circuit can output the correct result, and discard the erroneous version. After this, the internal state of the erroneous replication is assumed to be different from that of the other two, and the voting circuit can switch to a DMR mode. This model can be applied to any larger number of replications.
Lockstepfault-tolerant machines are most easily made fullysynchronous, with each gate of each replication making the same state transition on the same edge of the clock, and the clocks to the replications being exactly in phase. However, it is possible to build lockstep systems without this requirement.
Bringing the replications into synchrony requires making their internal stored states the same. They can be started from a fixed initial state, such as the reset state. Alternatively, the internal state of one replica can be copied to another replica.
One variant of DMR ispair-and-spare. Two replicated elements operate in lockstep as a pair, with a voting circuit that detects any mismatch between their operations and outputs a signal indicating that there is an error. Another pair operates exactly the same way. A final circuit selects the output of the pair that does not proclaim that it is in error. Pair-and-spare requires four replicas rather than the three of TMR, but has been used commercially.
Failure-oblivious computingis a technique that enablescomputer programsto continue executing despiteerrors.[19]The technique can be applied in different contexts. It can handle invalid memory reads by returning a manufactured value to the program,[20]which in turn, makes use of the manufactured value and ignores the formermemoryvalue it tried to access, this is a great contrast totypical memory checkers, which inform the program of the error or abort the program.
The approach has performance costs: because the technique rewrites code to insert dynamic checks for address validity, execution time will increase by 80% to 500%.[21]
Recovery shepherding is a lightweight technique to enable software programs to recover from otherwise fatal errors such as null pointer dereference and divide by zero.[22]Comparing to the failure oblivious computing technique, recovery shepherding works on the compiled program binary directly and does not need to recompile to program.
It uses thejust-in-timebinary instrumentationframeworkPin. It attaches to the application process when an error occurs, repairs the execution,
tracks the repair effects as the execution continues, contains the repair effects within the application process, and detaches from the process after all repair effects are flushed from the process state. It does not interfere with the normal execution of the program and therefore incurs negligible overhead.[22]For 17 of 18 systematically collected real world null-dereference and divide-by-zero errors, a prototype implementation enables the application to continue to execute to provide acceptable output and service to its users on the error-triggering inputs.[22]
Thecircuit breaker design patternis a technique to avoid catastrophic failures in distributed systems.
Redundancy is the provision of functional capabilities that would be unnecessary in a fault-free environment.[23]This can consist of backup components that automatically "kick in" if one component fails. For example, large cargo trucks can lose a tire without any major consequences. They have many tires, and no one tire is critical (with the exception of the front tires, which are used to steer, but generally carry less load, each and in total, than the other four to 16, so are less likely to fail).
The idea of incorporating redundancy in order to improve the reliability of a system was pioneered byJohn von Neumannin the 1950s.[24]
Two kinds of redundancy are possible:[25]space redundancy and time redundancy. Space redundancy provides additional components, functions, or data items that are unnecessary for fault-free operation. Space redundancy is further classified into hardware, software and information redundancy, depending on the type of redundant resources added to the system. In time redundancy the computation or data transmission is repeated and the result is compared to a stored copy of the previous result. The current terminology for this kind of testing is referred to as 'In Service Fault Tolerance Testing or ISFTT for short.
Fault-tolerant design's advantages are obvious, while many of its disadvantages are not:
There is a difference between fault tolerance and systems that rarely have problems. For instance, theWestern Electriccrossbarsystems had failure rates of two hours per forty years, and therefore were highlyfault resistant. But when a fault did occur they still stopped operating completely, and therefore were notfault tolerant.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fault_tolerance
|
Human–computer interaction(HCI) is the process through which people operate and engage with computer systems. Research in HCI covers the design and the use ofcomputer technology, which focuses on theinterfacesbetween people (users) andcomputers. HCI researchers observe the ways humans interact with computers and design technologies that allow humans to interact with computers in novel ways. These include visual, auditory, and tactile (haptic) feedback systems, which serve as channels for interaction in both traditional interfaces and mobile computing contexts.[1]A device that allows interaction between human being and a computer is known as a "human–computer interface".
As a field of research, human–computer interaction is situated at the intersection ofcomputer science,behavioral sciences,design,media studies, andseveral other fields of study. The term was popularized byStuart K. Card,Allen Newell, andThomas P. Moranin their 1983 book,The Psychology of Human–Computer Interaction.The first known use was in 1975 by Carlisle.[2]The term is intended to convey that, unlike other tools with specific and limited uses, computers have many uses which often involve an open-ended dialogue between the user and the computer. The notion of dialogue likens human–computer interaction to human-to-human interaction: an analogy that is crucial to theoretical considerations in the field.[3][4]
Humans interact with computers in many ways, and the interface between the two is crucial to facilitating this interaction. HCI is also sometimes termedhuman–machine interaction(HMI),man-machine interaction(MMI) orcomputer-human interaction(CHI). Desktop applications, web browsers, handheld computers, and computer kiosks make use of the prevalentgraphical user interfaces(GUI) of today.[5]Voice user interfaces(VUIs) are used forspeech recognitionand synthesizing systems, and the emergingmulti-modaland Graphical user interfaces (GUI) allow humans to engage withembodied character agentsin a way that cannot be achieved with other interface paradigms.
TheAssociation for Computing Machinery(ACM) defines human–computer interaction as "a discipline that is concerned with the design, evaluation, and implementation of interactive computing systems for human use and with the study of major phenomena surrounding them".[5]A key aspect of HCI is user satisfaction, also referred to as End-User Computing Satisfaction. It goes on to say:
"Because human–computer interaction studies a human and a machine in communication, it draws from supporting knowledge on both the machine and the human side. On the machine side, techniques incomputer graphics,operating systems,programming languages, and development environments are relevant. On the human side,communication theory,graphicandindustrial designdisciplines,linguistics,social sciences,cognitive psychology,social psychology, andhuman factorssuch ascomputer user satisfactionare relevant. And, of course, engineering and design methods are relevant."[5]HCI ensures that humans can safely and efficiently interact with complex technologies in fields like aviation and healthcare.[6]
Due to the multidisciplinary nature of HCI, people with different backgrounds contribute to its success.
Poorly designedhuman-machine interfacescan lead to many unexpected problems. A classic example is theThree Mile Island accident, a nuclear meltdown accident, where investigations concluded that the design of the human-machine interface was at least partly responsible for the disaster.[7][8][9]Similarly, some accidents in aviation have resulted from manufacturers' decisions to use non-standardflight instrumentsor throttle quadrant layouts: even though the new designs were proposed to be superior in basic human-machine interaction, pilots had already ingrained the "standard" layout. Thus, the conceptually good idea had unintended results.[10]
A human–computer interface can be described as the interface of communication between a human user and a computer. The flow of information between the human and computer is defined as theloop of interaction. The loop of interaction has several aspects to it, including:
Human–computer interaction involves the ways in which humans make—or do not make—use of computational artifacts, systems, and infrastructures. Much of the research in this field seeks toimprovethe human–computer interaction by improving theusabilityof computer interfaces.[11]How usability is to be precisely understood, how it relates to other social and cultural values, and when it is, and when it may not be a desirable property of computer interfaces is increasingly debated.[12][13]
Much of the research in the field of human–computer interaction takes an interest in:
Visions of what researchers in the field seek to achieve might vary. When pursuing a cognitivist perspective, researchers of HCI may seek to align computer interfaces with the mental model that humans have of their activities. When pursuing apost-cognitivistperspective, researchers of HCI may seek to align computer interfaces with existing social practices or existing sociocultural values.
Researchers in HCI are interested in developing design methodologies, experimenting with devices, prototyping software, and hardware systems, exploring interaction paradigms, and developing models and theories of interaction.
The following experimental design principles are considered, when evaluating a currentuser interface, or designing a new user interface:
The iterative design process is repeated until a sensible, user-friendly interface is created.[16]
Various strategies delineating methods for human–PCinteraction designhave developed since the conception of the field during the 1980s. Most plan philosophies come from a model for how clients, originators, and specialized frameworks interface. Early techniques treated clients' psychological procedures as unsurprising and quantifiable and urged plan specialists to look at subjective science to establish zones, (for example, memory and consideration) when structuring UIs. Present-day models, in general, center around a steady input and discussion between clients, creators, and specialists and push for specialized frameworks to be folded with the sorts of encounters clients need to have, as opposed to wrappinguser experiencearound a finished framework.
Topics in human–computer interaction include the following:
Human-AI Interaction explores how users engage with artificial intelligence systems, particularly focusing on usability, trust, and interpretability. The research mainly aims to design AI-driven interfaces that are transparent, explainable, and ethically responsible.[20]Studies highlight the importance of explainable AI (XAI) and human-in-the-loop decision-making, ensuring that AI outputs are understandable and trustworthy.[21]Researchers also develop design guidelines for human-AI interaction, improving the collaboration between users and AI systems.[22]
Augmented reality (AR) integrates digital content with the real world. It enhances human perception and interaction with physical environments. AR research mainly focuses on adaptive user interfaces, multimodal input techniques, and real-world object interaction.[23]Advances in wearable AR technology improve usability, enabling more natural interaction with AR applications.[24]
Virtual reality (VR) creates a fully immersive digital environment, allowing users to interact with computer-generated worlds through sensory input devices. Research focuses on user presence, interaction techniques, and cognitive effects of immersion.[25]A key area of study is the impact of VR on cognitive load and user adaptability, influencing how users process information in virtual spaces.[26]
Mixed reality (MR) blends elements of both augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR). It enables real-time interaction with both physical and digital objects. HCI research in MR concentrates on spatial computing, real-world object interaction, and context-aware adaptive interfaces.[27]MR technologies are increasingly applied in education, training simulations, and healthcare, enhancing learning outcomes and user engagement.[28]
Extended reality (XR) is an umbrella term encompassing AR, VR, and MR, offering a continuum between real and virtual environments. Research investigates user adaptability, interaction paradigms, and ethical implications of immersive technologies.[29]Recent studies highlight how AI-driven personalization and adaptive interfaces improve the usability of XR applications.[30]
Accessibility in human–computer interaction (HCI) focuses on designing inclusive digital experiences, ensuring usability for people with diverse abilities. Research in this area is related to assistive technologies, adaptive interfaces, and universal design principles.[31]Studies indicate that accessible design benefits not only people with disabilities but also enhances usability for all users.[32]
Social computing is an interactive and collaborative behavior considered between technology and people. In recent years, there has been an explosion of social science research focusing on interactions as the unit of analysis, as there are a lot of social computing technologies that include blogs, emails, social networking, quick messaging, and various others. Much of this research draws from psychology, social psychology, and sociology. For example, one study found out that people expected a computer with a man's name to cost more than a machine with a woman's name.[33]Other research finds that individuals perceive their interactions with computers more negatively than humans, despite behaving the same way towards these machines.[34]
In human and computer interactions, a semantic gap usually exists between human and computer's understandings towards mutual behaviors.Ontology, as a formal representation of domain-specific knowledge, can be used to address this problem by solving the semantic ambiguities between the two parties.[35]
In the interaction of humans and computers, research has studied how computers can detect, process, and react to human emotions to develop emotionally intelligent information systems. Researchers have suggested several 'affect-detection channels'. The potential of telling human emotions in an automated and digital fashion lies in improvements to the effectiveness of human–computer interaction. The influence of emotions in human–computer interaction has been studied in fields such as financial decision-making usingECGand organizational knowledge sharing usingeye-trackingand face readers as affect-detection channels. In these fields, it has been shown that affect-detection channels have the potential todetect human emotionsand those information systems can incorporate the data obtained from affect-detection channels to improve decision models.
Abrain–computer interface(BCI), is a direct communication pathway between an enhanced or wiredbrainand an external device. BCI differs fromneuromodulationin that it allows for bidirectional information flow. BCIs are often directed at researching, mapping, assisting, augmenting, or repairing human cognitive or sensory-motor functions.[36]
Security interactions are the study of interaction between humans and computers specifically as it pertains toinformation security. Its aim, in plain terms, is to improve theusabilityof security features inend userapplications.
Unlike HCI, which has roots in the early days ofXerox PARCduring the 1970s, HCISec is a nascent field of study by comparison. Interest in this topic tracks with that ofInternet security, which has become an area of broad public concern only in very recent years.
When security features exhibit poor usability, the following are common reasons:
Traditionally, computer use was modeled as a human–computer dyad in which the two were connected by a narrow explicit communication channel, such as text-based terminals. Much work has been done to make the interaction between a computing system and a human more reflective of the multidimensional nature of everyday communication. Because of potential issues, human–computer interaction shifted focus beyond the interface to respond to observations as articulated byDouglas Engelbart: "If ease of use were the only valid criterion, people would stick to tricycles and never try bicycles."[37]
How humans interact with computers continues to evolve rapidly. Human–computer interaction is affected by developments in computing. These forces include:
As of 2010[update]the future for HCI is expected[38]to include the following characteristics:
One of the main conferences for new research in human–computer interaction is the annually heldAssociation for Computing Machinery's (ACM)Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, usually referred to by its short name CHI (pronouncedkai, orKhai). CHI is organized by ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction (SIGCHI). CHI is a large conference, with thousands of attendants, and is quite broad in scope. It is attended by academics, practitioners, and industry people, with company sponsors such as Google, Microsoft, and PayPal.
There are also dozens of other smaller, regional, or specialized HCI-related conferences held around the world each year, including:[39]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human%E2%80%93computer_interaction_(security)
|
Identity and access management(IAMorIdAM) orIdentity management(IdM), is a framework of policies and technologies to ensure that the right users (that are part of theecosystemconnected to or within an enterprise) have the appropriate access to technology resources. IAM systems fall under the overarching umbrellas ofIT securityanddata management. Identity and access management systems not only identify, authenticate, and control access for individuals who will be utilizing IT resources but also the hardware and applications employees need to access.[1]
The terms "identity management" (IdM) and "identity and access management" are used interchangeably in the area of identity access management.[2]
Identity-management systems, products, applications and platforms manage identifying and ancillary data about entities that include individuals, computer-related hardware, andsoftware applications.
IdM covers issues such as how users gain anidentity, the roles, and sometimes the permissions that identity grants, the protection of that identity, and the technologies supporting that protection (e.g.,network protocols,digital certificates,passwords, etc.).
Identity management (ID management) – or identity and access management (IAM) – is the organizational and technical processes for first registering and authorizing access rights in the configuration phase, and then in the operation phase for identifying, authenticating and controlling individuals or groups of people to have access to applications, systems or networks based on previously authorized access rights. Identity management (IdM) is the task of controlling information about users on computers. Such information includes information thatauthenticatesthe identity of a user, and information that describes data and actions they areauthorizedto access and/or perform. It also includes the management of descriptive information about the user and how and by whom that information can be accessed and modified. In addition to users, managed entities typically include hardware and network resources and even applications.[3]The diagram below shows the relationship between the configuration and operation phases of IAM, as well as the distinction between identity management and access management.
Access controlis the enforcement of access rights defined as part ofaccess authorization.
Digital identityis an entity's online presence, encompassing personal identifying information (PII) and ancillary information. SeeOECD[4]andNIST[5]guidelines on protecting PII.[6]It can be interpreted as the codification of identity names and attributes of a physical instance in a way that facilitates processing.
In the real-world context of engineering online systems, identity management can involve five basic functions:
A general model ofidentitycan be constructed from a small set of axioms, for example that all identities in a givennamespaceare unique, or that such identities bear a specific relationship to corresponding entities in the real world. Such an axiomatic model expresses "pure identity" in the sense that the model is not constrained by a specific application context.
In general, an entity (real or virtual) can have multiple identities and each identity can encompass multiple attributes, some of which are unique within a given name space. The diagram below illustrates the conceptual relationship between identities and entities, as well as between identities and their attributes.
In most theoretical and all practical models ofdigital identity, a given identity object consists of a finite set ofproperties(attribute values). These properties record information about the object, either for purposes external to the model or to operate the model, for example in classification and retrieval. A "pure identity" model is strictly not concerned with the externalsemanticsof these properties.
The most common departure from "pure identity" in practice occurs with properties intended to assure some aspect of identity, for example adigital signatureorsoftware tokenwhich the model may use internally to verify some aspect of the identity in satisfaction of an external purpose. To the extent that the model expresses such semantics internally, it is not a pure model.
Contrast this situation with properties that might be externally used for purposes ofinformation securitysuch as managing access or entitlement, but which are simply stored, maintained and retrieved, without special treatment by the model. The absence of external semantics within the model qualifies it as a "pure identity" model.
Identity management can thus be defined as a set of operations on a given identity model, or more generally, as a set of capabilities with reference to it.
In practice, identity management often expands to express how model content is to beprovisionedandreconciledamong multiple identity models. The process of reconciling accounts may also be referred to as de-provisioning.[7]
User access enables users to assume a specific digital identity across applications, which enables access controls to be assigned and evaluated against this identity. The use of a single identity for a given user across multiple systems eases tasks for administrators and users. It simplifies access monitoring and verification and allows the organizations to minimize excessive privileges granted to one user. Ensuring user access security is crucial in this process, as it involves protecting the integrity and confidentiality of user credentials and preventing unauthorized access. Implementing robust authentication mechanisms, such as multi-factor authentication (MFA), regular security audits, and strict access controls, helps safeguard user identities and sensitive data. User access can be tracked from initiation to termination of user access.
When organizations deploy an identity management process or system, their motivation is normally not primarily to manage a set of identities, but rather to grant appropriate access rights to those entities via their identities. In other words, access management is normally the motivation for identity management and the two sets of processes are consequently closely related.[8]
Organizations continue to add services for both internal users and by customers. Many such services require identity management to properly provide these services. Increasingly, identity management has been partitioned from application functions so that a single identity can serve many or even all of an organization's activities.[8]
For internal use identity management is evolving to control access to all digital assets, including devices, network equipment, servers, portals, content, applications and/or products.
Services often require access to extensive information about a user, including address books, preferences, entitlements and contact information. Since much of this information is subject to privacy and/or confidentiality requirements, controlling access to it is vital.[9]
Identity federation comprises one or more systems that share user access and allow users to log in based on authenticating against one of the systems participating in the federation. This trust between several systems is often known as a "circle of trust". In this setup, one system acts as theidentity provider(IdP) and other systems act asservice providers(SPs). When a user needs to access some service controlled by SP, they first authenticate against the IdP. Upon successful authentication, the IdP sends a secure "assertion" to the SP. "SAML assertions, specified using a markup language intended for describing security assertions, can be used by a verifier to make a statement to a relying party about the identity of a claimant. SAML assertions may optionally be digitally signed."[10]
In addition to creation, deletion, modification of user identity data either assisted or self-service, identity management controls ancillary entity data for use by applications, such as contact information or location.
Putting personal information onto computer networks necessarily raisesprivacyconcerns. Absent proper protections, the data may be used to implement asurveillance society.[12]
Social webandonline social networkingservices make heavy use of identity management. Helping users decide how to manage access to their personal information has become an issue of broad concern.[13][14]
Research related to the management of identity covers disciplines such as technology, social sciences, humanities and the law.[15]
Decentralized identity management is identity management based ondecentralized identifiers(DIDs).[16]
Within theSeventh Research Framework Programmeof the European Union from 2007 to 2013, several new projects related to Identity Management started.
The PICOS Project investigates and develops a state-of-the-art platform for providing trust, privacy and identity management in mobile communities.[17]
SWIFT focuses on extending identity functions and federation to the network while addressing usability and privacy concerns and leverages identity technology as a key to integrate service and transport infrastructures for the benefit of users and the providers.[18]
Ongoing projects include Future of Identity in the Information Society (FIDIS),[19]GUIDE,[20]and PRIME.[21]
Academic journalsthat publish articles related to identity management include:
Less specialized journals publish on the topic and, for instance, have special issues on identity such as:
ISO(and more specificallyISO/IEC JTC 1, SC27 IT Security techniques WG5 Identity Access Management and Privacy techniques) is conducting some standardization work for identity management (ISO 2009), such as the elaboration of a framework for identity management, including the definition of identity-related terms. The published standards and current work items includes the following:
In each organization there is normally a role or department that is responsible for managing the schema of digital identities of their staff and their own objects, which are represented by object identities orobject identifiers(OID).[23]The organizational policies and processes and procedures related to the oversight of identity management are sometimes referred to asIdentity Governance and Administration(IGA). How effectively and appropriately such tools are used falls within scope of broadergovernance, risk management, and complianceregimes.
Since 2016 identity and access management professionals have their own professional organization, IDPro. In 2018 the committee initiated the publication of An Annotated Bibliography, listing a number of important publications, books, presentations and videos.[24]
Anidentity-management systemrefers to aninformation system, or to a set of technologies that can be used for enterprise or cross-network identity management.
The following terms are used in relationship with "identity-management system":[25]
Identity management, otherwise known as identity and access management (IAM) is an identity security framework that works to authenticate and authorize user access to resources such as applications, data, systems, and cloud platforms. It seeks to ensure only the right people are being provisioned to the right tools, and for the right reasons. As our digital ecosystem continues to advance, so does the world of identity management.
"Identity management" and "access and identity management" (or AIM) are terms that are used interchangeably under the title of identity management while identity management itself falls under the umbrella ofIT security[26]and information privacy[27][28]and privacy risk[29]as well as usability and e-inclusion studies.[30][31]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_management
|
Information security awarenessis an evolving part ofinformation securitythat focuses on raising consciousness regarding potential risks of the rapidly evolving forms ofinformationand the rapidly evolving threats to that information which target human behavior. As threats have matured and information has increased in value, attackers have increased their capabilities and expanded to broader intentions, developed more attack methods and methodologies and are acting on more diverse motives. As information security controls and processes have matured, attacks have matured to circumvent controls and processes. Attackers have targeted and successfully exploited individuals human behavior to breach corporate networks and critical infrastructure systems. Targeted individuals who are unaware of information and threats may unknowingly circumvent traditional security controls and processes and enable a breach of the organization. In response, information security awareness is maturing. Cybersecurity as a business problem has dominated the agenda of mostchief information officers(CIO)s, exposing a need for countermeasures to today's cyber threat landscape.[1]The goal of Information security awareness is to make everyone aware that they are susceptible to the opportunities and challenges in today's threat landscape, change human risk behaviors and create or enhance a secure organizational culture.
Information security awareness is one of several key principles of information security. Information security awareness seeks to understand and enhance human risk behaviors, beliefs and perceptions about information and information security while also understanding and enhancing organizational culture as a countermeasure to rapidly evolving threats. For example, theOECD'sGuidelines for the Security of Information Systems and Networks[2]include nine generally accepted principles: awareness, responsibility, response, ethics, democracy, risk assessment, security design and implementation, security management, and reassessment. In the context of theInternet, this type of awareness is sometimes referred to ascyber securityawareness, which is the focus of multiple initiatives, including theU.S. Department of Homeland Security'sNational Cyber Security Awareness Month[3]and President Obama's 2015 White House Summit on Cybersecurity and Consumer Protection.[4]
Computer based crimes are not something new to us. Viruses have been with us for well over 20 years; spyware has clocked up more than a decade since the earliest incidents; and large-scale use of phishing can be traced back to at least 2003. One of the
reasons researchers agreed upon that the pace at information system is evolving and expanding, thesecurity awarenessprogram among the employees is falling way behind. Unfortunately, however, it seems that the rapid adoption of online services has not been matched with a corresponding embrace of security culture.[5]
Information security awareness is evolving in response to the evolving nature of cyber attacks, increased targeting of personal information and the cost and scale of information security breaches. Furthermore, many individuals think of security in terms of technical controls, not realizing that they as individuals are targets, and that their behavior can increase risks or providecountermeasuresto risks and threats.
Determining and measuring information security awareness has highlighted the need for accurate metrics. In response to this need, information security awareness metrics are rapidly evolving in order to understand and measure the human threat landscape, measure and change human understanding and behavior, measure and reduce organizational risk and measure effectiveness and cost of information security awareness as a countermeasure.[6]
Most of the organizations do not want to invest money on information security. A survey conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers (2014) found that current employees (31%) and former employees (27%) still contribute to information security incidents. The survey results indicated that the number of actual incidents attributable to employees had risen by 25% since the 2013 survey.[7]A more recent study, the Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report 2020, discovered similar patterns with 30% of cyber security incidents involving internal actors within a company.[8]
A security awareness program is the best solution that an organization can adopt to reduce the security threats caused by internal employees. A security awareness program helps employees to understand that the information security is not an individual's responsibility; it is the responsibility of everyone. The program also explicitly mentions that the employees are responsible for all activities performed under their identifications. Furthermore, the program enforces the standard ways of handling business computers.
Although organizations have not adopted a standard way of providing the security awareness program, a good program should include awareness about data, network, user conduct, social media, use of mobile devices and WiFi, phishing emails, social engineering and different types of viruses and malware. An effective employee security awareness program should make it clear that everyone in the organization is responsible for IT security. Auditors should pay close attention to six areas covered in the program: data, networks, user conduct, social media, mobile devices, and social engineering.[9]
Many organizations make their privacy policies very complicated that the diverse employees always fail to understand those regulations. Privacy Policy is something that should be reminded to the employees whenever they login to the business computer. Privacy Policies should be clearer, shorter and more standardized to enable better comprehension and comparison of privacy practices.[10]Organizations can create interactive sessions for all employees to attend every week to speak about security and threats. Interactive sessions may include awareness about newer threats, best practices and questions & answers.
A security awareness program may not be beneficial if the organization does not penalize the violators. Employees who have found guilty of violating the program should be reported to the higher executives for further action, otherwise the program will not be effective. Information security authorities may perform a gap analysis to find out any deficiencies in the program.
As of early 2015, CIOs rated information security awareness related issues as top strategic priorities. For example, at a February 2015Wall Street JournalCIO network event convened to create a prioritized set of recommendations to drive business and policy in the coming year, consensus seemed to form around cybersecurity and delivering change through effective communication with the rest of the business.[11]
While information security awareness and high-profile breaches are at the forefront of most organization's agenda, a recent study of 220 security awareness officers by Lance Spritzner has uncovered three related key findings. First, executive and financial support are necessary for a successful security awareness program. Second, due to the technical nature of traditional security controls and countermeasures, the soft skills necessary to understand and change human behavior are lacking and finally, in terms of a maturity model, security awareness is still in its infancy.[12]
Effectively measuring human risk behavior is difficult because risky behaviors, beliefs and perceptions are often unknown. In addition attacks such asphishing,social engineering, and incidents such as data leakage and sensitive data posted on social media sites and even breaches go undetected and unknown make it difficult to determine and measure points of failure. Often, attacks, incidents and breaches are reacted to or reported from outside the compromised organization after attackers have covered their tracks, and thus cannot be researched and measured proactively. In addition, malicious traffic often goes unnoticed because attackers often spy and mimic known behavior in order to prevent any intrusion detection or access monitoring alerts.
A 2016 study developed a method of measuring security awareness.[13]Specifically they measured "understanding about circumventing security protocols, disrupting the intended functions of systems or collecting valuable information, and not getting caught" (p. 38). The researchers created a method that could distinguish between experts and novices by having people organize different security scenarios into groups. Experts will organize these scenarios based on centralized security themes where novices will organize the scenarios based on superficial themes.
Wheresimulated phishingcampaigns are run regularly, they can provide measures of user compliance.[14]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_security_awareness
|
Internet privacyinvolves the right or mandate of personalprivacyconcerning the storage, re-purposing, provision to third parties, and display of information pertaining to oneself via theInternet.[1][2]Internet privacy is a subset ofdata privacy. Privacy concerns have been articulated from the beginnings of large-scale computer sharing[3]and especially relate tomass surveillance.[4]
Privacy can entail eitherpersonally identifiable information(PII) or non-PII information such as a site visitor's behavior on a website. PII refers to any information that can be used to identify an individual. For example, age andphysical addressalone could identify who an individual is without explicitly disclosing their name, as these two parameters are unique enough to identify a specific person typically. Other forms of PII may includeGPS trackingdata used by apps,[5]as the daily commute and routine information can be enough to identify an individual.[6]
It has been suggested that the "appeal of online services is to broadcast personal information on purpose."[7]On the other hand, insecurityexpertBruce Schneier's essay entitled, "The Value of Privacy", he says, "Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we're doing nothing wrong at the time ofsurveillance."[8][9]
Internet anddigital privacyare viewed differently from traditional expectations of privacy. Internet privacy is primarily concerned with protecting user information. Law ProfessorJerry Kangexplains that the term privacy expresses space, decision, and information.[10]In terms of space, individuals have an expectation that their physical spaces (e.g. homes, cars) not be intruded. Information privacy is in regard to the collection of user information from a variety of sources.[10]
In theUnited States, the 1997 Information Infrastructure Task Force (IITF) created underPresident Clintondefined information privacy as "an individual's claim to control the terms under which personal information — information identifiable to the individual — is acquired, disclosed, and used."[11]At the end of the 1990s, with the rise of the Internet, it became clear that governments, companies, and other organizations would need to abide by new rules to protect individuals' privacy. With the rise of the Internet and mobile networks, Internet privacy is a daily concern for users.[12]
People with only a casual concern for Internet privacy do not need to achieve totalanonymity. Internet users may protect their privacy through controlled disclosure of personal information. The revelation ofIP addresses, non-personally-identifiableprofiling, and similar information might become acceptable trade-offs for the convenience that users could otherwise lose using the workarounds needed to suppress such details rigorously. On the other hand, some people desire much stronger privacy. In that case, they may try to achieveInternet anonymityto ensure privacy — use of the Internet without giving any third parties the ability to link Internet activities to personally-identifiable information of the Internet user. In order to keep their information private, people need to be careful with what they submit and look at online. When filling out forms and buying merchandise, information is tracked and because it is not private, some companies send Internet users spam and advertising on similar products.
There are also several governmental organizations that protect an individual's privacy and anonymity on the Internet, to a point. In an article presented by theFTC, in October 2011, a number of pointers were brought to attention that help an individual Internet user avoid possibleidentity theftand other cyber-attacks. Preventing or limiting the usage of Social Security numbers online, being wary and respectful of emails includingspam messages, being mindful of personal financial details, creating and managing strong passwords, and intelligent web-browsing behaviours are recommended, among others.[13]
Posting things on the Internet can be harmful or expose people to malicious attacks. Some information posted on the Internet persists for decades, depending on the terms of service, andprivacy policiesof particular services offered online. This can include comments written on blogs, pictures, and websites, such asFacebookandX (formerly Twitter). Once it is posted, anyone can potentially find it and access it. Some employers may research potential employees by searching online for the details of their online behaviors, possibly affecting the outcome of the success of the candidate.[14]
Since personalised advertisements are more efficient, and thus more profitable, than non-personalised ones, online advertising providers often collect (or facilitate the collection of) user data such as browsing and search history, shopping patterns and social media behaviour. This data can then be automatically processed to display ads more likely to be successful with the particular user they are being displayed to, as well as topersonalisecontent displayed to the user on social media sites. In 1998, theFederal Trade Commissionconsidered the lack of privacy for children on the Internet and created theChildren's Online Privacy Protection Act(COPPA), limiting options obtaining personal information of children and stipulating requirement forprivacy policies.
Apart from corporate data collection, on-line privacy threats also includecriminal and fraudulent activity. This category includes shortened links on many social media platforms leading to potentially harmful websites,scam e-mailsand e-mail attachments that persuade users to install malware or disclose personal information. Ononline piracysites, threats include malicious software being presented as legitimate content. When using a smartphone,geolocationdata may be compromised.[15]
In late 2007, Facebook launched theBeaconprogram in which user commercial activity was released to the public for friends to see. Beacon created considerable controversy soon after it was launched due to privacy concerns, and theLane v. Facebook, Inc.case ensued.[16]
The architecture of the Internet Protocol necessitates that a website receivesIPaddresses of its visitors, which can be tracked through time. Companies match data over time to associate the name, address, and other information to the IP address.[17]There are opposing views in different jurisdiction on whether an IP address is personal information. TheCourt of Justice of the European Unionhas ruled they need to be treated as personally identifiable information if the website tracking them, or a third party like a service provider knows the name or street address of the IP address holder, which would be true for static IP addresses, not for dynamic addresses.[18]
California regulations say IP addresses need to be treated as personal information if the business itself, not a third party, can link them to a name and street address.[18][19]
An Alberta court ruled that police can obtain the IP addresses and the names and addresses associated with them without a search warrant; the Calgary, Alberta police found IP addresses that initiated online crimes. The service provider gave police the names and addresses associated with those IP addresses.[20]
AnHTTP cookieis data stored on a user's computer that assists in automated access to websites or web features, or otherstateinformation required in complex websites. It may also be used for user-tracking by storing special usage history data in a cookie, and such cookies — for example, those used byGoogle Analytics— are calledtracking cookies. Cookies are a common concern in the field of Internet privacy. Although website developers most commonly use cookies for legitimate technical purposes, cases of abuse occur. In 2009, two researchers noted that social networking profiles could be connected to cookies, allowing the social networking profile to be connected to browsing habits.[21]
In the past, websites have not generally made the user explicitly aware of the storing of cookies, however, tracking cookies and especiallythird-party tracking cookiesare commonly used as ways to compile long-term records of individuals' browsing histories — a privacy concern that prompted European and US lawmakers to take action in 2011.[22][23]Cookies can also have implications forcomputer forensics. In past years, most computer users were not completely aware of cookies, but users have become conscious of the possible detrimental effects of Internet cookies: a recent study has shown that 58% of users have deleted cookies from their computer at least once, and that 39% of users delete cookies from their computer every month. Since cookies are advertisers' main way of targeting potential customers, and some customers are deleting cookies, some advertisers started to use persistentFlash cookiesandzombie cookies, but modern browsers and anti-malware software can now block or detect and remove such cookies.
The original developers of cookies intended that only the website that originally distributed cookies to users could retrieve them, therefore returning only data already possessed by the website. However, in practice, programmers can circumvent this restriction. Possible consequences include:
Cookies do have benefits. One is that for websites that one frequently visits that require a password, cookies may allow a user to not have to sign in every time. A cookie can also track one's preferences to show them websites that might interest them. Cookies make more websites free to use without any type of payment. Some of these benefits are also seen as negative. For example, one of the most common ways of theft is hackers taking one's username and password that a cookie saves. While many sites are free, they sell their space to advertisers. These ads, which are personalized to one's likes, can sometimes freeze one's computer or cause annoyance. Cookies are mostly harmless except for third-party cookies. These cookies are not made by the website itself but by web banner advertising companies. These third-party cookies are dangerous because they take the same information that regular cookies do, such as browsing habits and frequently visited websites, but then they share this information with other companies.
Cookies are often associated with pop-up windows because these windows are often, but not always, tailored to a person's preferences. These windows are an irritation because the close button may be strategically hidden in an unlikely part of the screen. In the worst cases, these pop-up ads can take over the screen and while one tries to close them, they can take one to another unwanted website.
Cookies are seen so negatively because they are not understood and go unnoticed while someone is simply surfing the Internet. The idea that every move one makes while on the Internet is being watched, would frighten most users.
Some users choose to disable cookies in their web browsers.[24]Such an action can reduce some privacy risks but may severely limit or prevent the functionality of many websites. All significant web browsers have this disabling ability built-in, with no external program required. As an alternative, users may frequently delete any stored cookies. Some browsers (such asMozilla FirefoxandOpera) offer the option to clear cookies automatically whenever the user closes the browser. A third option involves allowing cookies in general but preventing their abuse. There is also a host of wrapper applications that will redirect cookies andcachedata to some other location. Concerns exist that the privacy benefits of deleting cookies have been over-stated.[25]
The process ofprofiling(also known as "tracking") assembles and analyzes several events, each attributable to a single originating entity, in order to gain information (especially patterns of activity) relating to the originating entity. Some organizations engage in the profiling of people's web browsing, collecting theURLsof sites visited. The resulting profiles can potentially link with information that personally identifies the individual who did the browsing.
Some web-oriented marketing-research organizations may use this practice legitimately, for example: in order to construct profiles of "typical Internet users". Such profiles, which describe average trends of large groups of Internet users rather than of actual individuals, can then prove useful formarket analysis. Although the aggregate data does not constitute a privacy violation, some people believe that the initial profiling does.
Profiling becomes a more contentious privacy issue when data-matching associates the profile of an individual with personally-identifiable information of the individual. This is why Google, the dominant ad platform, that uses cookies to allow marketers to track people has announced plans to "kill the cookie."[26]
Governments and organizations may set uphoneypotwebsites – featuring controversial topics – to attract and track unwary people. This constitutes a potential danger for individuals.
When some users choose to disableHTTPcookies to reduce privacy risks as noted, new types of client-side storage were invented: since cookies are advertisers' main way of targeting potential customers, and some customers were deleting cookies, some advertisers started to use persistent Flash cookies andzombie cookies. In a 2009 study, Flash cookies were found to be a popular mechanism for storing data on the top 100 most visited sites.[27]Another 2011 study of social media found that, "Of the top 100 web sites, 31 had at least one overlap between HTTP and Flash cookies."[28]However, modern browsers and anti-malware software can now block or detect and remove such cookies.
Flash cookies, also known aslocal shared objects, work the same way as normal cookies and are used by theAdobe Flash Playerto store information on the user's computer. They exhibit a similar privacy risk as normal cookies, but are not as easily blocked, meaning that the option in most browsers to not accept cookies does not affect Flash cookies. One way to view and control them is with browser extensions or add-ons.
Flash cookies are unlike HTTP cookies in the sense that they are not transferred from the client back to the server. Web browsers read and write these cookies and can track any data by web usage.[29]
Although browsers such as Internet Explorer 8 and Firefox 3 have added a "Privacy Browsing" setting, they still allow Flash cookies to track the user and operate fully. However, the Flash player browser plugin can be disabled[30]or uninstalled,[31]andFlash cookies can be disabled on a per-site or global basis. Adobe's Flash and (PDF) Reader are not the only browser plugins whose pastsecuritydefects[32]have allowedspywareormalwareto be installed: there have also been problems with Oracle'sJava.[33]
Evercookie, created bySamy Kamkar,[34][35]is aJavaScript-based application which produces cookies in a web browser that actively "resist" deletion by redundantly copying themselves in different forms on the user's machine (e.g., Flash Local Shared Objects, variousHTML5storage mechanisms, window.name caching, etc.), and resurrecting copies that are missing or expired. Evercookie accomplishes this by storing the cookie data in several types of storage mechanisms that are available on the local browser. It has the ability to store cookies in over ten types of storage mechanisms so that once they are on one's computer they will never be gone. Additionally, if Evercookie has found the user has removed any of the types of cookies in question, it recreates them using each mechanism available.[36]Evercookies are a type of zombie cookie. However, modern browsers and anti-malware software can now block or detect and remove such cookies.
Someanti-fraudcompanies have realized the potential of Evercookies to protect against and catch cyber criminals. These companies already hide small files in several places on the perpetrator's computer but hackers can usually easily get rid of these. The advantage to Evercookies is that they resist deletion and can rebuild themselves.[37]
There is controversy over where the line should be drawn on the use of this technology. Cookies store unique identifiers on a person's computer that are used to predict what one wants. Many advertisement companies want to use this technology to track what their customers are looking at online. This is known as onlinebehavioural advertisingwhich allows advertisers to keep track of the consumer's website visits to personalize and target advertisements.[38]Ever-cookies enable advertisers to continue to track a customer regardless of whether their cookies are deleted or not. Some companies are already using this technology but the ethics are still being widely debated.
Anonymizer "nevercookies" are part of a freeFirefoxplugin that protects against Evercookies. This plugin extends Firefox'sprivate browsingmode so that users will be completely protected from ever-cookies.[39]Never-cookies eliminate the entire manual deletion process while keeping the cookies users want like browsing history and saved account information.
Adevice fingerprintis information collected about the software and hardware of a remote computing device to identify individual devices even whenpersistent cookies(and alsozombie cookies) cannot be read or stored in the browser, the clientIP addressis hidden, and even if one switches to another browser on the same device.
This may allow a service provider to detect and preventidentity theftandcredit card fraud, but also to compile long-term records of individuals' browsing histories even when they're attempting toavoid tracking, raising a major concern for Internet privacy advocates.
Third-Party Requests are HTTP data connections from client devices to addresses on the web which are different from the website the user is currently surfing. Many alternative tracking technologies to cookies are based on third-party requests. Their importance has increased during the last few years and even accelerated afterMozilla(2019),Apple(2020), andGoogle(2022) have announced to block third-party cookies by default.[52]Third requests may be used for embedding external content (e.g. advertisements) or for loading external resources and functions (e.g. images, icons, fonts, captchas,JQueryresources and many others). Depending on the type of resource loaded, such requests may enable third parties to execute a device fingerprint or place any other kind ofmarketing tag. Irrespective of the intention, such requests do often disclose information that may be sensitive, and they can be used for tracking either directly or in combination with otherpersonally identifiable information. Most of the requests disclose referrer details that reveal the full URL of the actually visited website. In addition to the referrer URL, further information may be transmitted by the use of otherrequest methodssuch asHTTP POST. Since 2018 Mozilla partially mitigates the risk of third-party requests by cutting the referrer information when using the private browsing mode.[53]However, personal information may still be revealed to the requested address in other areas of theHTTP-header.
Today, many people havedigital camerasand post their photographs online. For example,street photographypractitioners do so for artistic purposes andsocial documentary photographypractitioners do so to document people in everyday life. The people depicted in these photos might not want them to appear on the Internet. Police arrest photos, considered public record in many jurisdictions, are often posted on the Internet byonline mug shot publishing sites.
Some organizations attempt to respond to this privacy-related concern. For example, the 2005 Wiki mania conference required that photographers have the prior permission of the people in their pictures, albeit this made it impossible for photographers to practicecandid photography, and doing the same in a public place would violate the photographers'free speechrights. Some people wore a "no photos" tag to indicate they would prefer not to have their photo taken(see photo).[54]
TheHarvard Law Reviewpublished a short piece called "In The Face of Danger: Facial Recognition and Privacy Law", much of it explaining how "privacy law, in its current form, is of no help to those unwillingly tagged."[55]Any individual can be unwillingly tagged in a photo and displayed in a manner that might violate them personally in some way, and by the time Facebook gets to taking down the photo, many people will have already had the chance to view, share, or distribute it. Furthermore, traditional tort law does not protect people who are captured by a photograph in public because this is not counted as an invasion of privacy. The extensive Facebook privacy policy covers these concerns and much more. For example, the policy states that they reserve the right to disclose member information or share photos with companies, lawyers, courts, government entities, etc. if they feel it is absolutely necessary. The policy also informs users that profile pictures are mainly to help friends connect to each other.[56]However, these, as well as other pictures, can allow other people to invade a person's privacy by finding out information that can be used to track and locate a certain individual. In an article featured in ABC News, it was stated that two teams of scientists found out that Hollywood stars could be giving up information about their private whereabouts very easily through pictures uploaded to the Internet. Moreover, it was found that pictures taken by some phones and tablets, includingiPhones, automatically attach thelatitudeandlongitudeof the picture taken throughmetadataunless this function is manually disabled.[57]
Face recognitiontechnology can be used to gain access to a person's private data, according to a new study. Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University combined image scanning, cloud computing and public profiles from social networking sites to identify individuals in the offline world. Data captured even included a user's social security number.[58]Experts have warned of the privacy risks faced by the increased merging of online and offline identities. The researchers have also developed an 'augmented reality' mobile app that can display personal data over a person's image captured on a smartphone screen.[59]Since these technologies are widely available, users' future identities may become exposed to anyone with a smartphone and an Internet connection. Researchers believe this could force a reconsideration of future attitudes to privacy.
Google Street View, released in the U.S. in the 2000's, is currently the subject ofan ongoing debateabout possible infringement on individual privacy.[60][61]Researchers have argued that Google Street View "facilitate[s] identification and disclosure with more immediacy and less abstraction."[62]The medium through whichStreet Viewdisseminates information, the photograph, is very immediate in the sense that it can potentially provide direct information and evidence about a person's whereabouts, activities, and private property. Moreover, the technology's disclosure of information about a person is less abstract in the sense that, if photographed, a person is represented on Street View in a virtual replication of his or her own real-life appearance. In other words, the technology removes abstractions of a person's appearance or that of his or her personal belongings – there is an immediate disclosure of the person and object, as they visually exist in real life. Although Street View began to blur license plates and people's faces in 2008,[60]the technology is faulty and does not entirely ensure against accidental disclosure of identity and private property.[61]
The researchers note that "many of the concerns leveled at Street View stem from situations where its photograph-like images were treated as definitive evidence of an individual's involvement in particular activities."[62]In one instance,a Swiss politician, barely avoided public scandal when he was photographed in 2009 on Google Street View walking with a woman who was not his wife – the woman was actually his secretary.[60]Similar situations occur when Street View provides high-resolution photographs – and photographs hypothetically offer compelling objective evidence.[62]But as the case of the Swiss politician illustrates, even supposedly compelling photographic evidence is sometimes subject to gross misinterpretation. This example further suggests that Google Street View may provide opportunities for privacy infringement and harassment through public dissemination of the photographs. Google Street View does, however, blur or remove photographs of individuals and private property from image frames if the individuals request further blurring and/or removal of the images. This request can be submitted for review through the "report a problem" button that is located on the bottom left-hand side of every image window on Google Street View; however, Google has made attempts to report a problem difficult by disabling the "Why are you reporting the street view" icon.
Search engines have the ability to track a user's searches. Personal information can be revealed through searches by the user's computer, account, or IP address being linked to the search terms used. Search engines have claimed a necessity toretain such informationin order to provide better services, protect against security pressure, and protect against fraud.[63]A search engine takes all of its users and assigns each one a specific ID number. Search engines often keep records of users' Internet activity and sites visited.AOL's system is one example. AOL has a database of 21 million members, each with their own specific ID number. The way that AOL's search engine is set up, however, allows for AOL to keep records of all the websites visited by any given member. Even though the true identity of the user is not known, a full profile of a member can be made just by using the information stored by from search history. By keeping records of what people query through AOL Search, the company is able to learn a great deal about them without knowing their names.[64]
Search engines also are able to retain user information, such as location and time spent using the search engine, for up to ninety days. Most search engine operators use the data to get a sense of which needs must be met in certain areas of their field. People working in the legal field are also allowed to use information collected from these search engine websites. TheGoogle search engineis given as an example of a search engine that retains the information entered for a period of three-fourths of a year before it becomes obsolete for public usage.Yahoo! follows in the footsteps of Google in the sense that it also deletes user information after a period of ninety days. Other search engines such as Ask! search engine have promoted a tool of "AskEraser" which essentially takes away personal information when requested.[65]Some changes made to Internet search engines included that of Google's search engine. Beginning in 2009, Google began to run a new system where the Google search became personalized. The item that is searched and the results that are shown remember previous information that pertains to the individual.[66]Google search engine not only seeks what is searched but also strives to allow the user to feel like the search engine recognizes their interests. This is achieved by using online advertising.[67]A system that Google uses to filter advertisements and search results that might interest the user is by having a ranking system that tests relevancy that includes observation of the behavior users exude while searching on Google. Another function of search engines is the predictability of location. Search engines are able to predict where one's location is currently by locating IP Addresses and geographical locations.[68]
Google had publicly stated on January 24, 2012, that its privacy policy would once again be altered. This new policy would change the following for its users: (1) the privacy policy would become shorter and easier to comprehend and (2) the information that users provide would be used in more ways than it is presently being used. The goal of Google is to make users' experiences better than they currently are.[69]
This new privacy policy came into effect on March 1, 2012. Peter Fleischer, the Global Privacy Counselor for Google, has explained that if a person is logged into his/her Google account, and only if he/she is logged in, information will be gathered from multiple Google services in which he/she has used in order to be more accommodating. Google's new privacy policy will combine all data used on Google's search engines (i.e.,YouTubeandGmail) in order to work along the lines of a person's interests. A person, in effect, will be able to find what he/she wants at a more efficient rate because all searched information during times of login will help to narrow down new search results.[70]
Google's privacy policy explains what information they collect and why they collect it, how they use the information, and how to access and update information. Google will collect information to better service its users such as their language, which ads they find useful, or people that are important to them online. Google announces they will use this information to provide, maintain and protect Google and its users. The information Google uses will give users more relevant search results and advertisements. The new privacy policy explains that Google can use shared information on one service in other Google services from people who have a Google account and are logged in. Google will treat a user as a single user across all of their products. Google claims the new privacy policy will benefit its users by being simpler. Google will, for example, be able to correct the spelling of a user's friend's name in a Google search or notify a user they are late based on their calendar and current location. Even though Google updated its privacy policy, its core privacy guidelines did not change. For example, Google still does not sell personal information or share it externally.[71]
Users and public officials have raised many concerns regarding Google's new privacy policy. The main concern/issue involves the sharing of data from multiple sources. Because this policy gathers all information and data searched from multiple engines when logged into Google, and uses it to help assist users, privacy becomes an important element. Public officials and Google account users are worried about online safety because of all this information being gathered from multiple sources.[72]
Some users do not like the overlapping privacy policy, wishing to keep the service of Google separate. The update to Google's privacy policy has alarmed both public and private sectors. TheEuropean Unionhas asked Google to delay the onset of the new privacy policy in order to ensure that it does not violate E.U. law. This move is in accordance with objections to decreasing online privacy raised in other foreign nations where surveillance is more heavily scrutinized.[73]Canada and Germany have both held investigations into the legality of both Facebook, against respective privacy acts, in 2010. The new privacy policy only heightens unresolved concerns regarding user privacy.[74][75]
An additional feature of concern to the new Google privacy policy is the nature of the policy. One must accept the policy or delete existing Google accounts.[76]Customizing the privacy settings of a social network is a key tactic that many feel is necessary for social networking sites. Additionally, some fear the sharing of data amongst Google services could lead to revelations of identities. Many using pseudonyms are concerned about this possibility, and defend the role of pseudonyms in literature and history.[77]
Some solutions to being able to protect user privacy on the Internet can include programs such as "Rapleaf" which is a website that has a search engine that allows users to make all of one's search information and personal information private. Other websites that also give this option to their users are Facebook andAmazon.[78]
Search engines such asStartpage.com,Disconnect.meandScroogle(defunct since 2012) anonymize Google searches. The following are some of the more notable privacy-focused search engines:
SearXNG
free and open-source internet metasearch engine which aggregates results from up to 243 search services. Users are neither tracked nor profiled. Additionally, it can be used over Tor for online anonymity.[80]
The advent of theWeb 2.0has caused social profiling and is a growing concern for Internet privacy. Web 2.0 is the system that facilitates participatory information sharing and collaboration on the Internet, insocial networkingmedia websites likeFacebook,Instagram,X (formerly Twitter), andMySpace. These social networking sites have seen a boom in their popularity starting from the late 2000s. Through these websites, many people are giving their personal information out on the Internet.
Accountability for the collection and distribution of personal information has been a subject of ongoing discussion. Social networks have been held responsible for storing theinformation and data, while users who provide their information on these sites are also seen as liable by some. This relates to the ever-present issue of how society regards social media sites. An increasing number of individuals are becoming aware of the potential risks associated with sharing personal information online and placing trust in websites to maintain privacy. In a 2012 study, researchers found that young people are taking measures to keep their posted information on Facebook private to some degree. Examples of such actions include managing their privacy settings so that certain content can be visible to "Only Friends" and ignoring Facebook friend requests from strangers.[82]
In 2013 a class action lawsuit was filed against Facebook alleging the company scanned user messages for web links, translating them to “likes” on the user's Facebook profile. Data lifted from the private messages was then used fortargeted advertising, the plaintiffs claimed."Facebook's practice of scanning the content of these messages violates the federalElectronic Communications Privacy Act(ECPA also referred to as the Wiretap Act), as well as California's Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), and section 17200 of California's Business and Professions Code," the plaintiffs said.[83]This shows that once information is online it is no longer completely private. It is an increasing risk because younger people have easier Internet access than ever before, therefore they put themselves in a position where it is all too easy for them to upload information, but they may not have the caution to consider how difficult it can be to take that information down once it has been out in the open. This is becoming a bigger issue now that so much of society interacts online which was not the case fifteen years ago. In addition, because of the quickly evolving digital media arena, people's interpretation of privacy is evolving as well, and it is important to consider that when interacting online. New forms of social networking and digital media such asInstagramandSnapchatmay call for new guidelines regarding privacy. What makes this difficult is the wide range of opinions surrounding the topic, so it is left mainly up to individual judgment to respect other people's online privacy in some circumstances.
With the rise of technology-focused applications, there has been a rise of medical apps available to users on smart devices. In a survey of 29 migraine-management-specific applications, researcher Mia T. Minen (et al.) discovered 76% had clear privacy policies, with 55% of the apps stated using the user data from these giving data to third parties for the use of advertising.[84]The concerns raised discusses the applications without accessible privacy policies, and even more so - applications that are not properly adhering to theHealth Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)are in need of proper regulation, as these apps store medical data with identifiable information on a user.
Internet users obtain Internet access through anInternet service provider(ISP). All data transmitted to and from users must pass through the ISP. Thus, an ISP has the potential to observe users' activities on the Internet. ISPs can breach personal information such as transaction history, search history, and social media profiles of users. Hackers could use this opportunity to hack ISPs and obtain sensitive information of victims. However, ISPs are usually prohibited from participating in such activities due to legal, ethical, business, or technical reasons.
Normally ISPs do collect at leastsomeinformation about the consumers using their services. From a privacy standpoint, ISPs would ideally collect only as much information as they require in order to provide Internet connectivity (IP address, billing information if applicable, etc.).
Which information an ISP collects, what it does with that information, and whether it informs its consumers, pose significant privacy issues. Beyond the usage of collected information typical of third parties, ISPs sometimes state that they will make their information available to government authorities upon request. In the US and other countries, such a request does not necessarily require a warrant.
An ISP cannot know the contents of properly encrypted data passing between its consumers and the Internet. For encryptingwebtraffic,httpshas become the most popular and best-supported standard. Even if users encrypt the data, the ISP still knows the IP addresses of the sender and the recipient. (However, see theIP addressessection for workarounds.)
Ananonymizersuch asI2P – The Anonymous NetworkorTorcan be used for accessing web services without them knowing one's IP address and without one's ISP knowing what the services are that one accesses. Additional software has been developed that may provide more secure and anonymous alternatives to other applications. For example,Bitmessagecan be used as an alternative for email andCryptocatas an alternative for online chat. On the other hand, in addition to End-to-End encryption software, there are web services such as Qlink[85]which provide privacy through a novel security protocol which does not require installing any software.
While signing up for Internet services, each computer contains a unique IP and Internet Protocol address. This particular address will not give away private or personal information, however, a weak link could potentially reveal information from one's ISP.[86]
General concerns regarding Internet user privacy have become enough of a concern for a UN agency to issue a report on the dangers of identity fraud.[87]In 2007, theCouncil of Europeheld its first annual Data Protection Day on January 28, which has since evolved into the annualData Privacy Day.[88]
T-Mobile USAdoes not store any information onweb browsing.Verizon Wirelesskeeps a record of the websites a subscriber visits for up to a year.Virgin Mobilekeepstext messagesfor three months. Verizon keeps text messages for three to five days. None of the other carriers keep specific messages at all, but they keep a record of who texted who for over a year.AT&T Mobilitykeeps for five to seven years a record of who texts who and the date and time, but not the content of the messages. Virgin Mobile keeps that data for two to three months.[89][needs update]
HTML5is the latest version ofHypertext Markup Languagespecification. HTML defines how user agents, such as web browsers, are to present websites based on their underlying code. This new web standard changes the way that users are affected by the Internet and their privacy on the Internet. HTML5 expands the number of methods given to a website to store information locally on a client as well as the amount of data that can be stored. As such, privacy risks are increased. For instance, merely erasing cookies may not be enough to remove potential tracking methods since data could be mirrored inweb storage, another means of keeping information in a user's web browser.[90]There are so many sources of data storage that it is challenging for web browsers to present sensible privacy settings. As the power of web standards increases, so do potential misuses.[91]
HTML5 also expands access to user media, potentially grantingaccess to a computer's microphoneor webcam, a capability previously only possible through the use of plug-ins likeFlash.[92]It is also possible to find a user's geographical location using thegeolocation API. With this expanded access comes increased potential for abuse as well as more vectors for attackers.[93]If a malicious site was able to gain access to a user's media, it could potentially use recordings to uncover sensitive information thought to be unexposed. However, theWorld Wide Web Consortium, responsible for many web standards, feels that the increased capabilities of the web platform outweigh potential privacy concerns.[94]They state that by documenting new capabilities in an open standardization process, rather than through closed source plug-ins made by companies, it is easier to spot flaws in specifications and cultivate expert advice.
Besides elevating privacy concerns, HTML5 also adds a few tools to enhance user privacy. A mechanism is defined whereby user agents can share blacklists of domains that should not be allowed to access web storage.[90]Content Security Policyis a proposed standard whereby sites may assign privileges to different domains, enforcing harsh limitations on JavaScript use to mitigatecross-site scriptingattacks. HTML5 also adds HTML templating and a standard HTML parser which replaces the various parsers of web browser vendors. These new features formalize previously inconsistent implementations, reducing the number of vulnerabilities though not eliminating them entirely.[95][96]
Embeddedmetadatain files uploaded to the internet can divulge privacy compromising data. For example, most digital cameras and smartphones automatically embed image metadata, such asExif, which includes the geographical location where the photo has been taken. If the photo has been taken at the photographer's house, his address and identity could be revealed.
This problem can be mitigated by removing metadata from files before uploading them to the internet using ametadata removal tool.
Big datais generally defined as the rapid accumulation and compiling of massive amounts of information that is being exchanged over digital communication systems. The volume of data is large (often exceedingexabytes), cannot be handled by conventional computer processors, and is instead stored on large server-system databases. This information is assessed by analytic scientists using software programs, which paraphrase this information into multi-layered user trends and demographics. This information is collected from all around the Internet, such as by popular services like Facebook,Google,Apple,SpotifyorGPSsystems.
Big data provides companies with the ability to:
Journalists have reported that the Internet's biggest corporations have hoarded Internet users' personal data to use it and sell it for large financial profits at the users' expense.[107]Academics have called this practice informational exploitation.[108]
The magazine reports on a band of startup companies that are demanding privacy and aiming to overhaul the social media business. Popular privacy-focused mobile messaging apps includeWickr,Wire, andSignal, which providepeer-to-peerencryption and give the user the capacity to control what message information is retained on the other end.[109]
The most advanced protection tools are or includeFirefox's tracking protection and thebrowser add-onsuBlock OriginandPrivacy Badger.[51][110][111]
Moreover, they may include the browser add-onNoScript, the use of an alternative search engine likeDuckDuckGoand the use of aVPN. However, VPNs cost money and as of 2023 NoScript may "make general web browsing a pain".[111]
On mobile, the most advanced method may be the use of themobile browserFirefox Focus, which mitigates web tracking on mobile to a large extent, including Total Cookie Protection and similar to the private mode in the conventional Firefox browser.[112][113][114]
Users can also control third-party web tracking to some extent by other means. Opt-out cookies let users block websites from installing future cookies. Websites may be blocked from installing third-party advertisers or cookies on a browser, which will prevent tracking on the user's page.[115]Do Not Trackis a web browser setting that can request a web application to disable the tracking of a user. Enabling this feature will send a request to the website users are on to voluntarily disable their cross-site user tracking.
Contrary to popular belief, browserprivacy modedoes not prevent (all) tracking attempts because it usually only blocks the storage of information on the visitor site (cookies). It does not help, however, against the variousfingerprintingmethods. Such fingerprints can bede-anonymized.[116]When using a privacy mode, one may not stay logged into a website, and preferences may be lost, because the cookies storing those preferences are deleted by the browser automatically.
Someweb browsersuse "tracking protection" or "tracking prevention" features to block web trackers.[117]The teams behind theNoScriptanduBlockadd-ons have assisted with developingFirefox'sSmartBlock capabilities.[118]
Search Engines
According to Nicklas Lundblad, another perspective on privacy protection is the assumption that the quickly growing amount of information produced will be beneficial. The reasons for this are that the costs for the surveillance will rise and that there is more noise, noise being understood as anything that interferes with the process of a receiver trying to extract private data from a sender.
In this noise society, the collective expectation of privacy will increase, but the individual expectation of privacy will decrease. In other words, not everyone can be analyzed in detail, but one individual can be. Also, in order to stay unobserved, it can hence be better to blend in with the others than trying to use for example encryption technologies and similar methods. Technologies for this can be called Jante-technologies after theLaw of Jante, which states that you are nobody special. This view offers new challenges and perspectives for the privacy discussion.[120]
While Internet privacy is widely acknowledged as the top consideration in any online interaction,[121]as evidenced by the public outcry overSOPA/CISPA, public understanding of online privacy policies is actually being negatively affected by the current trends regarding online privacy statements.[122]Users have a tendency to skim Internet privacy policies for information regarding the distribution of personal information only, and the more legalistic the policies appear, the less likely users are to even read the information.[123]Coupling this with the increasingly exhaustive license agreements companies require consumers agree with before using their product, consumers are reading less about their rights.
Furthermore, if the user has already done business with a company, or is previously familiar with a product, they tend to not read the privacy policies that the company has posted.[123]As Internet companies become more established, their policies may change, but their clients will be less likely to inform themselves of the change.[121]This tendency is interesting because as consumers become more acquainted with the Internet they are also more likely to be interested in online privacy. Finally, consumers have been found to avoid reading the privacy policies if the policies are not in a simple format, and even perceive these policies to be irrelevant.[123]The less readily available terms and conditions are, the less likely the public is to inform themselves of their rights regarding the service they are using.
While dealing with the issue of Internet privacy, one must first be concerned with not only the technological implications such as damaged property, corrupted files, and the like, but also with the potential for implications on their real lives. One such implication, which is rather commonly viewed as being one of the most daunting fears and risks of the Internet, is the potential for identity theft. Although it is a typical belief that larger companies and enterprises are the usual focus of identity thefts, rather than individuals, recent reports seem to show a trend opposing this belief. Specifically, it was found in a 2007 "Internet Security Threat Report" that roughly ninety-three percent of "gateway" attacks were targeted at unprepared home users. The term "gateway attack" was used to refer to an attack which aimed not at stealing data immediately, but rather at gaining access for future attacks.[124]
According toSymantec's "Internet Security Threat Report", this continues despite the increasing emphasis on Internet security due to the expanding "underground economy". With more than fifty percent of the supporting servers located in the United States, this underground economy has become a haven for Internet thieves, who use the system in order to sell stolen information. These pieces of information can range from generic things such as a user account or email to something as personal as a bank account number andPIN.[124]
While the processes these Internet thieves use are abundant and unique, one popular trap people fall into is that of online purchasing. In a 2001 article titled "Consumer Watch", the popular online site PC World went called secure e-shopping a myth. Though unlike the gateway attacks mentioned above, these incidents of information being stolen through online purchases generally are more prevalent in medium to large e-commerce sites, rather than smaller individualized sites. This is assumed to be a result of the larger consumer population and purchases, which allow for more potential leeway with information.[125]
Ultimately, however, the potential for a violation of one's privacy is typically out of their hands after purchasing from an online retailer or store. One of the most common forms in which hackers receive private information from online retailers actually comes from an attack placed upon the site's servers responsible for maintaining information about previous transactions. As experts explain, these retailers are not doing nearly enough to maintain or improve their security measures. Even those sites that clearly present a privacy or security policy can be subject to hackers' havoc as most policies only rely upon encryption technology which only applies to the actual transfer of a customer's data. However, with this being said, most retailers have been making improvements, going as far as covering some of the credit card fees if the information's abuse can be traced back to the site's servers.[125]
As one of the largest growing concerns American adults have of current Internet privacy policies, identity and credit theft remain a constant figure in the debate surrounding privacy online. A 1997 study by theBoston Consulting Groupshowed that participants of the study were most concerned about their privacy on the Internet compared to any other media.[126]However, it is important to recall that these issues are not the only prevalent concerns society has. Another prevalent issue remains members of society sending disconcerting emails to one another. It is for this reason in 2001 that for one of the first times the public expressed approval of government intervention in their private lives.[127]
With the overall public anxiety regarding the constantly expanding trend of online crimes, in 2001 roughly fifty-four percent of Americans polled showed a general approval for theFBImonitoring those emails deemed suspicious. Thus, it was born the idea for the FBI program: "Carnivore", which was going to be used as a searching method, allowing the FBI to hopefully home in on potential criminals. Unlike the overall approval of the FBI's intervention, Carnivore was not met with as much of a majority's approval. Rather, the public seemed to be divided with forty-five percent siding in its favor, forty-five percent opposed to the idea for its ability to potentially interfere with ordinary citizen's messages, and ten percent claiming indifference. While this may seem slightly tangent to the topic of Internet privacy, it is important to consider that at the time of this poll, the general population's approval of government actions was declining, reaching thirty-one percent versus the forty-one percent it held a decade prior. This figure in collaboration with the majority's approval of FBI intervention demonstrates an emerging emphasis on the issue of Internet privacy in society and more importantly, the potential implications it may hold on citizens' lives.[127]
Online users must seek to protect the information they share with online websites, specifically social media. In today'sWeb 2.0individuals have become the public producers of personal information.[128]Users create their own "digital trails" that hackers and companies alike capture and utilize for a variety of marketing and advertisement targeting. A recent paper from theRand Corporationclaims "privacy is not the opposite of sharing – rather, it is control over sharing."[128]Internet privacy concerns arise from the surrender of personal information to engage in a variety of acts, from transactions to commenting in online forums. Protection against invasions of online privacy will require individuals to make an effort to inform and protect themselves via existing software solutions, to pay premiums for such protections or require individuals to place greater pressure on governing institutions to enforce privacy laws and regulations regarding consumer and personal information.
Internet privacy issues also affect existing class distinctions in the United States, often disproportionately impacting historically marginalized groups typically classified by race and class. Individuals with access to private digital connections that have protective services are able to more easily prevent data privacy risks of personal information and surveillance issues. Members of historically marginalized communities face greater risks of surveillance through the process of data profiling, which increases the likelihood of being stereotyped, targeted, and exploited, thus exacerbating pre-existing inequities that foster uneven playing fields.[129]There are severe, and often unintentional, implications for big data which results in data profiling. For example, automated systems of employment verification run by the federal government such asE-verifytend to misidentify people with names that do not adhere to standardized Caucasian-sounding names as ineligible to work in the United States, thus widening unemployment gaps and preventing social mobility.[130]This case exemplifies how some programs have bias embedded within their codes.
Tools using algorithms and artificial intelligence have also been used to target marginalized communities with policing measures,[131]such as using facial recognition software and predictive policing technologies that use data to predict where a crime will most likely occur, and who will engage in the criminal activity. Studies have shown that these tools exacerbate the existing issue of over-policing in areas that are predominantly home to marginalized groups. These tools and other means of data collection can also prohibit historically marginalized and low-income groups from financial services regulated by the state, such as securing loans for house mortgages. Black applicants are rejected by mortgage and mortgage refinancing services at a much higher rate than white people, exacerbating existing racial divisions.[132]Members of minority groups have lower incomes and lower credit scores than white people, and often live in areas with lower home values. Another example of technologies being used for surveilling practices is seen in immigration. Border control systems often useartificial intelligenceinfacial recognition systems,fingerprint scans, ground sensors, aerial video surveillance machines, and decision-making in asylum determination processes.[131][133]This has led to large-scale data storage and physical tracking of refugees and migrants.
While broadband was implemented as a means to transform the relationship between historically marginalized communities and technology to ultimately narrow the digital inequalities, inadequate privacy protections compromise user rights, profile users, and spur skepticism towards technology among users. Some automated systems, like the United Kingdom government'sUniversal Credit systemin 2013, have failed[131]to take into account that people, often minorities, may already lack Internet access or digital literacy skills and therefore be deemed ineligible for online identity verification requirements, such as forms for job applications or to receive social security benefits, for example. Marginalized communities using broadband services may also not be aware of how digital information flows and is shared with powerful media conglomerates, reflecting a broader sense of distrust and fear these communities have with the state. Marginalized communities may therefore end up feeling dissatisfied or targeted by broadband services, whether from nonprofit community service providers or state providers.
TheGeneral Data Protection Regulation(GDPR) is the toughest privacy and security law in the world. Though it was drafted and passed by the European Union (EU), it imposes obligations onto organizations anywhere, so long as they target or collect data related to people in the EU. There are no globally unified laws and regulations.
In 2009 theEuropean Unionhad for the first time created awareness for tracking practices when the ePrivacy-Directive (2009/136/EC) was put in force.[134]In order to comply with this directive, websites had to actively inform the visitor about the use of cookies. This disclosure has been typically implemented by showing small information banners. Nine years later, by 25 May 2018 the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into force,[135]which aims to regulate and restrict the usage of personal data in general, irrespective of how the information is being processed.[136]The regulation primarily applies to so-called “controllers”, which are (a) all organizations that process personal information within the European Union, and (b) all organizations which process personal information of EU-based persons outside the European Union. Article 4 (1) defines personal information as anything that may be used for identifying a “data subject” (e.g. natural person) either directly or in combination with other personal information. In theory, this even takes common Internet identifiers such as cookies or IP Addresses in the scope of this regulation. Processing such personal information is restricted unless a "lawful reason" according to Article 6 (1) applies. The most important lawful reason for data processing on the Internet is the explicit consent given by the data subject. More strict requirements apply for sensitive personal information (Art 9), which may be used for revealing information about ethnic origin, political opinion, religion, trade union membership, biometrics, health or sexual orientation. However, explicit user content still is sufficient to process such sensitive personal information (Art 9 (2) lit a). “Explicit consent” requires an affirmative act (Art 4 (11)), which is given if the individual person is able to freely choose and does consequently actively opt-in.
As of June 2020, typical cookie implementations are not compliant with this regulation, and other practices such asdevice fingerprinting, cross-website-logins[137]or 3rd-party requests are typically not disclosed, even though many opinions consider such methods in the scope of the GDPR.[138]The reason for this controversy is the ePrivacy-Directive 2009/136/EC[134]which is still unchanged in force. An updated version of this directive, formulated asePrivacy Regulation, shall enlarge the scope from cookies only to any type of tracking method. It shall furthermore cover any kind of electronic communication channels such asSkypeorWhatsApp. The new ePrivacy-Regulation was planned to come into force alongside the GDPR, but as of July 2020, it was still under review. Some people assume that lobbying is the reason for this massive delay.[139]
Irrespective of the pending ePrivacy-Regulation, the European High Court decided in October 2019 (case C-673/17[140]) that the current law is not fulfilled if the disclosed information in the cookie disclaimer is imprecise, or if the consent checkbox is pre-checked. Consequently, many cookie disclaimers that were in use at that time were confirmed to be incompliant with the current data protection laws. However, even this high court judgment only refers to cookies and not to other tracking methods.
One of the most popular topics of discussion regarding Internet privacy is China. Although China is known for its remarkable reputation for maintaining Internet privacy among many online users,[141]it could potentially be a major jeopardy to the lives of many online users who have their information exchanged on the web regularly. For instance, in China, there is a new software that will enable the concept of surveillance among the majority of online users and present a risk to their privacy.[142]The main concern with privacy of Internet users in China is the lack thereof. China has a well-known policy of censorship when it comes to the spread of information through public media channels.Censorshiphas been prominent inMainland Chinasince thecommunist partygained power in China over 60 years ago. With the development of the Internet, however, privacy became more of a problem for the government. The Chinese Government has been accused of actively limiting and editing the information that flows into the country via various media. The Internet poses a particular set of issues for this type of censorship, especially when search engines are involved. Yahoo! for example, encountered a problem after entering China in the mid-2000s. A Chinese journalist, who was also a Yahoo! user, sent private emails using the Yahoo! server regarding the Chinese government. Yahoo! provided information to the Chinese government officials to track down journalistShi Tao. Shi Tao allegedly posted state secrets to a New York-based website. Yahoo provided incriminating records of the journalist's account logins to the Chinese government and Shi Tao was sentenced to ten years in prison.[143]These types of occurrences have been reported numerous times and have been criticized by foreign entities such as the creators of theTor network, which was designed to circumvent network surveillance in multiple countries.
There have been reports that personal information has been sold. For example, students preparing for exams would receive calls from unknown numbers selling school supplies.[144]
The 2021Data Security Lawclassifies data into different categories and establishes corresponding levels of protection.[145]: 131It imposes significant data localization requirements, in a response to the extraterritorial reach of the United StatesCLOUD Actor similar foreign laws.[145]: 250–251
The 2021Personal Information Protection Lawis China's first comprehensive law on personal data rights and is modeled after the European Union'sGeneral Data Protection Regulation.[145]: 131
On 11 May 1973 Sweden enacted theData Act− the world's first national data protection law.[146][147]In 2012, Sweden received a Web Index Score of 100, a score that measures how the Internet significantly influences political, social, and economic impact, placing them first among 61 other nations. Sweden received this score while exceeding new mandatory implementations from the European Union. Sweden placed more restrictive guidelines on the directive on intellectual property rights enforcement (IPRED) and passed the Forsvarets Radio Anstalt (FRA) law in 2009 under theNational Defense Radio Establishment. The law allowed for the legal sanctioning of surveillance of Internet traffic by state authorities and allowed authorities to monitor all cross-border communication without a warrant
The FRA has a history of intercepting radio signals and has stood as the main intelligence agency in Sweden since 1942. Sweden has a mixture of the government's strong push towards implementing policy and citizens' continued perception of a free and neutral Internet. Both of the previously mentioned additions created controversy among critics but they did not change the public perception despite the new FRA law being litigated in front of theEuropean Court of Human Rightsfor human rights violations.
Sweden's recent emergence into Internet dominance may be explained by its recent climb in users. Only 2% of all Swedes were connected to the Internet in 1995 but at last count in 2012, 89% had broadband access. This was due in large part once again to the active Swedish government introducing regulatory provisions to promote competition among Internet service providers. These regulations helped grow web infrastructure and forced prices below the European average.
Sweden was the birthplace of the Pirate Bay, an infamous file-sharing website. File sharing has been illegal in Sweden since it was developed, however, there was never any real fear of being persecuted for the crime until 2009 when the Swedish Parliament was the first in the European Union to pass the intellectual property rights directive. This directive persuaded Internet service providers to announce the identity of suspected violators.[citation needed]
Sweden also uses an infamous centralized block list. The list is generated by authorities and was originally crafted to eliminate sites hosting child pornography. However, there is no legal way to appeal a site that ends up on the list and as a result, many non-child pornography sites have been blacklisted. Sweden's government enjoys a high level of trust from its citizens. Without this trust, many of these regulations would not be possible and thus many of these regulations may only be feasible in the Swedish context.[148]
Andrew Grove, co-founder and former CEO ofIntel Corporation, offered his thoughts on Internet privacy in an interview published in May 2000:[149]
Privacy is one of the biggest problems in this new electronic age. At the heart of the Internet culture is a force that wants to find out everything about you. And once it has found out everything about you and two hundred million others, that's a very valuable asset, and people will be tempted to trade and do commerce with that asset. This wasn't the information that people were thinking of when they called this the information age.
More than two decades later,Susan Ariel Aaronson, director of the Digital Trade and Data Governance Hub atGeorge Washington Universityobserved that, "The American public simply isn't demanding a privacy law... They want free more than they want privacy."[150]
With theRepublicansin control of all three branches of the U.S. government,lobbyistsfor Internet service providers (ISPs) and tech firms persuaded lawmakers to dismantle regulations to protect privacy which had been made during theObama administration. These FCC rules had required ISPs to get "explicit consent" before gathering and selling their private Internet information, such as the consumers' browsing histories, locations of businesses visited and applications used.[151]Trade groups wanted to be able to sell this information for profit.[151]Lobbyists persuaded Republican senatorJeff Flakeand Republican representativeMarsha Blackburnto sponsor legislation to dismantle Internet privacy rules; Flake received $22,700 in donations and Blackburn received $20,500 in donations from these trade groups.[151]On March 23, 2017, abolition of these privacy protections passed on a narrow party-line vote.[151]In June 2018, California passed the law restricting companies from sharinguser datawithout permission. Also, users would be informed to whom the data is being sold and why. On refusal to sell the data, companies are allowed to charge a little higher to these consumers.[152][153][154]
Used by government agencies are array of technologies designed to track and gather Internet users' information are the topic of much debate between privacy advocates,civil libertiesadvocates and those who believe such measures are necessary for law enforcement to keep pace with rapidly changing communications technology.
Specific examples:
Internet privacy is a growing concern with children and the content they are able to view. Aside from that, many concerns for the privacy ofemail, the vulnerability of internet users to have their internet usage tracked, and the collection of personal information also exist. These concerns have begun to bring the issues of Internet privacy before the courts and judges.[157]In recent years, there is a growing concern for children's privacy and the commercial use of their data. In addition, the use of their personal data to persuade and influence their behavior has also come under scrutiny.[158]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_privacy
|
Internet safety, also known asonline safety,cyber safetyandelectronic safety(e-safety), refers to the policies, practices and processes that reduce the harm to people that are enabled by the (mis)use of information technology.
As the number of internet users continues to grow worldwide,[1]Internet, governments, and organizations have expressed concerns about the safety of children, teenagers and the elderly using the Internet. Over 45% have announced they have endured some sort ofcyber-harassment. Safer Internet Day is celebrated worldwide in February to raise awareness about internet safety.[2]In theUKthe Get Safe Online campaign has received sponsorship from government agencySerious Organized Crime Agency (SOCA)and major Internet companies such asMicrosoftandeBay.[3]
Online safety is necessary and validated as many businesses have been faced with excesses of attacks on the internet which has resulted in losing one’s life on the part of the victims, committing suicide, or psychological disorderliness.Cyberattacksonbusinessesandorganizationsare becoming a growingtrend, andAfricais not exempted. The productivity, income, and client trust of organizations are all negatively impacted, not to mention the customers' security.[4]
Sensitive information such aspersonal information and identity, and passwords are often associated with personal property and privacy and may present security concerns if leaked. Unauthorised access and safe of private information may result in consequences such asidentity theft, as bilk as their of property. Commons cause ofinformation securitybreaches include:
Phishingis a type of scam where the scammers disguise themselves as a trustworthy source in an attempt to obtain private information such as passwords, credit card information, etc. through the internet. These fake websites are often designed to look identical to their legitimate counterparts to avoid suspicion from the user.[5]Normally, hackers will send third-party email to target requesting personal information, and they will use this as an entry point to implement attack.[6]
Malware, particularlyspyware, ismalicious softwaredesigned to collect and transmit private information, such as passwords, without the user's consent or knowledge. They are often distributed through e-mail, software, and files from unofficial locations. Malware is one of the most prevalent security concerns as often it is impossible to determine whether a file is infected, regardless of the source of the file.
The growth of the internet gave rise to many important services accessible to anyone with a connection. One of these important services isdigital communication. While this service allowed communication with others through the internet, this also allowed communication with malicious users. While malicious users often use the internet for personal gain, this may not be limited to financial/material gain. This is especially a concern to parents and children, as children are targets of these malicious users. Common threats to personal safety include phishing, internet scams, malware, cyberstalking, cyberbullying, online predators, and sextortion.
Cyberstalkingis the use of theinternetor other electronic means tostalkorharassan individual, group, or organization.[7]It may includefalse accusations,defamation,slanderandlibel. It may also include monitoring,identity theft, threats, vandalism, solicitation for sex, orgathering informationthat may be used to threaten, embarrass or harass. Cyberstalking is a crime in which someone harasses or stalks a victim using electronic or digital means, such as social media, email, instant messaging (IM), or messages posted to a discussion group or forum. ... The terms cyberstalking and cyberbullying are often used interchangeably.
Cyberbullyingis the use of electronic means such as instant messaging, social media, e-mail and other forms of online communication with the intent to abuse, intimidate, or overpower an individual or group. Over the past decade, cyberbullying has been identified as a significant problem for youth.[8][9]In a 2012 study of over 11,925 students in the United States, it was indicated that 23% of adolescents reported being a victim of cyberbullying, 30% of which reported experiencing suicidal behavior.[10][11]TheAustralian eSafety Commissioner'swebsite reports that 44% of young Australians report being socially excluded, threatened or abused online.[12]
Sometimes, this takes the form of posting unverifiable and illegal libelous statements on harassment websites.[13]These websites then run advertisements encouraging the victims to pay thousands of dollars to related businesses to get the posts removed – temporarily, as opposed to the free and permanent removal process available through major web search engines.[13]
Child-on-child abuse (peer-on-peer abuse) that happens online often falls under cyberbullying. However, it goes much further. It can include physical and sexual abuse or harassment, relationship abuse, grooming and more.[14][15]
Online predationis the act of engaging an underage minor in inappropriate sexual relationships through the Internet. Online predators may attempt to initiate and seduce minors into relationships through the use ofchat roomsorinternet forums.
Online groomingusually refers to child sexual abuse but can also refer toradicalisation,drug trafficking, and financial gain. Grooming is when a stranger targets a child by befriending them and gaining their trust. Once they gain this trust, the groomer can manipulate the child to do what they want, which may include sending sexual images, running drugs, or any number of other activities.[16]
Various websites on the internet contain material that some deem offensive, distasteful or explicit, which may often be not of the user's liking. Such websites may includeinternet,shock sites,hate speechor otherwise inflammatory content. Such content may manifest in many ways, such aspop-up adsand unsuspecting links.[17]
Sextortion, especially via the use of webcams, is a concern, especially for those who usewebcamsforflirtingandcybersex.[18][19]Often this involves acybercriminalposing as someone else- such as anattractive person- initiating communication of a sexual nature with the victim. The victim is then persuaded to undress in front of a webcam, and may also be persuaded to engage in sexual behaviour, such asmasturbation.[20]The video is recorded by the cybercriminal, who then reveals their true intent and demands money or other services (such as more explicit images of the victim, in cases ofonline predation), threatening to publicly release the video and send it to family members and friends of the victim if they do not comply.[20]A video highlighting the dangers of sextortion has been released by theNational Crime Agency[21]in theUKto educate people, especially given the fact that blackmail of a sexual nature may causehumiliationto a sufficient extent to cause the victim totake their own life,[19]in addition to other efforts to educate the public on the risks of sextortion.[18]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_safety
|
Internet securityis a branch ofcomputer security. It encompasses theInternet,browser security, web site security,[1]andnetwork securityas it applies to otherapplicationsoroperating systemsas a whole. Its objective is to establish rules and measures to use against attacks over the Internet.[2]The Internet is an inherentlyinsecure channelfor information exchange, with high risk ofintrusionor fraud, such asphishing,[3]onlineviruses,trojans,ransomwareandworms.
Many methods are used to combat these threats, includingencryptionand ground-up engineering.[4]
Emerging cyberthreats are a result of recent technological breakthroughs. For example,deepfakesuse AI to produce audio and video that seems real but are actually fake, which increases the danger of fraud and false information. Furthermore, traditional risks can be automated and strengthened by AI-driven attacks, making them harder to identify and neutralize.
Malicious software comes in many forms, such asviruses,Trojan horses,spyware, and worms.
Adenial-of-service attack(DoS) or distributed denial-of-service attack (DDoS) is an attempt to make a computer resource unavailable to its intended users. It works by making so many service requests at once that the system is overwhelmed and becomes unable to process any of them. DoS may targetcloud computingsystems.[5]According to business participants in an international security survey, 25% of respondents experienced a DoS attack in 2007 and another 16.8% in 2010.[citation needed]DoS attacks often use bots (or a botnet) to carry out the attack.
Phishing targets online users in an attempt to extract sensitive information such as passwords and financial information.[6]Phishing occurs when the attacker pretends to be a trustworthy entity, either via email or a web page. Victims are directed to web pages that appear to be legitimate, but instead route information to the attackers. Tactics such asemail spoofingattempt to make emails appear to be from legitimate senders, or long complexURLshide the actual website.[7][8]Insurance groupRSAclaimed that phishing accounted for worldwide losses of $10.8 billion in 2016.[9]
A man-in-the-middle (MITM) attack is a type of cyber attack. Cybercriminals can intercept data sent between people to steal, eavesdrop or modify data for certain malicious purposes, such as extorting money andidentity theft. Public WiFi is often insecure because monitoring or intercepting Web traffic is unknown.[citation needed]
Applications used to access Internet resources may contain security vulnerabilities such asmemory safetybugs or flawed authentication checks. Such bugs can give network attackers full control over the computer.[10][11]
As cyberthreats become more complex, user education is essential for improving internet security. Important areas of attention consist of:
TCP/IPprotocols may be secured withcryptographicmethods andsecurity protocols. These protocols includeSecure Sockets Layer(SSL), succeeded byTransport Layer Security(TLS) forweb traffic,Pretty Good Privacy(PGP) for email, andIPsecfor network layer security.[12]
Threat Modeling tools helps you to proactively analyze the cyber security posture of a system or system of systems and in that way prevent security threats.
Multi-factor authentication(MFA) is anaccess controlmethod in which auseris granted access only after successfully presenting separate pieces of evidence to anauthenticationmechanism – two or more from the following categories: knowledge (something they know), possession (something they have), and inference (something they are).[13][14]Internet resources, such as websites and email, may be secured using this technique.
Some online sites offer customers the ability to use a six-digit code which randomly changes every 30–60 seconds on a physicalsecurity token. The token has built-in computations and manipulates numbers based on the current time. This means that every thirty seconds only a certain array of numbers validate access. The website is made aware of that device's serial number and knows the computation and correct time to verify the number. After 30–60 seconds the device presents a new random six-digit number to log into the website.[15]
Emailmessages are composed, delivered, and stored in a multiple step process, which starts with the message's composition. When a message is sent, it is transformed into a standard format according to RFC 2822.[16]Using a network connection, the mail client sends the sender's identity, the recipient list and the message content to the server. Once the server receives this information, it forwards the message to the recipients.
Pretty Good Privacyprovides confidentiality by encrypting messages to be transmitted or data files to be stored using an encryption algorithm such asTriple DESorCAST-128. Email messages can be protected by using cryptography in various ways, such as the following:
The first two methods, message signing and message body encryption, are often used together; however, encrypting the transmissions between mail servers is typically used only when two organizations want to protect emails regularly sent between them. For example, the organizations could establish avirtual private network(VPN) to encrypt communications between their mail servers.[17]Unlike methods that only encrypt a message body, a VPN can encrypt all communication over the connection, including email header information such as senders, recipients, and subjects. However, a VPN does not provide a message signing mechanism, nor can it provide protection for email messages along the entire route from sender to recipient.
AMessage authentication code(MAC) is a cryptography method that uses asecret keyto digitally sign a message. This method outputs a MAC value that can be decrypted by the receiver, using the same secret key used by the sender. The Message Authentication Code protects both a message'sdata integrityas well as itsauthenticity.[18]
Acomputer firewallcontrols access to a single computer. A network firewall controls access to an entire network. A firewall is a security device — computer hardware or software — that filters traffic and blocks outsiders. It generally consists of gateways and filters. Firewalls can also screen network traffic and block traffic deemed unauthorized.
Firewalls restrict incoming and outgoingnetwork packets. Only authorized traffic is allowed to pass through it. Firewalls create checkpoints between networks and computers. Firewalls can block traffic based on IP source and TCP port number. They can also serve as the platform for IPsec. Using tunnel mode, firewalls can implement VPNs. Firewalls can also limit network exposure by hiding the internal network from the public Internet.
A packet filter processes network traffic on a packet-by-packet basis. Its main job is to filter traffic from a remote IP host, so a router is needed to connect the internal network to the Internet. The router is known as ascreening router, which screens packets leaving and entering the network.
In astateful firewallthecircuit-level gatewayis aproxy serverthat operates at the network level of anOpen Systems Interconnect (OSI) modeland statically defines what traffic will be allowed. Circuit proxies forwardnetwork packets(formatted data) containing a given port number, if theportis permitted by thealgorithm. The main advantage of a proxy server is its ability to provideNetwork Address Translation(NAT), which can hide the user's IP address from the Internet, effectively protecting internal information from the outside.
Anapplication-level firewallis a third-generation firewall where aproxy serveroperates at the very top of the OSI model, theIP suiteapplication level. A network packet is forwarded only if a connection is established using a known protocol. Application-level gateways are notable for analyzing entire messages rather than individual packets.
Web browser market share predicts the share of hacker attacks. For example,Internet Explorer6, which used to lead the market,[19]was heavily attacked.[20]
Antivirus softwarecan protect a programmable device by detecting and eliminatingmalware.[21]A variety of techniques are used, such as signature-based, heuristics,rootkit, and real-time.
Apassword manageris a software application that creates, stores and provides passwords to applications. Password managers encrypt passwords. The user only needs to remember a single master password to access the store.[22]
Security suites were first offered for sale in 2003 (McAfee) and containfirewalls,anti-virus,anti-spywareand other components.[23]They also offer theft protection, portable storage device safety check, private Internet browsing, cloudanti-spam, a file shredder or make security-related decisions (answering popup windows) and several were free of charge.[24]
A promising technology with low production and installation costs, unattended network operation, and autonomous longtime operation. According to research, building a secure Internet of Things (IoT) should start with securing WSNs ahead of other components.[25]
At the National Association of Mutual Savings Banks (NAMSB) conference in January 1976,Atalla Corporation(founded by Mohamed Atalla) andBunker Ramo Corporation(founded by George Bunker andSimon Ramo) introduced the earliest products designed for dealing with online security. Atalla later added its Identikeyhardware security module, and supportedprocessingonline transactionsandnetwork security. Designed to processbank transactionsonline, the Identikey system was extended to shared-facility operations. It was compatible with variousswitchingnetworks, and was capable of resetting itself electronically to any one of 64,000 irreversiblenonlinearalgorithmsas directed bycard datainformation.[26]In 1979, Atalla introduced the firstnetworksecurity processor(NSP).[27]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_security
|
Information security standards(alsocyber security standards[1]) are techniques generally outlined in published materials that attempt to protect a user's or organization's cyber environment.[2]This environment includes users themselves, networks, devices, all software, processes, information in storage or transit, applications, services, and systems that can be connected directly or indirectly to networks.
The principal objective is to reduce the risks, including preventing or mitigatingcyber-attacks. These published materials comprise tools, policies, security concepts, security safeguards, guidelines, risk management approaches, actions, training, best practices, assurance, and technologies.
Cybersecuritystandards have existed over several decades as users and providers have collaborated in many domestic and international forums to effect the necessary capabilities, policies, and practices – generally emerging from work at the Stanford Consortium for Research on Information Security and Policy in the 1990s.[3]
A 2016 US security framework adoption study reported that 70% of the surveyed organizations use theNIST Cybersecurity Frameworkas the most popular best practice forInformation Technology(IT) computer security, but many note that it requires significant investment.[4]Cross-border, cyber-exfiltration operations by law enforcement agencies to counter international criminal activities on thedark webraise complex jurisdictional questions that remain, to some extent, unanswered.[5][6]Tensions between domestic law enforcement efforts to conduct cross-border cyber-exfiltration operations and international jurisdiction will likely continue to provide improved cybersecurity norms.[5][7]
The subsections below detail international standards related to cybersecurity.
TheISO/IEC 27000 seriesis a family of international standards jointly published by theInternational Organization for Standardization (ISO)and theInternational Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). These standards provide a globally recognized framework for establishing, implementing, maintaining, and continually improving an Information Security Management System (ISMS). The series is designed to help organizations of all sizes and industries protect their information assets systematically and cost-effectively.
At the center of the ISO/IEC 27000 series isISO/IEC 27001, which specifies the requirements for establishing and maintaining an ISMS.[8]The standard emphasizes a risk-based approach to managing information security, encouraging organizations to identify, assess, and mitigate risks specific to their operational environment. The ISO/IEC 27000 series is built upon thePlan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA)cycle, a methodology aimed at continuous improvement.
While ISO/IEC 27001 sets the baseline for ISMS requirements, other standards in the series provide complementary guidelines and sector-specific recommendations. Together, they form a comprehensive ecosystem that addresses everything from risk assessment and incident management to privacy controls and cloud security.
Supporting ISO/IEC 27001 isISO/IEC 27002, which serves as a practical guide for implementing the controls outlined in ISO/IEC 27001. It provides detailed recommendations and best practices for managing information security risks across different domains, including human resource security, physical security, and network security.[9]
For organizations focused on risk management,ISO/IEC 27005offers a dedicated framework for identifying, assessing, and treating information security risks. It complements ISO/IEC 27001 by providing a methodology specifically tailored to managing information security vulnerabilities.[10]
In recent years, cloud computing has introduced unique security challenges, andISO/IEC 27017was developed to address these concerns.[11]This standard provides guidelines for implementing cloud-specific information security controls, ensuring secure use of cloud services by both cloud providers and customers. Alongside it,ISO/IEC 27018focuses on protecting personally identifiable information (PII) in public cloud environments, helping organizations meet privacy regulations and maintain customer trust.[12]
Additionally,ISO/IEC 27035addresses incident management, offering guidance on how to effectively prepare for, detect, and respond to security incidents. It emphasizes structured incident response processes to minimize potential damage and ensure timely recovery.[13]
With the rise of data privacy regulations such as theGeneral Data Protection Regulation (GDPR),ISO/IEC 27701was introduced as an extension of ISO/IEC 27001 and ISO/IEC 27002. This standard provides guidelines for establishing and operating a Privacy Information Management System (PIMS), aligning information security management with privacy and data protection requirements.[14]
TheCommon Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation(Common CriteriaorCC) is an international standard (ISO/IEC 15408) used to assess and certify the security properties of IT products and systems. It provides a globally recognized framework for defining security requirements, implementing protective measures, and evaluating whether these measures meet specified criteria.
ISO/IEC 15408 is divided into five parts:
Certification under Common Criteria is facilitated by theCommon Criteria Recognition Arrangement(CCRA), ensuring mutual recognition of certifications among participating countries. This reduces duplication of effort and cost for vendors seeking global market access.[20]
The EU has adopted theEuropean Cybersecurity Certification Scheme(EUCC), which is based on ISO/IEC 15408, to align with international standards while addressing regional requirements.[21]
The IEC 62443 cybersecurity standard defines processes, techniques and requirements forIndustrial Automation and Control Systems(IACS). Its documents are the result of the IEC standards creation process where all national committees involved agree upon a common standard.
All IEC 62443 standards and technical reports are organized into six general categories:General,Policies and Procedures,System,Component, Profiles,andEvaluation.
ISO/SAE 21434 "Road vehicles - Cybersecurity engineering" is a cybersecurity standard jointly developed byISOandSAEworking groups. It proposes cybersecurity measures for the development lifecycle of road vehicles. The standard was published in August 2021.[22]
The standard is related to theEuropean Union (EU)regulation on cyber security that is currently being developed. In coordination with the EU, theUNECEhas created aCyber Security Management System(CSMS) certification mandatory forvehicle-type approval. This is defined in the overarchingUN Regulation 155;ISO/SAE 21434is a technical standard for automotive development which can demonstrate compliance with those regulations.
A derivative of this is in the work ofUNECEWP29, which provides regulations for vehicle cybersecurity and software updates.[23]
The ETSI EN 303 645 standard provides a set of baseline requirements for security in consumerInternet of Things (IoT)devices. It contains technical controls and organizational policies for developers and manufacturers of Internet-connected consumer devices. The standard was released in June 2020[24]and is intended to complement other, more specific standards. As many consumer IoT devices handlepersonally identifiable information (PII), implementing the standard helps comply with the EU'sGeneral Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)in the EU.[25]
The Cybersecurity provisions in this European standard are:
Conformance assessment of these baseline requirements is via the standard TS 103 701, which allows self-certification or certification by another group.[26]
The EN 18031 series of standards, published by theEuropean Committee for Standardization (CEN)in cooperation with theEuropean Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC), outlines essential information security requirements for radio-based devices and systems. By aligning with theRadio Equipment Directive (2014/53/EU)and its accompanying Delegated Act, these standards support manufacturers and stakeholders in maintaining compliance and consistency across European markets. They also establish common testing protocols, performance criteria, and security guidelines, thereby aiding cross-border interoperability and addressing evolving industry needs.
The subsections below detail national standards and frameworks related to cybersecurity.
TheNorth American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)is responsible for developing and enforcing cybersecurity standards to protect the reliability and security of the North American bulk power system, which spans the United States, Canada, and northern Baja California, Mexico.[27]
Its standards focus on cybersecurity measures for critical assets, including asset identification, electronic security perimeters, personnel training, incident response, and recovery planning. The key cybersecurity standards are defined in theCritical Infrastructure Protection (CIP)series, specificallyCIP-002 to CIP-014.[28]
Compliance with these standards is mandatory for power system operators and owners under NERC’s jurisdiction, with enforcement overseen by theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)in the United States. Non-compliance can result in significant financial penalties.
TheNational Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a U.S. federal agency under theDepartment of Commerce, plays a central role in developing and maintaining cybersecurity standards, guidelines, and best practices. Initially created to ensure the security of federal information systems, NIST's standards have become globally influential, serving as foundational references for cybersecurity programs across industries and countries.
NIST's approach emphasizes a risk-based methodology, focusing on five core functions: Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover. These principles form the backbone of many of its guidelines and frameworks, enabling organizations to assess and manage cybersecurity risks effectively. While federal agencies are mandated to comply with NIST standards, private organizations across finance, healthcare, manufacturing, and other sectors often adopt them voluntarily due to their clarity, flexibility, and comprehensiveness.
One of NIST's most influential contributions is theCybersecurity Framework (CSF), first published in 2014 and updated in 2024 (CSF 2.0). Developed in response to growing cyber threats and the need for standardized practices, the CSF provides a risk-based approach to managing cybersecurity risks. It is structured around five core functions:Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, and Recover, each representing a critical phase in cybersecurity risk management.[29]
The CSF serves as a universal guide, designed to be adaptable across organizations of all sizes and sectors. Its adoption extends far beyond U.S. federal agencies, with companies worldwide leveraging the framework to improve their cybersecurity resilience.
NIST publishes a series ofSpecial Publications (SP), which provide technical guidelines for specific aspects of cybersecurity. Among the most significant isSP 800-53, titled "Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations."[30]This publication outlines a comprehensive set of controls addressing areas such as access control, incident response, system integrity, and encryption. It serves as the cornerstone for securing federal information systems and is often referenced in audits and compliance assessments.
Another critical standard isSP 800-171, which focuses on protecting Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) in non-federal systems. It provides detailed requirements for organizations handling sensitive federal information, such as defense contractors and private sector partners. Compliance with SP 800-171 is often a prerequisite for participating in federal contracts.[31]
For the secure development of software, NIST introducedSP 800-218, known as the "Secure Software Development Framework (SSDF)." This document emphasizes integrating security throughout all stages of the software development lifecycle, from design to deployment and maintenance.[32]
Recognizing the unique challenges posed byIndustrial Control Systems (ICS), NIST publishedSP 800-82, titled"Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security."This guideline addresses the security of critical infrastructure systems, including SCADA systems, programmable logic controllers (PLCs), and other operational technology (OT) components.[33]
In addition to Special Publications, NIST developsFederal Information Processing Standards (FIPS). These standards are legally binding for U.S. federal agencies and cover critical areas such as cryptography and secure data handling. For example,FIPS 140-3,"Security Requirements for Cryptographic Modules,"specifies security requirements for cryptographic systems and is widely adopted by both government and private sector organizations requiring robust encryption capabilities.
FIPS standards are not limited to federal use; they are frequently referenced in international compliance frameworks and form the basis for many commercial security products.
Cyber Essentials is aUnited Kingdomgovernmentinformation assurancescheme operated by theNational Cyber Security Centre (NCSC). It encourages organizations to adopt good practices in information security. Cyber Essentials also includes an assurance framework and a simple set of security controls to protect information from threats coming from the internet.
TheAustralian Cyber Security Centrehas developed prioritised mitigation strategies, in the form of the Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents, to help organisations protect themselves against various cyber threats. The most effective of these mitigation strategies is called the Essential Eight.[34]
TheFederal Office for Information Security(German:Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik, abbreviated as BSI) standards are an elementary component of the IT baseline protection (German:IT-Grundschutz) methodology. They contain recommendations on methods, processes, and procedures, approaches, and measures for various aspects of information security. Users from public authorities, companies, manufacturers, or service providers can use the BSI standards to make their business processes and data more secure.[35]
The subsections below detail cybersecurity standards and frameworks related to specific industries.
The Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) is an information security standard for organizations that handle branded credit cards from the major card schemes. The PCI Standard is mandated by the card brands but administered by the Payment Card Industry Security Standards Council. The standard was created to increase controls around cardholder data to reduce credit card fraud.
UL 2900 is a series of standards published byUL. The standards include general cybersecurity requirements (UL 2900-1) as well as specific requirements for medical products (UL 2900-2-1), industrial systems (UL 2900-2-2), and security and life safety signalling systems (UL 2900-2-3).
UL 2900 requires manufacturers to describe and document the attack surface of the technologies used in their products. It requires threat modeling based on the intended use and deployment environment. The standard requires effective security measures that protect sensitive (personal) data and other assets, such as command and control data. It also requires that security vulnerabilities in the software have been eliminated, security principles, such as defense-in-depth have been followed, and the security of the software has been verified through penetration testing.
TheInternational Organization for Standardization(ISO) is an international standards organization organized as a consortium of national standards institutions from 167 countries, coordinated through a secretariat in Geneva, Switzerland. ISO is the world's largest developer of international standards. TheInternational Electrotechnical Commission(IEC) is an international standards organization that deals with electrotechnology and cooperates closely with ISO. ISO/IEC 15443: "Information technology – Security techniques – A framework for IT security assurance",ISO/IEC 27002: "Information technology – Security techniques – Code of practice for information security management",ISO/IEC 20000: "Information technology – Service management", andISO/IEC 27001: "Information technology – Security techniques – Information security management systems – Requirements" are of particular interest to information security professionals.
The USNational Institute of Standards and Technology(NIST) is a non-regulatory federal agency within theU.S. Department of Commerce. The NIST Computer Security Division develops standards, metrics, tests, and validation programs, and it publishes standards and guidelines to increase secure IT planning, implementation, management, and operation. NIST is also the custodian of the U.S.Federal Information Processing Standardpublications (FIPS).
The Internet Societyis a professional membership society with over 100 organizations and over 20,000 individual members in over 180 countries. It provides leadership in addressing issues that confront the future of the Internet, and it is the organizational home for the groups responsible for Internet infrastructure standards, including theInternet Engineering Task Force(IETF) and theInternet Architecture Board(IAB). The ISOC hosts the Requests for Comments (RFCs), including the Official Internet Protocol Standards and the RFC-2196Site Security Handbook.
The GermanFederal Office for Information Security(in GermanBundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik (BSI)) BSI-Standards 100–1 to 100-4 are a set of recommendations including "methods, processes, procedures, approaches, and measures relating to information security".[36]The BSI-Standard 100-2IT-Grundschutz Methodologydescribes how information security management can be implemented and operated. The standard includes a specific guide, the IT Baseline Protection Catalogs (IT-Grundschutz Catalogs). Before 2005, the catalogs were formerly known as "IT Baseline ProtectionManual". The Catalogs are documents useful for detecting and combating security-relevant weak points in the IT environment (IT cluster). As of September 2013, the collection encompasses over 4,400 pages with the introduction and catalogs. The IT-Grundschutz approach is aligned with the ISO/IEC 2700x family.
TheEuropean Telecommunications Standards Institutestandardized a catalog ofinformation security indicatorsheaded by the Industrial Specification Group (ISG) ISI.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IT_security_standards
|
Many countries around the world maintain military units that are specifically trained to operate in acyberwarfareenvironment. In several cases these units act also as the nationalcomputer emergency response teamfor civiliancybersecuritythreats.
[35]
Inter-service
Army
Navy
Air Force
General Staff Department of the Korean People's Army:[80][81][82][83][84]
Reconnaissance General Bureau:[e]
Others:
Mexican Army
Mexican Navy
Inter-service
Army
Navy
Air Force
Inter-service
Inter-service
Army
Navy
Air Force
Marines
Coast Guard
Space Force
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cyber_warfare_forces
|
Open securityis the use ofopen sourcephilosophies and methodologies to approachcomputer securityand otherinformation securitychallenges.[1]Traditional application security is based on the premise that any application or service (whether it ismalwareor desirable) relies onsecurity through obscurity.[2]
Open source approaches have created technology such asLinux(and to some extent, theAndroid operating system). Additionally, open source approaches applied to documents have inspiredwikisand their largest example,Wikipedia.[1]Open security suggests that security breaches and vulnerabilities can be better prevented or ameliorated when users facing these problems collaborate using open source philosophies.[1]
This approach requires that users be legally allowed to collaborate, so relevant software would need to be released under a license that is widely accepted to be open source; examples include the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) license, the Apache 2.0 license, the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), and the GNU General Public License (GPL).[1]Relevant documents would need to be under a generally accepted "open content" license; these include Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) and Attribution Share Alike (CC-BY-SA) licenses, but not Creative Commons "non-commercial" licenses or "no-derivative" licenses.[1]
On the developer side, legitimate software and service providers can have independent verification and testing of their source code.[3]On theinformation technologyside, companies can aggregate common threats, patterns, and security solutions to a variety of security issues.[4][5]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_security
|
The followingoutlineis provided as an overview of and topical guide to computer security:
Computer security(alsocybersecurity,digital security, orinformation technology (IT) security) is a subdiscipline within the field ofinformation security. It consists of the protection ofcomputer software,systemsandnetworksfromthreatsthat can lead to unauthorized information disclosure, theft or damage tohardware,software, ordata, as well as from the disruption or misdirection of theservicesthey provide.
The significance of the field stems from the expanded reliance oncomputer systems, theInternet, andwireless network standards. Its importance is further amplified by the growth ofsmart devices, includingsmartphones,televisions, and the various devices that constitute theInternet of things(IoT). Cybersecurity has emerged as one of the most significant new challenges facing the contemporary world, due to both the complexity ofinformation systemsand the societies they support. Security is particularly crucial for systems that govern large-scale systems with far-reaching physical effects, such aspower distribution,elections, andfinance.
Computer security can be described as all of the following:
Methods of Computer Network Attack and Computer Network Exploitation
Social engineeringis a frequent method of attack, and can take the form ofphishing, orspear phishingin the corporate or government world, as well as counterfeit websites.
Access control– selective restriction of access to a place or other resource. The act of accessing may mean consuming, entering, or using. Permission to access a resource is called authorization.
Application security
Data security– protecting data, such as a database, from destructive forces and the unwanted actions of unauthorized users.[1]
Internet police– police and secret police departments and other law enforcement agencies in charge of policing the Internet. The major purposes of Internet police, depending on the state, are fighting cybercrime, as well as censorship, propaganda, and monitoring and manipulating the online public opinion.
Rubber-hose cryptanalysis
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_computer_security
|
TheOpen Worldwide Application Security Project(formerly Open Web Application Security Project[7]) (OWASP) is an online community that produces freely available articles, methodologies, documentation, tools, and technologies in the fields ofIoT, system software andweb application security.[8][9][10]The OWASP provides free and open resources. It is led by a non-profit called The OWASP Foundation. The OWASP Top 10 2021 is the published result of recent research based on comprehensive data compiled from over 40 partner organizations.
Mark Curphey started OWASP on September 9, 2001.[2]Jeff Williams served as the volunteer Chair of OWASP from late 2003 until September 2011. As of 2015[update], Matt Konda chaired the Board.[11]
The OWASP Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization in the US established in 2004, supports the OWASP infrastructure and projects. Since 2011, OWASP is also registered as a non-profit organization in Belgium under the name of OWASP Europe VZW.[12]
In February 2023, it was reported by Bil Corry, a OWASP Foundation Global Board of Directors officer,[13]on Twitter[7]that the board had voted for renaming from the Open Web Application Security Project to its current name, replacing Web with Worldwide.
They have several certification schemes to certify the knowledge of students in particular areas of security.
Baseline set of security standards applicable across technology stacks teaching learners about the OWASP top ten vulnerabilities.[30]
The OWASP organization received the 2014Haymarket Media GroupSC MagazineEditor's Choice award.[9][41]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OWASP
|
Physical information securityis the intersection or common ground betweenphysical securityandinformation security. It primarily concerns the protection of tangible information-related assets such as computer systems and storage media against physical, real-world threats such as unauthorized physical access, theft, fire and flood. It typically involves physical controls such as protective barriers and locks, uninterruptible power supplies, and shredders. Information security controls in the physical domain complement those in the logical domain (such as encryption), and procedural or administrative controls (such as information security awareness and compliance with policies and laws).
Asset are inherently valuable and yet vulnerable to a wide variety of threats, both malicious (e.g. theft, arson) and accidental/natural (e.g. lost property, bush fire). If threats materialize and exploit those vulnerabilities causing incidents, there are likely to be adverse impacts on the organizations or individuals who legitimately own and utilize the assets, varying from trivial to devastating in effect. Security controls are intended to reduce the probability or frequency of occurrence and/or the severity of the impacts arising from incidents, thus protecting the value of the assets.
Physical security involves the use of controls such as smoke detectors, fire alarms and extinguishers, along with related laws, regulations, policies and procedures concerning their use. Barriers such as fences, walls and doors are obvious physical security controls, designed to deter or prevent unauthorized physical access to a controlled area, such as a home or office. The moats and battlements of Mediaeval castles are classic examples of physical access controls, as are bank vaults and safes.
Information security controls protect the value of information assets, particularly the information itself (i.e. the intangible information content, data, intellectual property, knowledge etc.) but also computer and telecommunications equipment, storage media (including papers and digital media), cables and other tangible information-related assets (such as computer power supplies). The corporate mantra "Our people are our greatest assets" is literally true in the sense that so-called knowledge workers qualify as extremely valuable, perhaps irreplaceable information assets. Health and safety measures and even medical practice could therefore also be classed as physical information security controls since they protect humans against injuries, diseases and death. This perspective exemplifies the ubiquity and value of information. Modern human society is heavily reliant on information, and information has importance and value at a deeper, more fundamental level. In principle, the subcellular biochemical mechanisms that maintain the accuracy of DNA replication could even be classed as vital information security controls, given that genes are 'the information of life'.
Malicious actors who may benefit from physical access to information assets includecomputer crackers,corporate spies, and fraudsters. The value of information assets is self-evident in the case of, say, stolen laptops or servers that can be sold-on for cash, but the information content is often far more valuable, for example encryption keys or passwords (used to gain access to further systems and information), trade secrets and other intellectual property (inherently valuable or valuable because of the commercial advantages they confer), and credit card numbers (used to commit identity fraud and further theft). Furthermore, the loss, theft or damage of computer systems, plus power interruptions, mechanical/electronic failures and other physical incidents prevent them being used, typically causing disruption and consequential costs or losses. Unauthorized disclosure of confidential information, and even the coercive threat of such disclosure, can be damaging as we saw in theSony Pictures Entertainment hackat the end of 2014 and in numerous privacy breach incidents. Even in the absence of evidence that disclosed personal information has actually been exploited, the very fact that it is no longer secured and under the control of its rightful owners is itself a potentially harmful privacy impact. Substantial fines, adverse publicity/reputational damage and other noncompliance penalties and impacts that flow from serious privacy breaches are best avoided, regardless of cause!
There are several ways to obtain information through physical attacks or exploitations. A few examples are described below.
Dumpster divingis the practice of searching through trash in the hope of obtaining something valuable such as information carelessly discarded on paper, computer disks or other hardware.
Sometimes attackers will simply go into a building and take the information they need.[1]Frequently when using this strategy, an attacker will masquerade as someone who belongs in the situation. They may pose as a copy room employee, remove a document from someone's desk, copy the document, replace the original, and leave with the copied document. Individuals pretending tobuilding maintenancemay gain access to otherwiserestricted spaces.[2][3]They might walk right out of the building with a trash bag containing sensitive documents, carrying portable devices or storage media that were left out on desks, or perhaps just having memorized a password on a sticky note stuck to someone's computer screen or called out to a colleague across an open office.
Shredding paper documents prior to their disposal can prevent unintendedinformation leakage. Digital data can beencryptedorsecurely wiped.
Offices may require visitors to present valid identification cards or valid access keys. Office workers may be required to obey "clear desk" policies, protecting documents and other storage media (including portable IT devices) by tidying them away out of sight (for example in locked drawers, filing cabinets,safesor aBank vault). Workers may be required to memorize their passwords or use apassword managerinstead of writing passwords on paper.
Computers are vulnerable to outages caused by power cuts, accidental disconnection, flat batteries, brown-outs, surges, spikes, electrical interference and electronic failures. Physical information security controls to address the associated risks include: fuses, no-break battery-backed power supplies, electrical generators, redundant power sources and cabling, "Do not remove" warning signs on plugs, surge protectors, power quality monitoring, spare batteries, professional design and installation of power circuits plus regular inspections/tests andpreventive maintenance.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information_security
|
Privacy software, also calledprivacy platform,[1][2]issoftwarebuilt to protect theprivacyof its users. The software typically works in conjunction withInternetusage to control or limit the amount of information made available to third parties. The software can applyencryptionor filtering of various kinds.
Privacy software can refer to two different types of protection. The first type is protecting a user's Internet privacy from the World Wide Web. There are software products that will mask or hide a user'sIP addressfrom the outside world to protect the user fromidentity theft. The second type of protection is hiding or deleting the user's Internet traces that are left on their PC after they have been surfing the Internet. There is software that will erase all the user's Internet traces and there is software that will hide and (Encrypt) a user's traces so that others using their PC will not know where they have been surfing.
One solution to enhance privacy software is whitelisting. Whitelisting is a process in which a company identifies the software that it will allow and does not try to recognize malware. Whitelisting permits acceptable software to run and either prevents anything else from running or lets new software run in a quarantined environment until its validity can be verified. Whereas whitelisting allows nothing to run unless it is on thewhitelist, blacklisting allows everything to run unless it is on the black. A blacklist then includes certain types of software that are not allowed to run in the company environment. For example, a company might blacklistpeer-to-peer file sharingon its systems. In addition to software, people, devices, and websites can also be whitelisted or blacklisted.
Intrusion detection systems are designed to detect all types of malicious network traffic and computer usage that cannot be detected by a firewall. These systems capture all network traffic flows and examine the contents of each packet for malicious traffic.
Encryption is another form of privacy security. When organizations do not have asecure channelfor sending information, they use encryption to stop unauthorized eavesdroppers. Encryption is the process of converting an original message into a form that cannot be read by anyone except the intended receiver.
Steganographyis the practice of representing information within another message or physical object, in such a manner that the presence of the information is not evident to human inspection. Its purpose is to hide messages from eavesdropping and e-surveillance. Compared to using cryptography, which translates the text itself to another format, steganography hides the data rather than converting it.
Privacy is different fromanonymityin its applicability and usage. Anonymity is subordinate to privacy and might be desired for the exchange, retrieval, or publication of specific information.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_software
|
Security engineeringis the process of incorporatingsecurity controlsinto aninformation systemso that the controls become an integral part of the system's operational capabilities.[1]It is similar to other systems engineering activities in that its primary motivation is to support the delivery of engineering solutions that satisfy pre-defined functional and userrequirements, but it has the added dimension of preventing misuse and malicious behavior. Those constraints and restrictions are often asserted as asecurity policy.
In one form or another, security engineering has existed as an informal field of study for several centuries. For example, the fields oflocksmithingandsecurity printinghave been around for many years. The concerns for modern security engineering and computer systems were first solidified in a RAND paper from 1967, "Security and Privacy in Computer Systems" by Willis H. Ware.[2]This paper, later expanded in 1979,[3]provided many of the fundamental information security concepts, labelled today as Cybersecurity, that impact modern computer systems, from cloud implementations to embedded IoT.
Recent catastrophic events, most notably9/11, have made security engineering quickly become a rapidly-growing field. In fact, in a report completed in 2006, it was estimated that the global security industry was valued at US $150 billion.
Security engineering involves aspects ofsocial science,psychology(such as designing a system to "fail well", instead of trying to eliminate all sources of error), andeconomicsas well asphysics,chemistry,mathematics, criminologyarchitecture, andlandscaping.[4]Some of the techniques used, such asfault tree analysis, are derived fromsafety engineering.
Other techniques such ascryptographywere previously restricted to military applications. One of the pioneers of establishing security engineering as a formal field of study isRoss Anderson.
No single qualification exists to become a security engineer.
However, an undergraduate and/or graduate degree, often incomputer science,computer engineering, or physical protection focused degrees such as Security Science, in combination with practical work experience (systems, network engineering,software development, physical protection system modelling etc.) most qualifies an individual to succeed in the field. Other degree qualifications with a security focus exist. Multiplecertifications, such as theCertified Information Systems Security Professional, or Certified Physical Security Professional are available that may demonstrate expertise in the field. Regardless of the qualification, the course must include a knowledge base to diagnose the security system drivers, security theory and principles including defense in depth, protection in depth, situational crime prevention and crime prevention through environmental design to set the protection strategy (professional inference), and technical knowledge including physics and mathematics to design and commission the engineering treatment solution. A security engineer can also benefit from having knowledge in cyber security and information security. Any previous work experience related to privacy and computer science is also valued.
All of this knowledge must be braced by professional attributes including strong communication skills and high levels of literacy for engineering report writing. Security engineering also goes by the label Security Science.
Technological advances, principally in the field ofcomputers, have now allowed the creation of far more complex systems, with new and complex security problems. Because modern systems cut across many areas of human endeavor, security engineers not only need consider the mathematical and physical properties of systems; they also need to consider attacks on the people who use and form parts of those systems usingsocial engineeringattacks. Secure systems have to resist not only technical attacks, but alsocoercion,fraud, anddeceptionbyconfidence tricksters.
According to theMicrosoftDeveloper Networkthe patterns and practices of security engineering consist of the following activities:[5]
These activities are designed to help meet security objectives in thesoftware life cycle.
Product security engineering is security engineering applied specifically to the products that an organization creates, distributes, and/or sells. Product security engineering is distinct from corporate/enterprise security,[6]which focuses on securing corporate networks and systems that an organization uses to conduct business.
Product security includes security engineering applied to:
Such security engineers are often employed in separate teams from corporate security teams and work closely with product engineering teams.
Whatever the target, there are multiple ways of preventing penetration by unwanted or unauthorized persons. Methods include placingJersey barriers, stairs or other sturdy obstacles outside tall or politically sensitive buildings to prevent car andtruck bombings. Improving the method ofvisitor managementand some new electroniclockstake advantage of technologies such asfingerprintscanning, iris orretinal scanning, andvoiceprint identificationto authenticate users.
Computer-related
Physical
Misc. Topics
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_engineering
|
Insecurity engineering,security through obscurityis the practice of concealing the details or mechanisms of a system to enhance its security. This approach relies on the principle ofhiding something in plain sight, akin to a magician'ssleight of handor the use ofcamouflage. It diverges from traditional security methods, such as physical locks, and is more about obscuring information or characteristics to deter potential threats. Examples of this practice include disguising sensitive information within commonplace items, like a piece of paper in a book, or altering digital footprints, such asspoofing a web browser's version number. While not a standalone solution, security through obscurity can complement othersecurity measuresin certain scenarios.[1]
Obscurity in the context of security engineering is the notion that information can be protected, to a certain extent, when it is difficult to access or comprehend. This concept hinges on the principle of making the details or workings of a system less visible or understandable, thereby reducing the likelihood of unauthorized access or manipulation.[2]
Security by obscurity alone is discouraged and not recommended by standards bodies.
An early opponent of security through obscurity was the locksmithAlfred Charles Hobbs, who in 1851 demonstrated to the public how state-of-the-art locks could be picked. In response to concerns that exposing security flaws in the design of locks could make them more vulnerable to criminals, he said: "Rogues are very keen in their profession, and know already much more than we can teach them."[3]
There is scant formal literature on the issue of security through obscurity. Books onsecurity engineeringciteKerckhoffs' doctrinefrom 1883 if they cite anything at all. For example, in a discussion about secrecy and openness innuclear command and control:
[T]he benefits of reducing the likelihood of an accidental war were considered to outweigh the possible benefits of secrecy. This is a modern reincarnation of Kerckhoffs' doctrine, first put forward in the nineteenth century, that the security of a system should depend on its key, not on its design remaining obscure.[4]
Peter Swirehas written about the trade-off between the notion that "security through obscurity is an illusion" and the military notion that "loose lips sink ships",[5]as well as on how competition affects the incentives to disclose.[6][further explanation needed]
There are conflicting stories about the origin of this term. Fans ofMIT'sIncompatible Timesharing System(ITS) say it was coined in opposition toMulticsusers down the hall, for whom security was far more an issue than on ITS. Within the ITS culture, the term referred, self-mockingly, to the poor coverage of the documentation and obscurity of many commands, and to the attitude that by the time a tourist figured out how to make trouble he'd generally got over the urge to make it, because he felt part of the community. One instance of deliberate security through obscurity on ITS has been noted: the command to allow patching the running ITS system (altmode altmode control-R) echoed as$$^D. Typing Alt Alt Control-D set a flag that would prevent patching the system even if the user later got it right.[7]
In January 2020,NPRreported thatDemocratic Party officials in Iowadeclined to share information regarding the security ofits caucus app, to "make sure we are not relaying information that could be used against us." Cybersecurity experts replied that "to withhold the technical details of its app doesn't do much to protect the system."[8]
Security by obscurity alone is discouraged and not recommended by standards bodies. TheNational Institute of Standards and Technology(NIST) in theUnited Statesrecommends against this practice: "System security should not depend on the secrecy of the implementation or its components."[9]TheCommon Weakness Enumerationproject lists "Reliance on Security Through Obscurity" as CWE-656.[10]
A large number of telecommunication anddigital rights managementcryptosystems use security through obscurity, but have ultimately been broken. These include components ofGSM,GMRencryption,GPRSencryption, a number of RFID encryption schemes, and most recentlyTerrestrial Trunked Radio(TETRA).[11]
One of the largest proponents of security through obscurity commonly seen today is anti-malware software. What typically occurs with thissingle point of failure, however, is anarms raceof attackers finding novel ways to avoid detection and defenders coming up with increasingly contrived but secret signatures to flag on.[12]
The technique stands in contrast withsecurity by designandopen security, although many real-world projects include elements of all strategies.
Knowledge of how the system is built differs from concealment andcamouflage. The effectiveness of obscurity inoperations securitydepends on whether the obscurity lives on top of other good security practices, or if it is being used alone.[13]When used as an independent layer, obscurity is considered a valid security tool.[14]
In recent years, more advanced versions of "security through obscurity" have gained support as a methodology incybersecuritythrough Moving Target Defense andcyber deception.[15]NIST's cyber resiliency framework, 800-160 Volume 2, recommends the usage of security through obscurity as a complementary part of a resilient and secure computing environment.[16]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_through_obscurity
|
Asoftware-defined perimeter(SDP), sometimes referred to as ablack cloud, is a method of enhancing computer security. The SDP framework was developed by theCloud Security Allianceto control access to resources based on identity. In an SDP, connectivity follows a need-to-know model, where both device posture and identity are verified before access to application infrastructure is granted.[1]The application infrastructure in a software-defined perimeter is effectively "black"—a term used by theDepartment of Defenseto describe an undetectable infrastructure—lacking visibleDNSinformation orIP addresses.[dubious–discuss]Proponents of these systems claim that an SDP mitigates many common network-based attacks, including server scanning, denial-of-service,SQL injection, operating system and application vulnerability exploits,man-in-the-middle attacks,pass-the-hash, pass-the-ticket, and other attacks by unauthorized users.[2]
An SDP is a security methodology that controls access to resources based on user identity and device posture. It follows azero-trustmodel, verifying both factors before granting access to applications. This approach aims to make internal infrastructure invisible to the internet, reducing the attack surface for threats like denial-of-service (DoS) and server scanning (Ref. [1]).
Traditional network security relies on a fixed perimeter, typically protected by firewalls. While this isolates internal services, it becomes vulnerable with the rise of:
SDPs address these issues by:
An SDP consists of two main components:
The workflow involves:
There are several ways to deploy SDPs, each suited for specific scenarios:
SDPs offer security benefits in various situations:
Software-defined perimeters offer a dynamic approach to network security, aligning with zero-trust principles. They can enhance security for on-premise, cloud, and hybrid environments.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software-defined_perimeter
|
Incomputer security,arbitrary code execution(ACE) is an attacker's ability to run any commands or code of the attacker's choice on a target machine or in a targetprocess.[1]Anarbitrary code executionvulnerabilityis a security flaw insoftwareor hardware allowing arbitrary code execution. A program that is designed to exploit such a vulnerability is called anarbitrary code executionexploit. The ability to trigger arbitrary code execution over a network (especially via a wide-area network such as the Internet) is often referred to asremote code execution(RCEorRCX).
Arbitrary code execution signifies that if someone sends a specially designed set of data to a computer, they can make it do whatever they want. Even though this particular weakness may not cause actual problems in the real world, researchers have discussed whether it suggests a natural tendency for computers to have vulnerabilities that allow unauthorized code execution.[2]
There are a number of classes of vulnerability that can lead to an attacker's ability to execute arbitrary commands or code. For example:
Arbitrary code execution is commonly achieved through control over theinstruction pointer(such as a jump or abranch) of a runningprocess. The instruction pointer points to the next instruction in the process that will be executed. Control over the value of the instruction pointer therefore gives control over which instruction is executed next. In order to execute arbitrary code, many exploitsinject codeinto the process (for example by sending input to it which gets stored in aninput bufferinRAM) and use a vulnerability to change the instruction pointer to have it point to the injected code. The injected code will then automatically get executed. This type of attack exploits the fact that most computers (which use aVon Neumann architecture) do not make a general distinction betweencode and data,[7][8]so that malicious code can be camouflaged as harmless input data. Many newer CPUs have mechanisms to make this harder, such as ano-execute bit.[9][10]
On its own, an arbitrary code execution exploit will give the attacker the sameprivilegesas the target process that is vulnerable.[11]For example, if exploiting a flaw in aweb browser, an attacker could act as the user, performing actions such as modifying personal computer files or accessing banking information, but would not be able to perform system-level actions (unless the user in question also had that access).
To work around this, once an attacker can execute arbitrary code on a target, there is often an attempt at aprivilege escalationexploit in order to gain additional control. This may involve thekernelitself or an account such as Administrator, SYSTEM, or root. With or without this enhanced control, exploits have the potential to do severe damage or turn the computer into azombie—but privilege escalation helps with hiding the attack from the legitimate administrator of the system.
Retrogaminghobbyists have managed to find vulnerabilities in classic video games that allow them to execute arbitrary code, usually using a precise sequence of button inputs in atool-assisted superplayto cause abuffer overflow, allowing them to write toprotected memory. AtAwesome Games Done Quick 2014, a group ofspeedrunnersmanaged to code and run versions of the gamesPong,SnakeandSuper Mario Bros.on a copy ofSuper Mario World[12]by utilizing an out-of-bounds read of a function pointer that points to a user controlled buffer to execute arbitrary code.
On June 12, 2018, Bosnian security researcher Jean-Yves Avenard ofMozilladiscovered an ACE vulnerability inWindows 10.[13]
On May 1, 2018, a security researcher discovered an ACE vulnerability in the7-Zipfile archiver.[14]
PHPhas been the subject of numerous ACE vulnerabilities.[15][16][17]
On December 9, 2021, an RCE vulnerability called "Log4Shell" was discovered in popularloggingframeworkLog4j, affecting many services includingiCloud,Minecraft: Java EditionandSteam, and characterized as "the single biggest, most critical vulnerability of the last decade".[18][19]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrary_code_execution
|
Afile inclusion vulnerabilityis a type ofwebvulnerabilitythat is most commonly found to affectweb applicationsthat rely on a scriptingrun time. This issue is caused when an application builds a path to executable code using an attacker-controlled variable in a way that allows the attacker to control which file is executed at run time. A file include vulnerability is distinct from a genericdirectory traversal attack, in that directory traversal is a way of gaining unauthorizedfile systemaccess, and a file inclusion vulnerability subverts how an application loads code for execution. Successful exploitation of a file inclusion vulnerability will result inremote code executionon theweb serverthat runs the affected web application. An attacker can use remote code execution to create aweb shellon the web server, which can be used forwebsite defacement.
Remote file inclusion(RFI) occurs when the web application downloads and executes a remote file. These remote files are usually obtained in the form of anHTTPorFTPURIas a user-supplied parameter to the web application.
Local file inclusion(LFI) is similar to a remote file inclusion vulnerability except instead of including remote files, only local files i.e. files on the current server can be included for execution. This issue can still lead to remote code execution by including a file that contains attacker-controlled data such as the web server's access logs.
InPHPthe main cause is due to the use of unvalidated user-input with a filesystem function that includes a file for execution. Most notable are theincludeandrequirestatements. Most of the vulnerabilities can be attributed to novice programmers not being familiar with all of the capabilities of the PHP programming language. The PHP language has a directive which, if enabled, allows filesystem functions to use aURLto retrieve data from remote locations.[1]The directive isallow_url_fopenin PHP versions <= 4.3.4 andallow_url_includesince PHP 5.2.0. In PHP 5.x this directive is disabled by default, in prior versions it was enabled by default.[2]To exploit the vulnerability an attacker will alter a variable that is passed to one of these functions to cause it to include malicious code from a remote resource. To mitigate this vulnerability all user input needs to bevalidatedbefore being used.[3][4]
Consider thisPHPscript which includes a file specified by request:
The developer intended to read inenglish.phporfrench.php, which will alter the application's behavior to display the language of the user's choice. But it is possible to inject another path using thelanguageparameter.
The best solution in this case is to use a whitelist of accepted language parameters. If a strong method of input validation such as a whitelist cannot be used, then rely upon input filtering or validation of the passed-in path to make sure it does not contain unintended characters and character patterns. However, this may require anticipating all possible problematic character combinations. A safer solution is to use a predefined Switch/Case statement to determine which file to include rather than use a URL or form parameter to dynamically generate the path.
JavaServer Pages(JSP) is a scripting language which can include files for execution at runtime.
The following script is vulnerable to a file inclusion vulnerability:
AServer Side Includeis very uncommon and are not typically enabled on a default web server. A server-side include can be used to gain remote code execution on a vulnerable web server.[6]
The following code is vulnerable to a remote-file inclusion vulnerability:
The above code is not anXSS vulnerability, but rather including a newfileto be executed by the server.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_inclusion_vulnerability
|
Return-oriented programming(ROP) is acomputer security exploittechnique that allows an attacker to execute code in the presence of security defenses[1][2]such asexecutable-space protectionandcode signing.[3]
In this technique, an attacker gains control of thecall stackto hijack programcontrol flowand then executes carefully chosenmachine instructionsequences that are already present in the machine's memory, called "gadgets".[4][nb 1]Each gadget typically ends in areturn instructionand is located in asubroutinewithin the existing program and/or shared library code.[nb 1]Chained together, these gadgets allow an attacker to perform arbitrary operations on a machine employing defenses that thwart simpler attacks.
Return-oriented programming is an advanced version of astack smashingattack. Generally, these types of attacks arise when an adversary manipulates thecall stackby taking advantage of abugin the program, often abuffer overrun. In a buffer overrun, a function that does not perform properbounds checkingbefore storing user-provided data into memory will accept more input data than it can store properly. If the data is being written onto the stack, the excess data may overflow the space allocated to the function's variables (e.g., "locals" in the stack diagram to the right) and overwrite the return address. This address will later be used by the function to redirect control flow back to thecaller. If it has been overwritten, control flow will be diverted to the location specified by the new return address.
In a standard buffer overrun attack, the attacker would simplywrite attack code(the "payload") onto the stack and then overwrite the return address with the location of these newly written instructions. Until the late 1990s, majoroperating systemsdid not offer any protection against these attacks;Microsoft Windowsprovided no buffer-overrun protections until 2004.[5]Eventually, operating systems began to combat the exploitation of buffer overflow bugs by marking the memory where data is written as non-executable, a technique known asexecutable-space protection. With this enabled, the machine would refuse to execute any code located in user-writable areas of memory, preventing the attacker from placing payload on the stack and jumping to it via a return address overwrite.Hardware supportlater became available to strengthen this protection.
With data execution prevention, an adversary cannot directly execute instructions written to a buffer because the buffer's memory section is marked as non-executable. To defeat this protection, a return-oriented programming attack does not inject malicious instructions, but rather uses instruction sequences already present in executable memory, called "gadgets", by manipulating return addresses. A typical data execution prevention implementation cannot defend against this attack because the adversary did not directly execute the malicious code, but rather combined sequences of "good" instructions by changing stored return addresses; therefore the code used would be marked as executable.
The widespread implementation of data execution prevention made traditional buffer overflow vulnerabilities difficult or impossible to exploit in the manner described above. Instead, an attacker was restricted to code already in memory marked executable, such as the program code itself and any linkedshared libraries. Since shared libraries, such aslibc, often contain subroutines for performing system calls and other functionality potentially useful to an attacker, they are the most likely candidates for finding code to assemble an attack.
In a return-into-library attack, an attacker hijacks program control flow by exploiting a buffer overrun vulnerability, exactly as discussed above. Instead of attempting to write an attack payload onto the stack, the attacker instead chooses an available library function and overwrites the return address with its entry location. Further stack locations are then overwritten, obeying applicablecalling conventions, to carefully pass the proper parameters to the function so it performs functionality useful to the attacker. This technique was first presented bySolar Designerin 1997,[6]and was later extended to unlimited chaining of function calls.[7]
The rise of64-bit x86processors brought with it a change to the subroutine calling convention that required the first few arguments to a function to be passed inregistersinstead of on the stack. This meant that an attacker could no longer set up a library function call with desired arguments just by manipulating the call stack via a buffer overrun exploit. Shared library developers also began to remove or restrict library functions that performed actions particularly useful to an attacker, such assystem callwrappers. As a result, return-into-library attacks became much more difficult to mount successfully.
The next evolution came in the form of an attack that used chunks of library functions, instead of entire functions themselves, to exploit buffer overrun vulnerabilities on machines with defenses against simpler attacks.[8]This technique looks for functions that contain instruction sequences that pop values from the stack into registers. Careful selection of these code sequences allows an attacker to put suitable values into the proper registers to perform a function call under the new calling convention. The rest of the attack proceeds as a return-into-library attack.
Return-oriented programming builds on the borrowed code chunks approach and extends it to provideTuring-completefunctionality to the attacker, includingloopsandconditional branches.[9][10]Put another way, return-oriented programming provides a fully functional "language" that an attacker can use to make a compromised machine perform any operation desired.Hovav Shachampublished the technique in 2007[11]and demonstrated how all the important programming constructs can be simulated using return-oriented programming against a target application linked with the C standard library and containing an exploitable buffer overrun vulnerability.
A return-oriented programming attack is superior to the other attack types discussed, both in expressive power and in resistance to defensive measures. None of the counter-exploitation techniques mentioned above, including removing potentially dangerous functions from shared libraries altogether, are effective against a return-oriented programming attack.
Although return-oriented programming attacks can be performed on a variety of architectures,[11]Shacham's paper and the majority of follow-up work focus on the Intelx86architecture. The x86 architecture is a variable-lengthCISCinstruction set. Return-oriented programming on the x86 takes advantage of the fact that the instruction set is very "dense", that is, any random sequence of bytes is likely to be interpretable as some valid set of x86 instructions.
It is therefore possible to search for anopcodethat alters control flow, most notably the return instruction (0xC3) and then look backwards in the binary for preceding bytes that form possibly useful instructions. These sets of instruction "gadgets" can then be chained by overwriting the return address, via a buffer overrun exploit, with the address of the first instruction of the first gadget. The first address of subsequent gadgets is then written successively onto the stack. At the conclusion of the first gadget, a return instruction will be executed, which will pop the address of the next gadget off the stack and jump to it. At the conclusion of that gadget, the chain continues with the third, and so on. By chaining the small instruction sequences, an attacker is able to produce arbitrary program behavior from pre-existing library code. Shacham asserts that given any sufficiently large quantity of code (including, but not limited to, the C standard library), sufficient gadgets will exist for Turing-complete functionality.[11]
An automated tool has been developed to help automate the process of locating gadgets and constructing an attack against a binary.[12]This tool, known as ROPgadget, searches through a binary looking for potentially useful gadgets, and attempts to assemble them into an attack payload that spawns a shell to accept arbitrary commands from the attacker.
Theaddress space layout randomizationalso has vulnerabilities. According to the paper of Shacham et al.,[13]the ASLR on 32-bit architectures is limited by the number of bits available for address randomization. Only 16 of the 32 address bits are available for randomization, and 16 bits of address randomization can be defeated by brute force attack in minutes. 64-bit architectures are more robust, with 40 of the 64 bits available for randomization. A brute force attack against 40-bit randomization is possible, but is unlikely to go unnoticed.[citation needed]In addition to brute force attacks, techniques forremoving randomizationexist.
Even with perfect randomization, if there is any information leakage of memory contents it would help to calculate the base address of for example ashared libraryat runtime.[14]
According to the paper of Checkoway et al.,[15]it is possible to perform return-oriented-programming on x86 and ARM architectures without using a return instruction (0xC3 on x86). They instead used carefully crafted instruction sequences that already exist in the machine's memory to behave like a return instruction. A return instruction has two effects: firstly, it reads the four-byte value at the top of the stack, and sets the instruction pointer to that value, and secondly, it increases the stack pointer value by four (equivalent to a pop operation). On the x86 architecture, sequences of jmp and pop instructions can act as a return instruction. On ARM, sequences of load and branch instructions can act as a return instruction.
Since this new approach does not use a return instruction, it has negative implications for defense. When a defense program checks not only for several returns but also for several jump instructions, this attack may be detected.
The G-Free technique was developed by Kaan Onarlioglu, Leyla Bilge, Andrea Lanzi, Davide Balzarotti, and Engin Kirda. It is a practical solution against any possible form of return-oriented programming. The solution eliminates all unaligned free-branch instructions (instructions like RET or CALL which attackers can use tochange controlflow) inside a binary executable, and protects the free-branch instructions from being used by an attacker. The way G-Free protects the return address is similar to theXOR canaryimplemented by StackGuard. Further, it checks the authenticity of function calls by appending a validation block. If the expected result is not found, G-Free causes the application to crash.[16]
A number of techniques have been proposed to subvert attacks based on return-oriented programming.[17]Most rely on randomizing the location of program and library code, so that an attacker cannot accurately predict the location of instructions that might be useful in gadgets and therefore cannot mount a successful return-oriented programming attack chain. One fairly common implementation of this technique,address space layout randomization(ASLR), loads shared libraries into a different memory location at each program load. Although widely deployed by modern operating systems, ASLR is vulnerable toinformation leakageattacks and other approaches to determine the address of any known library function in memory. If an attacker can successfully determine the location of one known instruction, the position of all others can be inferred and a return-oriented programming attack can be constructed.
This randomization approach can be taken further by relocating all the instructions and/or other program state (registers and stack objects) of the program separately, instead of just library locations.[18][19][20]This requires extensive runtime support, such as a software dynamic translator, to piece the randomized instructions back together at runtime. This technique is successful at making gadgets difficult to find and utilize, but comes with significant overhead.
Another approach, taken by kBouncer, modifies the operating system to verify that return instructions actually divert control flow back to a location immediately following a call instruction. This prevents gadget chaining, but carries a heavy performance penalty,[clarification needed]and is not effective against jump-oriented programming attacks which alter jumps and other control-flow-modifying instructions instead of returns.[21]
Some modern systems such as Cloud Lambda (FaaS) and IoT remote updates use Cloud infrastructure to perform on-the-fly compilation beforesoftware deployment. A technique that introduces variations to each instance of an executing software program can dramatically increase software's immunity to ROP attacks. Brute forcing Cloud Lambda may result in attacking several instances of the randomized software which reduces the effectiveness of the attack. Asaf Shelly published the technique in 2017[22]and demonstrated the use of Binary Randomization in a software update system. For every updated device, the Cloud-based service introduced variations to code, performs online compilation, and dispatched the binary. This technique is very effective because ROP attacks rely on knowledge of the internal structure of the software. The drawback of the technique is that the software is never fully tested before it is deployed because it is not feasible to test all variations of the randomized software. This means that many Binary Randomization techniques are applicable for network interfaces and system programming and are less recommended for complex algorithms.
Structured Exception HandlerOverwrite Protection is a feature of Windows which protects against the most common stack overflow attacks, especially against attacks on a structured exception handler.
As small embedded systems are proliferating due to the expansion of theInternet Of Things, the need for protection of such embedded systems is also increasing. Using Instruction Based Memory Access Control (IB-MAC) implemented in hardware, it is possible to protect low-cost embedded systems against malicious control flow and stack overflow attacks. The protection can be provided by separating the data stack and the return stack. However, due to the lack of amemory management unitin some embedded systems, the hardware solution cannot be applied to all embedded systems.[23]
In 2010, Jinku Li et al. proposed[24]that a suitably modified compiler could eliminate return-oriented "gadgets" by replacing eachcallfwith the instruction sequencepushl$index;jmpfand eachretwith the instruction sequencepopl%reg;jmptable(%reg), wheretablerepresents an immutable tabulation of all "legitimate" return addresses in the program andindexrepresents a specific index into that table.[24]: 5–6This prevents the creation of a return-oriented gadget that returns straight from the end of a function to an arbitrary address in the middle of another function; instead, gadgets can return only to "legitimate" return addresses, which drastically increases the difficulty of creating useful gadgets. Li et al. claimed that "our return indirection technique essentiallyde-generalizesreturn-oriented programming back to the old style of return-into-libc."[24]Their proof-of-concept compiler included apeephole optimizationphase to deal with "certain machine instructions which happen to contain the return opcode in their opcodes or immediate operands,"[24]such asmovl$0xC3,%eax.
The ARMv8.3-A architecture introduces a new feature at the hardware level that takes advantage of unused bits in the pointer address space to cryptographically sign pointer addresses using a specially-designedtweakable block cipher[25][26]which signs the desired value (typically, a return address) combined with a "local context" value (e.g., the stack pointer).
Before performing a sensitive operation (i.e., returning to the saved pointer) the signature can be checked to detect tampering or usage in the incorrect context (e.g., leveraging a saved return address from an exploit trampoline context).
Notably theApple A12chips used in iPhones have upgraded to ARMv8.3 and use PACs.Linuxgained support for pointer authentication within the kernel in version 5.7 released in 2020; support foruserspaceapplications was added in 2018.[27]
In 2022, researchers at MIT published aside-channel attackagainst PACs dubbedPACMAN.[28]
The ARMv8.5-A architecture introduces another new feature at the hardware level that explicitly identifies valid targets of branch instructions. The compiler inserts a special instruction, opcode named "BTI", at each expected landing point ofindirect branchinstructions. These identified branch destinations typically include function entry points and switch/case code blocks.
BTI instructions are used in code memory pages which are marked as "guarded" by the compiler and the linker. Any indirect branch instruction landing, in a guarded page, at any instruction other than a BTI generates a fault.
The identified destinations where a BTI instruction is inserted represent approximately 1% of all instructions in average application code. Therefore, using BTI increases the code size by the same amount.[29]
The gadgets which are used in a ROP attack are located anywhere in the application code. Therefore, on average, 99% of the gadgets start with an instruction which is not a BTI.[citation needed]Branching to these gadgets consequently results in a fault. Considering that a ROP attack is made of a chain of multiple gadgets, the probability that all gadgets in a chain are part of the 1% which start with a BTI is very low.
PAC and BTI are complementary mechanisms to prevent rogue code injections using return-oriented and jump-oriented programming attacks. While PAC focuses on the source of a branch operation (a signed pointer), BTI focuses on the destination of the branch.[30]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadget_(machine_instruction_sequence)
|
Prompt injectionis acybersecurityexploit in which adversaries craft inputs that appear legitimate but are designed to cause unintended behavior inmachine learning models, particularlylarge language models(LLMs). This attack takes advantage of the model's inability to distinguish between developer-defined prompts and user inputs, allowing adversaries to bypass safeguards and influence model behaviour. While LLMs are designed to follow trusted instructions, they can be manipulated into carrying out unintended responses through carefully crafted inputs.[1][2][3][4]
TheOpen Worldwide Application Security Project(OWASP) ranked prompt injection as the topsecurity riskin its2025 OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applicationsreport, describing it as a vulnerability that can manipulate LLMs through adversarial inputs.[5]
A language model can performtranslationwith the following prompt:[6]
followed by the text to be translated. A prompt injection can occur when that text contains instructions that change the behavior of the model:
to which an AI model responds: "Haha pwned!!".[2][7]This attack works because language model inputs contain instructions and data together in the same context, so the underlying engine cannot distinguish between them.[8]
Prompt injection is a type ofcode injectionattack that leverages adversarial prompt engineering to manipulate AI models. In May 2022, Jonathan Cefalu ofPreambleidentified prompt injection as a security vulnerability and reported it toOpenAI, referring to it as "command injection".[9]In late 2022, theNCC Groupidentified prompt injection as an emerging vulnerability affecting AI and machine learning (ML) systems.[10]
The term "prompt injection" was coined bySimon Willisonin September 2022.[2]He distinguished it fromjailbreaking, which bypasses an AI model's safeguards, whereas prompt injection exploits its inability to differentiate system instructions from user inputs. While some prompt injection attacks involve jailbreaking, they remain distinct techniques.[2][11]
LLMs withweb browsingcapabilities can be targeted by indirect prompt injection, where adversarial prompts are embedded within website content. If the LLM retrieves and processes the webpage, it may interpret and execute the embedded instructions as legitimate commands, potentially leading to unintended behavior.[12]
A November 2024OWASPreport identified security challenges inmultimodal AI, which processes multiple data types, such as text and images. Adversarial prompts can be embedded in non-textual elements, such as hidden instructions within images, influencing model responses when processed alongside text. This complexity expands the attack surface, making multimodal AI more susceptible to cross-modal vulnerabilities.[5]
Prompt injection can be direct, where attackers manipulate AI responses through user input, or indirect, embedding hidden instructions in external data sources such as emails and documents. A November 2024 report byThe Alan Turing Institutehighlights growing risks, stating that 75% of business employees use GenAI, with 46% adopting it within the past six months.McKinseyidentified accuracy as the topGenAIrisk, yet only 38% of organizations are taking steps to mitigate it. Leading AI providers, includingMicrosoft,Google, andAmazon, integrate LLMs into enterprise applications. Cybersecurity agencies, including the UKNational Cyber Security Centre(NCSC) and USNational Institute for Standards and Technology(NIST), classify prompt injection as a critical security threat, with potential consequences such as data manipulation,phishing, misinformation, anddenial-of-service attacks.[13]
In February 2023, aStanfordstudent discovered a method to bypass safeguards inMicrosoft's AI-poweredBing Chatby instructing it to ignore prior directives, which led to the revelation of internal guidelines and its codename, "Sydney." Another student later verified the exploit by posing as a developer atOpenAI. Microsoft acknowledged the issue and stated that system controls were continuously evolving.[14]
In December 2024,The Guardianreported that OpenAI’sChatGPTsearch tool was vulnerable to prompt injection attacks, allowing hidden webpage content to manipulate its responses. Testing showed that invisible text could override negative reviews with artificially positive assessments, potentially misleading users. Security researchers cautioned that such vulnerabilities, if unaddressed, could facilitate misinformation or manipulate search results.[15]
In January 2025,Infosecurity Magazinereported thatDeepSeek-R1, a large language model (LLM) developed by Chinese AI startupDeepSeek, exhibited vulnerabilities to prompt injection attacks. Testing with WithSecure’s Simple Prompt Injection Kit for Evaluation and Exploitation (Spikee) benchmark found that DeepSeek-R1 had a higher attack success rate compared to several other models, ranking 17th out of 19 when tested in isolation and 16th when combined with predefined rules and data markers. While DeepSeek-R1 ranked sixth on the Chatbot Arena benchmark for reasoning performance, researchers noted that its security defenses may not have been as extensively developed as its optimization for LLM performance benchmarks.[16]
In February 2025,Ars Technicareported vulnerabilities inGoogle'sGemini AIto prompt injection attacks that manipulated itslong-term memory.Security researcherJohann Rehberger demonstrated how hidden instructions within documents could be stored and later triggered by user interactions. The exploit leveraged delayed tool invocation, causing the AI to act on injected prompts only after activation. Google rated the risk as low, citing the need for user interaction and the system's memory update notifications, but researchers cautioned that manipulated memory could result in misinformation or influence AI responses in unintended ways.[17]
Prompt injection has been identified as a significant security risk in LLM applications, prompting the development of various mitigation strategies.[5]These include input and output filtering, prompt evaluation,reinforcement learning from human feedback, and prompt engineering to distinguish user input from system instructions.[18][19]Additional techniques outlined byOWASPinclude enforcing least privilege access, requiring human oversight for sensitive operations, isolating external content, and conducting adversarial testing to identify vulnerabilities. While these measures help reduce risks, OWASP notes that prompt injection remains a persistent challenge, as methods likeRetrieval-Augmented Generation(RAG) andfine-tuningdo not fully eliminate the threat.[5]
TheUK National Cyber Security Centre(NCSC) stated in August 2023 that while research into prompt injection is ongoing, it "may simply be an inherent issue with LLM technology." The NCSC also noted that although some strategies can make prompt injection more difficult, "as yet there are no surefire mitigations".[20]
Data hygiene is a key defense against prompt injection ingenerative AIsystems, ensuring that AI models access only well-regulated data. A November 2024 report byThe Alan Turing Instituteoutlines best practices, including restricting unverified external inputs, such as emails, until reviewed by authorized users. Approval processes for new data sources, particularlyRAGsystems, help prevent malicious content from influencing AI outputs. Organizations can further mitigate risks by enforcing role-based data access and blocking untrusted sources. Additional safeguards include monitoring for hidden text in documents and restricting file types that may containexecutable code, such asPythonpickle files.[13]
Technical guardrails mitigate prompt injection attacks by distinguishing between task instructions and retrieved data. Attackers can embed hidden commands within data sources, exploiting this ambiguity. One approach uses automated evaluation processes to scan retrieved data for potential instructions before AI processes it. Flagged inputs can be reviewed or filtered out to reduce the risk of unintended execution.[13]
User training mitigates security risks in AI-embedded applications. Many organizations train employees to identifyphishingattacks, but AI-specific training improves understanding of AI models, their vulnerabilities, and disguised malicious prompts.[13]
In July 2024, theUnited States Patent and Trademark Office(USPTO) issued updated guidance on the patent eligibility ofartificial intelligence(AI) inventions. The update was issued in response toPresident Biden’sexecutive orderSafe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of AI, introduced on October 30, 2023, to address AI-related risks and regulations. The guidance clarifies how AI-related patent applications are evaluated under the existing Alice/Mayo framework, particularly in determining whether AI inventions involve abstract ideas or constitutepatent-eligibletechnological improvements. It also includes new hypothetical examples to help practitioners understand how AI-related claims may be assessed.[21]
In October 2024,Preamblewas granted a patent by the USPTO for technology designed to mitigate prompt injection attacks in AI models (Patent No. 12118471).[22]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_injection
|
Shellshock, also known asBashdoor,[1]is a family ofsecurity bugs[2]in theUnixBashshell, the first of which was disclosed on 24 September 2014. Shellshock could enable an attacker to cause Bash toexecute arbitrary commandsand gain unauthorized access[3]to many Internet-facing services, such as web servers, that use Bash to process requests.
On 12 September 2014, Stéphane Chazelas informed Bash's maintainer Chet Ramey[1]of his discovery of the original bug, which he called "Bashdoor". Working with security experts, Mr. Chazelas developed apatch[1](fix) for the issue, which by then had been assigned the vulnerability identifierCVE-2014-6271.[4]The existence of the bug was announced to the public on 2014-09-24, when Bash updates with the fix were ready for distribution.[5]
The bug Chazelas discovered caused Bash to unintentionally execute commands when the commands are concatenated to the end offunction definitionsstored in the values ofenvironment variables.[1][6]Within days of its publication, a variety of related vulnerabilities were discovered (CVE-2014-6277, CVE-2014-6278, CVE-2014-7169, CVE-2014-7186and CVE-2014-7187). Ramey addressed these with a series of further patches.[7][8]
Attackers exploited Shellshock within hours of the initial disclosure by creatingbotnetsof compromised computers to performdistributed denial-of-service attacksandvulnerability scanning.[9][10]Security companies recorded millions of attacks and probes related to the bug in the days following the disclosure.[11][12]
Because of the potential to compromise millions of unpatched systems, Shellshock was compared to theHeartbleedbug in its severity.[3][13]
The Shellshock bug affectsBash, a program that variousUnix-based systems use to execute command lines and command scripts. It is often installed as the system's defaultcommand-line interface. Analysis of thesource codehistory of Bash shows the bug was introduced on 5 August 1989, and released in Bash version 1.03 on 1 September 1989.[14][15][16]
Shellshock is anarbitrary code executionvulnerability that offers a way for users of a system to execute commands that should be unavailable to them. This happens through Bash's "function export" feature, whereby one Bashprocesscan share command scripts with other Bash processes that it executes.[17]This feature is implemented by encoding the scripts in a table that is shared between the processes, known as theenvironment variablelist. Each new Bash process scans this table for encoded scripts, assembles each one into a command that defines that script in the new process, and executes that command.[18]The new process assumes that the scripts found in the list come from another Bash process, but it cannot verify this, nor can it verify that the command that it has built is a properly formed script definition. Therefore, an attacker can execute arbitrary commands on the system or exploit other bugs that may exist in Bash's command interpreter, if the attacker has a way to manipulate the environment variable list and then cause Bash to run. At the time the bug was discovered, Bash was installed onmacOSand manyLinuxoperating systems as the main command interpreter, so that any program that used thesystemfunction to run any other program would use Bash to do so.
The presence of the bug was announced to the public on 2014-09-24, when Bash updates with the fix were ready for distribution,[5]though it took some time for computers to be updated to close the potential security issue.
Within an hour of the announcement of the Bash vulnerability, there were reports of machines being compromised by the bug. By 25 September 2014,botnetsbased on computers compromised with exploits based on the bug were being used by attackers fordistributed denial-of-service(DDoS) attacks andvulnerability scanning.[9][10][19]Kaspersky Labsreported that machines compromised in an attack, dubbed "Thanks-Rob", were conducting DDoS attacks against three targets, which they did not identify.[9]On 26 September 2014, a Shellshock-related botnet dubbed "wopbot" was reported, which was being used for a DDoS attack againstAkamai Technologiesand to scan theUnited States Department of Defense.[10]
On 26 September, the security firmIncapsulanoted 17,400 attacks on more than 1,800 web domains, originating from 400 unique IP addresses, in the previous 24 hours; 55% of the attacks were coming from China and the United States.[11]By 30 September, the website performance firmCloudFlaresaid it was tracking approximately 1.5 million attacks and probes per day related to the bug.[12]
On 6 October, it was widely reported thatYahoo!servers had been compromised in an attack related to the Shellshock issue.[20][21]Yet the next day, it was denied that it had beenShellshockthat specifically had allowed these attacks.[22]
The maintainer of Bash was warned about the first discovery of the bug on 2014-09-12; a fix followed soon.[1]A few companies and distributors were informed before the matter was publicly disclosed on 2014-09-24 with CVE identifierCVE-2014-6271.[4][5]However, after the release of the patch there were subsequent reports of different, yet related vulnerabilities.[28]
On 26 September 2014, two open-source contributors, David A. Wheeler and Norihiro Tanaka, noted that there were additional issues, even after patching systems using the most recently available patches. In an email addressed to the oss-sec and bash-bug mailing lists, Wheeler wrote: "This patch just continues the'whack-a-mole'[sic] job of fixing parsing errors that began with the first patch. Bash's parser is certain [to] have many many many other vulnerabilities".[29]
On 27 September 2014,Michał ZalewskifromGoogle Inc.announced his discovery of other Bash vulnerabilities,[7]one based upon the fact that Bash is typically compiled withoutaddress space layout randomization.[30]On 1 October, Zalewski released details of the final bugs and confirmed that a patch by Florian Weimer fromRed Hatposted on 25 September does indeed prevent them. He has done that using afuzzingtechnique with the aid of software utility known asamerican fuzzy lop.[31]
This original form of the vulnerability (CVE-2014-6271) involves a specially crafted environment variable containing an exported function definition, followed by arbitrary commands. Bash incorrectly executes the trailing commands when it imports the function.[32]The vulnerability can be tested with the following command:
In systems affected by the vulnerability, the above commands will display the word "vulnerable" as a result of Bash executing the command"echo vulnerable", which was embedded into the specially crafted environment variable named"x".[8][33]
Discovered byMichał Zalewski,[7][30][34]the vulnerabilityCVE-2014-6277, which relates to the parsing of function definitions in environment variables by Bash, can cause asegfault.[35]
Also discovered byMichał Zalewski,[35][36]this bug (CVE-2014-6278) relates to the parsing of function definitions in environment variables by Bash.
On the same day the original vulnerability was published,Tavis Ormandydiscovered this related bug (CVE-2014-7169),[24]which is
demonstrated in the following code:
On a vulnerable system, this would execute the command "date" unintentionally.[24]
Here is an example of a system that has a patch for CVE-2014-6271 but not CVE-2014-7169:
The system displays syntax errors, notifying the user that CVE-2014-6271 has been prevented, but still writes a file named 'echo', into the working directory, containing the result of the 'date' call.
A system patched for both CVE-2014-6271 and CVE-2014-7169 will simply echo the word "date" and the file "echo" willnotbe created, as shown below:
Florian Weimer and Todd Sabin found this bug (CVE-2014-7186),[8][31]which relates to anout-of-bounds memory access errorin the Bash parser code.[37]
An example of the vulnerability, which leverages the use of multiple "<<EOF" declarations (nested"here documents"):
A vulnerable system will echo the text "CVE-2014-7186 vulnerable, redir_stack".
Also found by Florian Weimer,[8]CVE-2014-7187is anoff-by-one errorin the Bash parser code, allowing out-of-bounds memory access.[38]
An example of the vulnerability, which leverages the use of multiple "done" declarations:
A vulnerable system will echo the text "CVE-2014-7187 vulnerable, word_lineno". This test requires a shell that supportsbrace expansion.[39]
Until 24 September 2014, Bash maintainer Chet Ramey provided a patch version bash43-025 of Bash 4.3 addressing CVE-2014-6271,[40]which was already packaged by distribution maintainers. On 24 September, bash43-026 followed, addressing CVE-2014-7169.[41]Then CVE-2014-7186 was discovered. Florian Weimer fromRed Hatposted some patch code for this "unofficially" on 25 September,[42]which Ramey incorporated into Bash as bash43-027.[43][44]—These patches providedsource codeonly, helpful only for those who know how tocompile("rebuild") a new Bashbinary executablefile from the patch file and remaining source code files. The patches added a variable name prefix when functions are exported; this prevented arbitrary variables from triggering the vulnerability and enabled other programs to remove Bash functions from the environment.
The next day, Red Hat officially presented according updates forRed Hat Enterprise Linux,[45][46]after another day forFedora 21.[47]Canonical Ltd.presented updates for itsUbuntuLong Term Supportversions on Saturday, 27 September;[48]on Sunday, there were updates forSUSE Linux Enterprise.[49]The following Monday and Tuesday at the end of the month,Mac OS Xupdates appeared.[50][51]
On 1 October 2014,Michał ZalewskifromGoogle Inc.finally stated that Weimer's code and bash43-027 had fixed not only the first three bugs but even the remaining three that were published after bash43-027, including his own two discoveries.[31]This means that after the earlier distribution updates, no other updates have been required to cover all the six issues.[46]
All of them have also been covered for theIBMHardware Management Console.[27]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shellshock_(software_bug)
|
In computing,SQL injectionis acode injectiontechnique used toattackdata-driven applications, in which maliciousSQLstatements are inserted into an entry field for execution (e.g. to dump thedatabasecontents to the attacker).[1][2]SQL injection must exploit asecurity vulnerabilityin an application's software, for example, when user input is either incorrectly filtered forstring literalescape charactersembedded in SQL statements or user input is notstrongly typedand unexpectedly executed. SQL injection is mostly known as anattack vectorfor websites but can be used to attack any type of SQL database.
SQL injection attacks allow attackers tospoofidentity, tamper with existingdata, cause repudiation issues such as voiding transactions or changing balances, allow the complete disclosure of all data on the system, destroy the data or make it otherwise unavailable, and become administrators of the database server. Document-orientedNoSQLdatabases can also be affected by this security vulnerability.[citation needed]
SQL injection remains a widely recognized security risk due to its potential to compromise sensitive data. TheOpen Web Application Security Project(OWASP) describes it as a vulnerability that occurs when applications construct database queries using unvalidated user input. Exploiting this flaw, attackers can execute unintended database commands, potentially accessing, modifying, or deleting data. OWASP outlines several mitigation strategies, includingprepared statements,stored procedures, andinput validation, to prevent user input from being misinterpreted as executable SQL code.[3]
Discussions of SQL injection began in the late 1990s, including in a 1998 article inPhrack Magazine.[4]SQL injection was ranked among the top 10 web application vulnerabilities of 2007 and 2010 by theOpen Web Application Security Project(OWASP).[5]In 2013, SQL injection was listed as the most critical web application vulnerability in the OWASP Top 10.[6]
In 2017, theOWASP Top 10 Application Security Risksgrouped SQL injection under the broader category of "Injection," ranking it as the third most critical security threat. This category included various types of injection attacks, such as SQL,NoSQL, OS command, andLDAP injection. These vulnerabilities arise when an application processes untrusted data as part of a command or query, potentially allowing attackers to execute unintended actions or gain unauthorized access to data.[7]
By 2021, injection remained a widespread issue, detected in 94% of analyzed applications, with reported incidence rates reaching up to 19%. That year’sOWASP Top 10further expanded the definition of injection vulnerabilities to include attacks targetingObject Relational Mapping(ORM) systems,Expression Language(EL), and Object Graph Navigation Library (OGNL). To address these risks, OWASP recommends strategies such as using secureAPIs, parameterized queries, input validation, and escaping special characters to prevent malicious data from being executed as part of a query.[8][9]
SQL Injection is a common security vulnerability that arises from letting attacker supplied data become SQL code. This happens when programmers assemble SQL queries either by string interpolation or by concatenating SQL commands with user supplied data. Therefore, injection relies on the fact that SQL statements consist of both data used by the SQL statement and commands that control how the SQL statement is executed. For example, in the SQL statementselect*frompersonwherename='susan'andage=2the string 'susan' is data and the fragmentandage=2is an example of a command (the value2is also data in this example).
SQL injection occurs when specially crafted user input is processed by the receiving program in a way that allows the input to exit a data context and enter a command context. This allows the attacker to alter the structure of the SQL statement which is executed.
As a simple example, imagine that the data 'susan' in the above statement was provided by user input. The user entered the string 'susan' (without the apostrophes) in a web form text entry field, and the program usedstring concatenationstatements to form the above SQL statement from the three fragmentsselect*frompersonwherename=', the user input of 'susan', and'andage=2.
Now imagine that instead of entering 'susan' the attacker entered'or1=1;--.
The program will use the same string concatenation approach with the 3 fragments ofselect*frompersonwherename=', the user input of'or1=1;--, and'andage=2and construct the statementselect*frompersonwherename=''or1=1;--' and age = 2. Many databases will ignore the text after the '--' string as this denotes a comment. The structure of the SQL command is nowselect*frompersonwherename=''or1=1;and this will select all person rows rather than just those named 'susan' whose age is 2. The attacker has managed to craft a data string which exits the data context and entered a command context.
Although the root cause of all SQL injections is the same, there are different techniques to exploit it. Some of them are discussed below:
Imagine a program creates a SQL statement using the following string assignment command :
varstatement="SELECT * FROM users WHERE name = '"+userName+"'";
This SQL code is designed to pull up the records of the specified username from its table of users. However, if the "userName" variable is crafted in a specific way by a malicious user, the SQL statement may do more than the code author intended. For example, setting the "userName" variable as:
or using comments to even block the rest of the query (there are three types of SQL comments[10]). All three lines have a space at the end:
renders one of the following SQL statements by the parent language:
If this code were to be used in authentication procedure then this example could be used to force the selection of every data field (*) fromallusers rather than from one specific user name as the coder intended, because the evaluation of '1'='1' is always true.
The following value of "userName" in the statement below would cause the deletion of the "users" table as well as the selection of all data from the "userinfo" table (in essence revealing the information of every user), using anAPIthat allows multiple statements:
a';DROPTABLEusers;SELECT*FROMuserinfoWHERE't'='t
This input renders the final SQL statement as follows and specified:
While most SQL server implementations allow multiple statements to be executed with one call in this way, some SQL APIs such asPHP'smysql_query()function do not allow this for security reasons. This prevents attackers from injecting entirely separate queries, but doesn't stop them from modifying queries.
Blind SQL injection is used when a web application is vulnerable to a SQL injection, but the results of the injection are not visible to the attacker. The page with the vulnerability may not be one that displays data but will display differently depending on the results of a logical statement injected into the legitimate SQL statement called for that page.
This type of attack has traditionally been considered time-intensive because a new statement needed to be crafted for each bit recovered, and depending on its structure, the attack may consist of many unsuccessful requests. Recent advancements have allowed each request to recover multiple bits, with no unsuccessful requests, allowing for more consistent and efficient extraction.[11]There are several tools that can automate these attacks once the location of the vulnerability and the target information has been established.[12]
One type of blind SQL injection forces the database to evaluate a logical statement on an ordinary application screen. As an example, a book review website uses aquery stringto determine which book review to display. So theURLhttps://books.example.com/review?id=5would cause the server to run the query
from which it would populate the review page with data from the review withID5, stored in thetablebookreviews. The query happens completely on the server; the user does not know the names of the database, table, or fields, nor does the user know the query string. The user only sees that the above URL returns a book review. Ahackercan load the URLshttps://books.example.com/review?id=5' OR '1'='1andhttps://books.example.com/review?id=5' AND '1'='2, which may result in queries
respectively. If the original review loads with the "1=1" URL and a blank or error page is returned from the "1=2" URL, and the returned page has not been created to alert the user the input is invalid, or in other words, has been caught by an input test script, the site is likely vulnerable to an SQL injection attack as the query will likely have passed through successfully in both cases. The hacker may proceed with this query string designed to reveal the version number ofMySQLrunning on the server:https://books.example.com/review?id=5ANDsubstring(@@version,1,INSTR(@@version,'.')-1)=4, which would show the book review on a server running MySQL 4 and a blank or error page otherwise. The hacker can continue to use code within query strings to achieve their goal directly, or to glean more information from the server in hopes of discovering another avenue of attack.[13][14]
Second-order SQL injection occurs when an application only guards its SQL against immediate user input, but has a less strict policy when dealing with data already stored in the system. Therefore, although such application would manage to safely process the user input and store it without issue, it would store the malicious SQL statement as well. Then, when another part of that application would use that data in a query that isn't protected from SQL injection, this malicious statement might get executed.[citation needed]This attack requires more knowledge of how submitted values are later used. Automated web application security scanners would not easily detect this type of SQL injection and may need to be manually instructed where to check for evidence that it is being attempted.
In order to protect from this kind of attack, all SQL processing must be uniformly secure, despite the data source.
SQL injection is a well-known attack that can be mitigated with established security measures. However, a 2015cyberattackon British telecommunications companyTalkTalkexploited an SQL injection vulnerability, compromising the personal data of approximately 400,000 customers. TheBBCreported that security experts expressed surprise that a major company remained vulnerable to such an exploit.[15]
A variety of defensive measures exist to mitigate SQL injection risks by preventing attackers from injecting malicious SQL code into database queries. Core mitigation strategies, as outlined byOWASP, include parameterized queries,input validation, and least privilege access controls, which limit the ability of user input to alter SQL queries and execute unintended commands.[3]In addition to preventive measures, detection techniques help identify potential SQL injection attempts. Methods such aspattern matching,software testing, and grammar analysis examine query structures and user inputs to detect irregularities that may indicate an injection attempt.[2]
Most development platforms support parameterized statements, also known as placeholders orbind variables, to securely handle user input instead of embedding it in SQL queries. These placeholders store only values of a defined type, preventing input from altering the query structure. As a result, SQL injection attempts are processed as unexpected input rather than executable code. With parametrized queries, SQL code remains separate from user input, and each parameter is passed as a distinct value, preventing it from being interpreted as part of the SQL statement.[3]
Allow-listinput validation ensures that only explicitly defined inputs are accepted, reducing the risk of injection attacks. Unlikedeny-lists, which attempt to block known malicious patterns but can be bypassed, allow-lists specify valid input and reject everything else. This approach is particularly effective forstructured data, such as dates and email addresses, where strict validation rules can be applied. While input validation alone does not prevent SQL injection and other attacks, it can act as an additional safeguard by identifying and filtering unauthorized input before it reaches an SQL query.[3][16]
According to OWASP, theprinciple of least privilegehelps mitigate SQL injection risks by ensuring database accounts have only the minimum permissions necessary. Read-only accounts should not have modification privileges, and application accounts should never have administrative access. Restricting database permissions is a key part of this approach, as limiting access to system tables and restricting user roles can reduce the risk of SQL injection attacks. Separating database users for different functions, such as authentication and data modification, further limits potential damage from SQL injection attacks.[3]
Restricting database permissions on the web application's database login further reduces the impact of SQL injection vulnerabilities. Ensuring that accounts have only the necessary access, such as restricting SELECT permissions on critical system tables, can mitigate potential exploits.[citation needed]
OnMicrosoft SQL Server, limiting SELECT access to system tables can prevent SQL injection attacks that attempt to modify database schema or inject malicious scripts. For example, the following permissions restrict a database user from accessing system objects:[citation needed]
Object–relational mapping(ORM) frameworks provide anobject-oriented interfacefor interacting withrelational databases. While ORMs typically offer built-in protections against SQL injection, they can still be vulnerable if not properly implemented. Some ORM-generated queries may allow unsanitized input, leading to injection risks. Additionally, many ORMs allow developers to execute raw SQL queries, which if improperly handled can introduce SQL injection vulnerabilities.[17][18]
String escaping is generally discouraged as a primary defense against SQL injection.OWASPdescribes this approach as "frail compared to other defenses" and notes that it may not be effective in all situations. Instead, OWASP recommends using "parameterized queries, stored procedures, or some kind of Object Relational Mapper (ORM) that builds your queries for you" as more reliable methods for mitigating SQL injection risks.[3]
One of the traditional ways to prevent injections is to addevery piece of data as a quoted stringandescapeall characters, that have special meaning in SQL strings, in that data.[19]The manual for an SQL DBMS explains which characters have a special meaning, which allows creating a comprehensiveblacklistof characters that need translation.[citation needed]For instance, every occurrence of a single quote (') in a string parameter must be prepended with a backslash (\) so that the database understands the single quote is part of a given string, rather than its terminator.PHP'sMySQLimodule provides themysqli_real_escape_string()function to escape strings according toMySQLsemantics; in the following example the username is a string parameter, and therefore it can be protected by means of string escaping:[clarification needed]
Besides, not every piece of data can be added to SQL as a string literal (MySQL's LIMIT clause arguments[20]or table/column names[21]for example) and in this case escaping string-related special characters will do no good whatsoever, leaving resulting SQL open to injections.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL_injection
|
Anillegal opcode, also called anunimplemented operation,[1]unintended opcode[2]orundocumented instruction, is aninstructionto aCPUthat is not mentioned in any official documentation released by the CPU's designer or manufacturer, which nevertheless has an effect. Illegal opcodes were common on older CPUs designed during the 1970s, such as theMOS Technology6502,Intel8086, and theZilogZ80. Unlike modern processors, those older processors have a very limited transistor budget, and thus to save space their designers often omitted circuitry to detect invalid opcodes and generate atrapto an error handler. The operation of many of these opcodes happens as aside effectof the wiring oftransistorsin the CPU, and usually combines functions of the CPU that were not intended to be combined. On old and modern processors, there are also instructions intentionally included in the processor by the manufacturer, but that are not documented in any official specification.
While most accidental illegal instructions have useless or even highly undesirable effects (such as crashing the computer), some can have useful functions in certain situations. Such instructions were sometimes exploited incomputer gamesof the 1970s and 1980s to speed up certain time-critical sections. Another common use was in the ongoing battle betweencopy protectionimplementations andcracking. Here, they were a form ofsecurity through obscurity, and their secrecy usually did not last very long.
A danger associated with the use of illegal instructions was that, given the fact that the manufacturer does not guarantee their existence and function, they might disappear or behave differently with any change of the CPU internals or any new revision of the CPU, rendering programs that use them incompatible with the newer revisions. For example, a number of olderApple IIgames did not work correctly on the newerApple IIc, because the latter used a newer CPU revision –65C02– that did away with illegal opcodes.
Later CPUs, such as the80186,80286,68000and its descendants, do not have illegal opcodes that are widely known/used. Ideally, the CPU will behave in a well-defined way when it finds an unknown opcode in the instruction stream, such as triggering a certainexceptionorfaultcondition. Theoperating system's exception or fault handler will then usually terminate the application that caused the fault, unless the program had previously established its own exception/fault handler, in which case that handler would receive control. Another, less common way of handling illegal instructions is by defining them to do nothing except taking up time and space (equivalent to the CPU's officialNOPinstruction); this method is used by theTMS9900and65C02processors, among others.Alternatively, unknown instructions can be emulated in software (e.g.LOADALL), or even "new" pseudo-instructions can be implemented. SomeBIOSes, memory managers, and operating systems take advantage of this, for example, to let V86 tasks communicate with the underlying system, i.e. BOP (from "BIOS Operation") utilized by the WindowsNTVDM.[3]
In spite of Intel's guarantee against such instructions, research using techniques such asfuzzinguncovered a vast number of undocumented instructions in x86 processors as late as 2018.[4]Some of these instructions are shared across processor manufacturers, indicating that Intel andAMDare both aware of the instruction and its purpose, despite it not appearing in any official specification. Other instructions are specific to manufacturers or specific product lines. The purpose of the majority of x86 undocumented instructions is unknown.
Today, the details of these instructions are mainly of interest for exactemulationof older systems.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_instructions
|
This is a list of the origins of computer-related terms or terms used in the computing world (i.e., alist of computer termetymologies). It relates to bothcomputer hardwareandcomputer software.
Names of many computer terms, especially computer applications, often relate to the function they perform, e.g., acompileris an application thatcompiles(programming languagesource codeinto the computer'smachine language). However, there are other terms with less obvious origins, which are of etymological interest. This article lists such terms.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_computer_term_etymologies
|
This is alist of Unixdaemonsthat are found on variousUnix-likeoperating systems. Unix daemons typically have a name ending with ad.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unix_daemons
|
Aservice wrapperis acomputer programthatwrapsarbitrary programs thus enabling them to be installed and run asWindows ServicesorUnix daemons, programs that run in thebackground, rather than under the direct control of a user. They are often automatically started atboottime. Arbitrary programs cannot run as services or daemons, unless they fulfil specific requirements which depend on theoperating system. They also have to be installed in order for the operating system to identify them as such.
Various projects exist offering a Java service wrapper, asJavaitself doesn't support creating system services. Some wrappers may add additional functionality to monitor the health of the application or to communicate with it.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_wrapper
|
Asoftware botis a type ofsoftware agentin the service of software project management and software engineering. A software bot has an identity and potentially personified aspects in order to serve their stakeholders.[1]Software bots often compose software services and provide an alternative user interface, which is sometimes, but not necessarily conversational.
Software bots are typically used to execute tasks, suggest actions, engage in dialogue, and promote social and cultural aspects of a software project.[2]
The termbotis derived fromrobot. However, robots act in the physical world and software bots act only in digital spaces.[1]Some software bots are designed and behave aschatbots, but not allchatbotsare software bots.[3]Discussions about the past and future of software bots show that software bots have been adopted for many years.
Software bots are used to support development activities, such as communication among software developers and automation of repetitive tasks. Software bots have been adopted by several communities related to software development, such as open-source communities onGitHub[4]andStack Overflow.
GitHub bots have user accounts and can open, close, or comment onpull requestsandissues. GitHub bots have been used to assign reviewers, ask contributors to sign theContributor License Agreement, report continuous integration failures, review code and pull requests, welcome newcomers, run automated tests, merge pull requests, fix bugs and vulnerabilities,[5]etc.
TheSlacktool includes an API for developing software bots.[6]There are slack bots for keeping track of todo lists, coordinating standup meetings, and managing support tickets. TheChatBotcompany[7]products further simplify the process of creating a custom Slack bot.
On Wikipedia,Wikipedia botsautomate a variety of tasks, such as creating stub articles, consistently updating the format of multiple articles, and so on. Bots likeClueBot NGare capable of recognizingvandalismand automatically remove disruptive content.[8]
Lebeuf et al.[1]provide a faceted taxonomy to characterize bots based on a literature review. It is composed of 3 main facets: (i) properties of the environment that the bot was created in; (ii) intrinsic properties of the bot itself; and (iii) the bot's interactions within its environment. They further detail the facets into sets of sub-facets under each of the main facets.
Paikari and van der Hoek[9]defined a set of dimensions to enable comparison of software bots, applied specifically to chatbots. It resulted in six dimensions:
Erlenhov et al.[10]raised the question of the difference between a bot and simple automation, since much research done in the name of software bots uses the term bot to describe various different tools and sometimes things are "just" plain old development tools. After interviewing and surveying over 100 developers the authors found that not one, but three definitions dominated the community. They created three personas based on these definitions and the difference between what the three personas see as being a bot is mainly the association with a different
set of human-like traits.
The authors recommends that people doing research or writing about bots try to put their work in the context of one of the personas since the personas have different expectations and problems with the tools.
Software bots may not be well accepted by humans. A study from theUniversity of Antwerp[11]has compared how developers active on Stack Overflow perceive answers generated by software bots. They find that developers perceive the quality of software bot-generated answers to be significantly worse if the identity of the software bot is made apparent. By contrast, answers from software bots with human-like identity were better received. In practice, when software bots are used on platforms like GitHub or Wikipedia, their username makes it clear that they are bots, e.g., DependaBot, RenovateBot, DatBot, SineBot.
Bots may be subject to special rules. For instance, the GitHub terms of service[12]does not allow 'bots' but accepts 'machine account', where a 'machine account' has two properties: 1) a human takes full responsibility of the bot's actions 2) it cannot create other accounts.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bot
|
Aweb service(WS) is either:
In a web service, a web technology such asHTTPis used for transferring machine-readable file formats such asXMLand JSON.
In practice, a web service commonly provides anobject-orientedweb-based interface to a database server, utilized for example by another web server, or by amobile app, that provides a user interface to the end-user. Many organizations that provide data in formatted HTML pages will also provide that data on their server as XML or JSON, often through a Web service to allowsyndication. Another application offered to the end-user may be amashup, where a Web server consumes several Web services at different machines and compiles the content into one user interface.
Asynchronous JavaScript and XML (AJAX) is a dominant technology for Web services. Developing from the combination of HTTP servers, JavaScript clients andPlain Old XML(as distinct fromSOAPand W3C Web Services), now it is frequently used withJSONas well as, or instead of, XML.
Representational State Transfer (REST) is an architecture for well-behaved Web services that can function at Internet scale.
In a 2004 document, the W3C sets following REST as a key distinguishing feature of Web services:
We can identify two major classes of Web services:
There are a number of Web services that use markup languages:
AWeb APIis a development in Web services where emphasis has been moving to simplerrepresentational state transfer(REST) based communications.[2]Restful APIs do not require XML-based Web service protocols (SOAPand WSDL) to support their interfaces.
In relation to W3C Web services, theW3Cdefined a Web service as:
A web service is a software system designed to support interoperable machine-to-machine interaction over a network. It has an interface described in a machine-processable format (specificallyWSDL). Other systems interact with the web service in a manner prescribed by its description using SOAP-messages, typically conveyed usingHTTPwith anXMLserializationin conjunction with other web-related standards.
W3C Web Services may use SOAP over HTTP protocol, allowing less costly (more efficient) interactions over the Internet than via proprietary solutions like EDI/B2B. Besides SOAP over HTTP, Web services can also be implemented on other reliable transport mechanisms likeFTP. In a 2002 document, theWeb Services Architecture Working Groupdefined a Web services architecture, requiring a standardized implementation of a "Web service."
The term "Web service" describes a standardized way of integrating Web-based applications using theXML, SOAP, WSDL and UDDI open standards over anInternet Protocolbackbone. XML is the data format used to contain the data and provide metadata around it, SOAP is used to transfer the data, WSDL is used for describing the services available and UDDI lists what services are available.
A Web service is a method of communication between two electronic devices over a network. It is a software function provided at anetwork addressover the Web with the servicealways-onas in the concept of utility computing.
Many organizations use multiple software systems for management.[citation needed]Different software systems often need to exchange data with each other, and a Web service is a method of communication that allows two software systems to exchange this data over the Internet. The software system that requests data is called aservice requester, whereas the software system that would process the request and provide the data is called aservice provider.
Different software may use different programming languages, and hence there is a need for a method ofdata exchangethat doesn't depend upon a particular programming language. Most types of software can, however, interpret XML tags. Thus, Web services can use XML files for data exchange.
Rules for communication with different systems need to be defined, such as:
All of these rules for communication are defined in a file calledWSDL(Web Services Description Language), which has a.wsdlextension. (Proposals forAutonomous Web Services(AWS) seek to develop more flexible Web services that do not rely on strict rules.[a])
A directory calledUDDI(Universal Description, Discovery, and Integration) defines which software system should be contacted for which type of data. So when one software system needs one particular report/data, it would go to the UDDI and find out which other systems it can contact for receiving that data. Once the software system finds out which other systems it should contact, it would then contact that system using a special protocol calledSOAP(Simple Object Access Protocol). The service provider system would first validate the data request by referring to the WSDL file, and then process the request and send the data under the SOAP protocol.
Automated tools can aid in the creation of a Web service. For services using WSDL, it is possible to either automatically generate WSDL for existing classes (a bottom-up model) or to generate a class skeleton given existing WSDL (a top-down model).
Critics of non-RESTful Web services often complain that they are too complex[8]and based upon large software vendors or integrators, rather than typicalopen sourceimplementations.
There are also concerns about performance due to Web services' use of XML as a message format and SOAP/HTTP in enveloping and transporting.[9]
Functional and non-functional testing of Web services is done with the help of WSDL parsing.Regression testingis performed by identifying the changes made to upgrade software. Web service regression testing needs can be categorized in three different ways, namely, changes in WSDL, changes in the code, and selective re-testing of operations. We can capture the above three needs in three intermediate forms of Subset WSDL,[7]namely, Difference WSDL (DWSDL), Unit WSDL (UWSDL), and Reduced WSDL (RWSDL), respectively. These three Subset WSDLs are then combined to form Combined WSDL (CWSDL) that is further used for regression testing of the Web service. This will help in Automated Web Service Change Management (AWSCM),[10]by performing the selection of the relevant test cases to construct a reduced test suite from the old test suite.[11]
Web services testing can also be automated using several test automation tools likeSoapUI,Oracle Application Testing Suite(OATS),[12][13]Unified Functional Testing, Selenium, etc.
Work-related to the capture and visualization of changes made to a Web service. Visualization and computation of changes can be done in the form of intermediate artifacts (Subset WSDL).[7]The insight on the computation of change impact is helpful in testing, top-down development and reduce regression testing. AWSCM[10]is a tool that can identify subset operations in a WSDL file to construct a subset WSDL.
While UDDI was intended to serve as a service directory and become the means to discovering web services, many vendors discontinued their UDDI solutions or repositories between 2005-2008, including Microsoft, SAP, IBM, among others.[14][15]A key study published in WWW2008 Conference (Beijing, China)[16]presented the state of SOAP-based web services and concluded that only 63% of the available SOAP-based web services at the time of the study were actually active or can be invoked. The study also found that search engines were becoming an ideal source for searching for web services compared to that of service registries like the UDDI due its design complexity.[17]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_service
|
InWindows NToperating systems, aWindows serviceis acomputer programthatoperates in the background.[1]It is similar in concept to aUnixdaemon.[1]A Windows service must conform to the interface rules and protocols of theService Control Manager, the component responsible for managing Windows services. It is the Services and Controller app, services.exe, that launches all the services and manages their actions, such as start, end, etc.[2]
Windows services can be configured to start when the operating system is started and run in the background as long as Windows is running. Alternatively, they can be started manually or by an event. Windows NT operating systemsinclude numerous serviceswhich run in context of threeuser accounts: System, Network Service and Local Service. These Windows components are often associated withHost Process for Windows Services. Because Windows services operate in the context of their own dedicated user accounts, they can operate when a user is not logged on.
Prior toWindows Vista, services installed as an "interactive service" could interact with Windowsdesktopand show agraphical user interface. In Windows Vista, however, interactive services are deprecated and may not operate properly, as a result ofWindows Service hardening.[3][4]
Windows administrators can manage services via:
The Services snap-in, built uponMicrosoft Management Console, can connect to the local computer or a remote computer on the network, enabling users to:[1]
Thecommand-linetool to manage Windows services is sc.exe. It is available for all versions ofWindows NT.[7]This utility is included withWindows XP[8]and later[9]and also inReactOS.
Thesccommand's scope of management is restricted to the local computer. However, starting withWindows Server 2003, not only canscdo all that the Services snap-in does, but it can also install and uninstall services.[9]
Thesccommand duplicates some features of thenetcommand.[10]
The ReactOS version was developed by Ged Murphy and is licensed under theGPL.[11]
The following example enumerates the status for active services & drivers.[12]
The following example displays the status for theWindows Event logservice.[12]
The Microsoft.PowerShell.Management PowerShell module (included with Windows) has several cmdlets which can be used to manage Windows services:
Windows also includes components that can do a subset of what the snap-in, Sc.exe and PowerShell do. Thenetcommand can start, stop, pause or resume a Windows service.[21]In Windows Vista and later,Windows Task Managercan show a list of installed services and start or stop them.MSConfigcan enable or disable (see startup type description above) Windows services.
Windows services are installed and removed via *.INF setup scripts bySetupAPI; an installed service can be started immediately following its installation, and a running service can be stopped before its deinstallation.[22][23][24]
For a program to run as a Windows service, the program needs to be written to handle service start, stop, and pause messages from theService Control Manager(SCM) through theSystem Services API. SCM is the Windows component responsible for managing service processes.
TheWindows Resource KitforWindows NT 3.51,Windows NT 4.0andWindows 2000provides tools to control the use and registration of services:SrvAny.exeacts as aservice wrapperto handle the interface expected of a service (e.g. handle service_start and respond sometime later with service_started or service_failed) and allow any executable or script to be configured as a service.Sc.exeallows new services to be installed, started, stopped and uninstalled.[25]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_service
|
In software, astack buffer overfloworstack buffer overrunoccurs when a program writes to amemoryaddress on the program'scall stackoutside of the intended data structure, which is usually a fixed-lengthbuffer.[1][2]Stack buffer overflow bugs are caused when a program writes more data to a buffer located on the stack than what is actually allocated for that buffer. This almost always results in corruption of adjacent data on the stack, and in cases where the overflow was triggered by mistake, will often cause the program to crash or operate incorrectly. Stack buffer overflow is a type of the more general programming malfunction known asbuffer overflow(or buffer overrun).[1]Overfilling a buffer on the stack is more likely to derail program execution than overfilling a buffer on the heap because the stack contains the return addresses for all active function calls.
A stack buffer overflow can be caused deliberately as part of an attack known asstack smashing. If the affected program is running with special privileges, or accepts data from untrusted network hosts (e.g. awebserver) then the bug is a potentialsecurity vulnerability. If the stack buffer is filled with data supplied from an untrusted user then that user can corrupt the stack in such a way as to inject executable code into the running program and take control of the process. This is one of the oldest and more reliable methods forattackersto gain unauthorized access to a computer.[3][4][5]
The canonical method forexploitinga stack-based buffer overflow is to overwrite the function return address with a pointer to attacker-controlled data (usually on the stack itself).[3][6]This is illustrated withstrcpy()in the following example:
This code takes an argument from the command line and copies it to a local stack variablec. This works fine for command-line arguments smaller than 12 characters (as can be seen in figure B below). Any arguments larger than 11 characters long will result in corruption of the stack. (The maximum number of characters that is safe is one less than the size of the buffer here because in the C programming language, strings are terminated by a null byte character. A twelve-character input thus requires thirteen bytes to store, the input followed by the sentinel zero byte. The zero byte then ends up overwriting a memory location that's one byte beyond the end of the buffer.)
The program stack infoo()with various inputs:
In figure C above, when an argument larger than 11 bytes is supplied on the command linefoo()overwrites local stack data, the saved frame pointer, and most importantly, the return address. Whenfoo()returns, it pops the return address off the stack and jumps to that address (i.e. starts executing instructions from that address). Thus, the attacker has overwritten the return address with a pointer to the stack bufferchar c[12], which now contains attacker-supplied data. In an actual stack buffer overflow exploit the string of "A"'s would instead beshellcodesuitable to the platform and desired function. If this program had special privileges (e.g. theSUIDbit set to run as thesuperuser), then the attacker could use this vulnerability to gain superuser privileges on the affected machine.[3]
The attacker can also modify internal variable values to exploit some bugs.
With this example:
There are typically two methods that are used to alter the stored address in the stack - direct and indirect. Attackers started developing indirect attacks, which have fewer dependencies, in order to bypass protection measures that were made to reduce direct attacks.[7]
A number of platforms have subtle differences in their implementation of the call stack that can affect the way a stack buffer overflow exploit will work. Some machine architectures store the top-level return address of the call stack in a register. This means that any overwritten return address will not be used until a later unwinding of the call stack. Another example of a machine-specific detail that can affect the choice of exploitation techniques is the fact that mostRISC-style machine architectures will not allow unaligned access to memory.[8]Combined with a fixed length for machine opcodes, this machine limitation can make the technique of jumping to the stack almost impossible to implement (with the one exception being when the program actually contains the unlikely code to explicitly jump to the stack register).[9][10]
Within the topic of stack buffer overflows, an often-discussed-but-rarely-seen architecture is one in which the stack grows in the opposite direction. This change in architecture is frequently suggested as a solution to the stack buffer overflow problem because any overflow of a stack buffer that occurs within the same stack frame cannot overwrite the return pointer. However, any overflow that occurs in a buffer from a previous stack frame will still overwrite a return pointer and allow for malicious exploitation of the bug.[11]For instance, in the example above, the return pointer forfoowill not be overwritten because the overflow actually occurs within the stack frame formemcpy. However, because the buffer that overflows during the call tomemcpyresides in a previous stack frame, the return pointer formemcpywill have a numerically higher memory address than the buffer. This means that instead of the return pointer forfoobeing overwritten, the return pointer formemcpywill be overwritten. At most, this means that growing the stack in the opposite direction will change some details of how stack buffer overflows are exploitable, but it will not reduce significantly the number of exploitable bugs.[citation needed]
Over the years, a number ofcontrol-flow integrityschemes have been developed to inhibit malicious stack buffer overflow exploitation. These may usually be classified into three categories:
Stack canaries, named for their analogy to acanary in a coal mine, are used to detect a stack buffer overflow before execution of malicious code can occur. This method works by placing a small integer, the value of which is randomly chosen at program start, in memory just before the stack return pointer. Most buffer overflows overwrite memory from lower to higher memory addresses, so in order to overwrite the return pointer (and thus take control of the process) the canary value must also be overwritten. This value is checked to make sure it has not changed before a routine uses the return pointer on the stack.[2]This technique can greatly increase the difficulty of exploiting a stack buffer overflow because it forces the attacker to gain control of the instruction pointer by some non-traditional means such as corrupting other important variables on the stack.[2]
Another approach to preventing stack buffer overflow exploitation is to enforce a memory policy on the stack memory region that disallows execution from the stack (W^X, "Write XOR Execute"). This means that in order to execute shellcode from the stack an attacker must either find a way to disable the execution protection from memory, or find a way to put their shellcode payload in a non-protected region of memory. This method is becoming more popular now that hardware support for the no-execute flag is available in most desktop processors.
While this method prevents the canonical stack smashing exploit, stack overflows can be exploited in other ways. First, it is common to find ways to store shellcode in unprotected memory regions like the heap, and so very little need change in the way of exploitation.[12]
Another attack is the so-calledreturn to libcmethod for shellcode creation. In this attack the malicious payload will load the stack not with shellcode, but with a proper call stack so that execution is vectored to a chain of standard library calls, usually with the effect of disabling memory execute protections and allowing shellcode to run as normal.[13]This works because the execution never actually vectors to the stack itself.
A variant of return-to-libc isreturn-oriented programming(ROP), which sets up a series of return addresses, each of which executes a small sequence of cherry-picked machine instructions within the existing program code or system libraries, sequence which ends with a return. These so-calledgadgetseach accomplish some simple register manipulation or similar execution before returning, and stringing them together achieves the attacker's ends. It is even possible to use "returnless" return-oriented programming by exploiting instructions or groups of instructions that behave much like a return instruction.[14]
Instead of separating the code from the data, another mitigation technique is to introduce randomization to the memory space of the executing program. Since the attacker needs to determine where executable code that can be used resides, either an executable payload is provided (with an executable stack) or one is constructed using code reuse such as in ret2libc or return-oriented programming (ROP). Randomizing the memory layout will, as a concept, prevent the attacker from knowing where any code is. However, implementations typically will not randomize everything; usually the executable itself is loaded at a fixed address and hence even whenASLR(address space layout randomization) is combined with a non-executable stack the attacker can use this fixed region of memory. Therefore, all programs should be compiled withPIE(position-independent executables) such that even this region of memory is randomized. The entropy of the randomization is different from implementation to implementation and a low enough entropy can in itself be a problem in terms of brute forcing the memory space that is randomized.
The previous mitigations make the steps of the exploitation harder. But it is still possible to exploit a stack buffer overflow if some vulnerabilities are presents or if some conditions are met.[15]
An attacker is able to exploit theformat string vulnerabilityfor revealing the memory locations in the vulnerable program.[16]
WhenData Execution Preventionis enabled to forbid any execute access to the stack, the attacker can still use the overwritten return address (the instruction pointer) to point to data in acode segment(.texton Linux) or every other executable section of the program. The goal is to reuse existing code.[17]
Consists to overwrite the return pointer a bit before a return instruction (ret in x86) of the program. The instructions between the new return pointer and the return instruction will be executed and the return instruction will return to the payload controlled by the exploiter.[17][clarification needed]
Jump Oriented Programming is a technique that uses jump instructions to reuse code instead of the ret instruction.[18]
A limitation of ASLR realization on 64-bit systems is that it is vulnerable to memory disclosure and information leakage attacks. The attacker can launch the ROP by revealing a single function address using information leakage attack. The following section describes the similar existing strategy for breaking down the ASLR protection.[19]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_buffer_overflow
|
TheNX bit(no-execute bit) is aprocessorfeature that separates areas of avirtual address space(the memory layout a program uses) into sections for storing data or program instructions. Anoperating systemsupporting the NX bit can mark certain areas of the virtual address space as non-executable, preventing the processor from running any code stored there. This technique, known asexecutable space protectionorWrite XOR Execute, protects computers from malicious software that attempts to insert harmful code into another program’s data storage area and execute it, such as in abuffer overflowattack.
The term "NX bit" was introduced byAdvanced Micro Devices(AMD) as a marketing term.Intelmarkets this feature as theXD bit(execute disable), while theMIPS architecturerefers to it as theXI bit(execute inhibit). In theARM architecture, introduced inARMv6, it is known asXN(execute never).[1]The term NX bit is often used broadly to describe similar executable space protection technologies in other processors.
x86processors, since the80286, included a similar capability implemented at thesegmentlevel. However, almost all operating systems for the80386and later x86 processors implement theflat memory model, so they cannot use this capability. There was no "Executable" flag in the page table entry (page descriptor) in those processors, until, to make this capability available to operating systems using the flat memory model, AMD added a "no-execute" or NX bit to the page table entry in itsAMD64architecture, providing a mechanism that can control execution perpagerather than per whole segment.
Intel implemented a similar feature in itsItanium(Merced) processor—havingIA-64architecture—in 2001, but did not bring it to the more popular x86 processor families (Pentium,Celeron,Xeon, etc.). In the x86 architecture it was first implemented by AMD, as theNX bit, for use by itsAMD64line of processors, such as theAthlon 64andOpteron.[2]
After AMD's decision to include this functionality in its AMD64 instruction set, Intel implemented the similar XD bit feature in x86 processors beginning with thePentium 4processors based on later iterations of the Prescott core.[3]The NX bit specifically refers to bit number 63 (i.e. the most significant bit) of a 64-bit entry in thepage table. If this bit is set to 0, then code can be executed from that page; if set to 1, code cannot be executed from that page, and anything residing there is assumed to be data. It is only available with the long mode (64-bit mode) or legacyPhysical Address Extension(PAE) page-table formats, but not x86's original 32-bit page table format because page table entries in that format lack the 64th bit used to disable and enable execution.
Windows XP SP2 and later supportData Execution Prevention(DEP).
InARMv6, a new page table entry format was introduced; it includes an "execute never" bit.[1]ForARMv8-A, VMSAv8-64 block and page descriptors, and VMSAv8-32 long-descriptor block and page descriptors, for stage 1 translations have "execute never" bits for both privileged and unprivileged modes, and block and page descriptors for stage 2 translations have a single "execute never" bit (two bits due to ARMv8.2-TTS2UXN feature); VMSAv8-32 short-descriptor translation table descriptors at level 1 have "execute never" bits for both privileged and unprivileged mode and at level 2 have a single "execute never" bit.[4]
As of the Fourth Edition of the Alpha Architecture manual,DEC(now HP)Alphahas a Fault on Execute bit in page table entries with theOpenVMS,Tru64 UNIX, and Alpha LinuxPALcode.[5]
The SPARC Reference MMU forSunSPARCversion 8 has permission values of Read Only, Read/Write, Read/Execute, and Read/Write/Execute in page table entries,[6]although not all SPARC processors have a SPARC Reference MMU.
A SPARC version 9 MMU may provide, but is not required to provide, any combination of read/write/execute permissions.[7]A Translation Table Entry in a Translation Storage Buffer in Oracle SPARC Architecture 2011, Draft D1.0.0 has separate Executable and Writable bits.[8]
Page table entries forIBMPowerPC's hashed page tables have a no-execute page bit.[9]Page table entries for radix-tree page tables in the Power ISA have separate permission bits granting read/write and execute access.[10]
Translation lookaside buffer(TLB) entries and page table entries inPA-RISC1.1 and PA-RISC 2.0 support read-only, read/write, read/execute, and read/write/execute pages.[11][12]
TLB entries inItaniumsupport read-only, read/write, read/execute, and read/write/execute pages.[13]
As of the twelfth edition of thez/ArchitecturePrinciples of Operation, z/Architecture processors may support the Instruction-Execution Protection facility, which adds a bit in page table entries that controls whether instructions from a given region, segment, or page can be executed.[14]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NX_bit
|
Cybercrimeencompasses a wide range of criminal activities that are carried out usingdigital devicesand/ornetworks. It has been variously defined as "a crime committed on a computer network, especially theInternet"; Cybercriminals may exploit vulnerabilities in computer systems and networks to gain unauthorized access, steal sensitive information, disrupt services, and cause financial or reputational harm to individuals, organizations, and governments.[1]
In 2000, the tenthUnited Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offendersclassified cyber crimes into five categories: unauthorized access, damage to computer data or programs, sabotage to hinder the functioning of a computer system or network, unauthorized interception of data within a system or network, and computer espionage.[1]
Internationally, both state and non-state actors engage in cybercrimes, includingespionage, financialtheft, and other cross-border crimes. Cybercrimes crossing international borders and involving the actions of at least one nation-state are sometimes referred to ascyberwarfare.Warren Buffetthas stated that cybercrime is the "number one problem with mankind",[2]and that it "poses real risks to humanity".[3]
TheWorld Economic Forum's(WEF) 2020Global Risks Reporthighlighted that organized cybercrime groups are joining forces to commit criminal activities online, while estimating the likelihood of their detection and prosecution to be less than 1 percent in the US.[4]There are also manyprivacyconcerns surrounding cybercrime when confidential information is intercepted or disclosed, legally or otherwise.
The World Economic Forum's 2023Global Risks Reportranked cybercrime as one of the top 10 risks facing the world today and for the next 10 years.[5]If viewed as a nation state, cybercrime would count as the third largest economy in the world.[6]In numbers, cybercrime is predicted to cause over 9 trillion US dollars in damages worldwide in 2024.[6]
Computer crime encompasses a broad range of activities, including computer fraud,financial crimes, scams,cybersex trafficking, andad-fraud.[7][8]
A proposed taxonomy classifies cybercrime into two top-level groups:pure-technology cybercrimeandcyber-advanced crime. Pure-technology cybercrime "targets or victimizes the computer technology ecosystem" to "disrupt the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of a computer-technology ecosystem", while cyber-advanced crime "uses computer technology to target or victimize natural persons, governments, business entities, or property" in order to "deprive, disrupt or damage entities or assets."[9]
Computer fraud is the act of using a computer to take or alter electronic data, or to gain unlawful access to a computer or system.[10][failed verification]Computer fraud that involves the use of the Internet is also calledinternet fraud. The legal definition of computer fraud varies by jurisdiction, but typically involves accessing a computer without permission or authorization.
Forms of computer fraud includehackinginto computers to alter information, distributing malicious code such ascomputer wormsorviruses, installingmalwareorspywareto steal data,phishing, andadvance-fee scams.[11]
Other forms of fraud may be committed using computer systems, includingbank fraud,carding,identity theft,extortion, andtheft of classified information. These types of crimes often result in the loss of personal or financial information.
Digital arrestis a form of online fraud where perpetrators impersonate law enforcement officials to deceive victims. This scam typically involves contacting individuals via phone, falsely claiming they are implicated in criminal activity related to a parcel containing illegal goods, drugs, counterfeit documents, or other contraband. In some variations, scammers target the victim's relatives or friends, falsely stating the victim is in custody due to criminal involvement or an accident. Victims are then coerced into remaining on camera and isolating themselves, while the fraudsters extract personal and financial information under the guise of an official investigation, ultimately transferring the victim's assets tomoney muleaccounts.[12]
To detect and prevent the fraud, be wary of unsolicited calls from supposed law enforcement demanding immediate payment or personal information. Legitimate law enforcement agencies rarely conduct investigations in this manner. Verify the identity of the caller independently by contacting the relevant agency directly through official channels. Remember, the government agencies never put anyone under digital arrest, it's not permissible.[12]
A fraud factory is a collection of large fraud organizations, usually involving cyber fraud andhuman traffickingoperations.
The termcyberterrorismrefers to acts ofterrorismcommitted through the use of cyberspace or computer resources.[13]Acts of disruption ofcomputer networksand personal computers throughviruses,worms,phishing,malicious software, hardware, or programming scripts can all be forms of cyberterrorism.[14]
Government officials andinformation technology(IT) security specialists have documented a significant increase in network problems and server scams since early 2001. In the United States there is an increasing concern from agencies such as theFederal Bureau of Investigation(FBI) and theCentral Intelligence Agency(CIA).[15]
Cyberextortion occurs when a website, e-mail server, or computer system is subjected to or threatened with attacks by malicious hackers, often throughdenial-of-service attacks. Cyber extortionists demand money in return for promising to stop the attacks and provide "protection". According to the FBI, cyber extortionists are increasingly attacking corporate websites and networks, crippling their ability to operate, and demanding payments to restore their service. More than 20 cases are reported each month to the FBI, and many go unreported in order to keep the victim's name out of the public domain. Perpetrators often use adistributed denial-of-service attack.[16]However, other cyberextortion techniques exist, such asdoxingandbug poaching. An example of cyberextortion wasthe Sony Hack of 2014.[17]
Ransomware is a type of malware used in cyberextortion to restrict access to files, sometimes threatening permanent data erasure unless a ransom is paid. Ransomware is a global issue: 153 countries were affected by this type of attack in 2024.[18]The number of attacks is constantly growing, with 5,263 attacks in 2024.[19]And this is the number of large and successful attacks with serious consequences, the total number of attacks and attempted attacks, including in automatic mode in 2021 amounted to more than 300 million attacks worldwide.[20]Nearly a third of the major attacks (1,424) in 2024 targeted industrial enterprises (up 15% by 2023), affecting critical infrastructure and services, causing severe losses.[19]In some cases, attacks on medical facilities also resulted in human casualties. Between 2016 and 2021 ransomware caused the deaths of between 42 and 67 patients Medicare due to the treatment difficulties created,[21]in 2024 an attack on UK pathology provider Synnovis resulted in thousands of surgeries and appointments being canceled.[22]Ransom amounts in attacks are also continuously and significantly increasing. According to the 2022 Unit 42 Ransomware Threat Report, in 2021, the average ransom demand in Norton cases was $2.2 million (up 144%), and the number of victims whose personal data ended up in the dark web's information dumps increased by 85%.[23]Losses in 2021 and 2022 are nearly $400 million.[24]In 2024, the average ransom amount is $5.2 million, with the two largest ransoms demanded from healthcare organizations - $100 million from India's Regional Cancer Center (RCC) and $50 million from Synnovis.[22]
Cybersex trafficking is the transportation of victims for such purposes as coerced prostitution or thelive streamingof coerced sexual acts orrapeon webcam.[25][26][27][28]Victims are abducted, threatened, or deceived and transferred to "cybersex dens".[29][30][31]The dens can be in any location where the cybersex traffickers have a computer, tablet, or phone with an internet connection.[27]Perpetrators usesocial medianetworks,video conferences, dating pages, online chat rooms, apps,dark websites,[32]and other platforms.[33]They useonline payment systems[32][34][35]andcryptocurrenciesto hide their identities.[36]Millions of reports of cybersex incidents are sent to authorities annually.[37][failed verification]New legislation and police procedures are needed to combat this type of cybercrime.[38]
There are an estimated 6.3 million victims of cybersex trafficking, according to a recent report by the International Labour Organization.[39]This number includes about 1.7 millionchild victims. An example of cybersex trafficking is the 2018–2020Nth room caseinSouth Korea.[40]
According to the U.S.Department of Defense, cyberspace has emerged as an arena for national-security threats through several recent events of geostrategic importance, including the attack onEstonia's infrastructure in 2007, allegedly by Russian hackers. In August 2008, Russia again allegedly conducted cyberattacks againstGeorgia. Fearing that such attacks may become a normal part of future warfare among nation-states, military commanders see a need to develop cyberspace operations.[41]
When an individual is the target of cybercrime, the computer is often the tool rather than the target. These crimes, which typically exploit human weaknesses, usually do not require much technical expertise. These are the types of crimes which have existed for centuries in the offline world. Criminals have simply been given a tool that increases their pool of potential victims and makes them all the harder to trace and apprehend.[42]
Crimes that use computer networks or devices to advance other ends include:
The unsolicited sending of bulkemailfor commercial purposes (spam) is unlawfulin some jurisdictions.
Phishing is mostly propagated via email. Phishing emails may contain links to other websites that are affected by malware.[43]Or they may contain links to fake online banking or other websites used to steal private account information.
The content of websites and other electronic communications may be distasteful,obscene, or offensive for a variety of reasons. In some instances, it may be illegal. What content is unlawful varies greatly between countries, and even within nations. It is a sensitive area in which the courts can become involved in arbitrating between groups with strong beliefs.
One area ofinternet pornographythat has been the target of the strongest efforts at curtailment ischild pornography, which is illegal in most jurisdictions in the world.[citation needed]
Ad-frauds are particularly popular among cybercriminals, as such frauds are lucrative and unlikely to be prosecuted.[44]Jean-Loup Richet, a professor at theSorbonne Business School, classified the large variety of ad-frauds committed by cybercriminals into three categories: identity fraud, attribution fraud, and ad-fraud services.[8]
Identity fraud aims to impersonate real users and inflate audience numbers. The techniques used for identity fraud include traffic from bots (coming from a hosting company, a data center, or compromised devices);cookie stuffing; falsification of user characteristics, such as location and browser type; fake social traffic (misleading users on social networks into visiting the advertised website); and fake social media accounts that make a bot appear legitimate.
Attribution fraud impersonates the activities of real users, such as clicks and conversations. Many ad-fraud techniques belong to this category: the use of hijacked and malware-infected devices as part of abotnet; click farms (companies where low-wage employees are paid to click or engage in conversations); incentivized browsing; video placement abuse (delivered in display banner slots); hidden ads (which will never be viewed by real users); domain spoofing (ads served on a fake website); and clickjacking, in which the user is forced to click on an ad.
Ad-fraud services include all online infrastructure and hosting services that might be needed to undertake identity or attribution fraud. Services can involve the creation of spam websites (fake networks of websites that provide artificial backlinks); link building services; hosting services; or fake and scam pages impersonating a famous brand.
Whereas content may be offensive in a non-specific way,harassmentdirects obscenities and derogatory comments at specific individuals, often focusing on gender,race, religion, nationality, or sexual orientation.
Committing a crime using a computer can lead to an enhanced sentence. For example, in the case ofUnited States v. Neil Scott Kramer, the defendant was given an enhanced sentence according to theU.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual§2G1.3(b)(3) for his use of acell phoneto "persuade, induce, entice, coerce, or facilitate the travel of, the minor to engage in prohibited sexual conduct." Kramer appealed the sentence on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to convict him under this statute because his charge included persuading through a computer device and his cellular phone technically is not a computer. Although Kramer tried to argue this point, the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual states that the term "computer" means "an electronic, magnetic, optical,electrochemical, or other high-speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device."
In the United States, at least 41 states have passed laws and regulations that regard extreme online harassment as a criminal act. These acts can also be prosecuted on the federal level, because of US Code 18 Section 2261A, which states that using computers to threaten or harass can lead to a sentence of up to 20 years.[45]
Several countries besides the US have also created laws to combat online harassment. In China, a country with over 20 percent of the world's internet users, in response to theHuman Flesh Search Enginebullying incident, the Legislative Affairs Office of the State Council passed a strict law against cyberbullying.[46][47]The United Kingdom passed theMalicious Communications Act, which states that sending messages or letters electronically that the government deems "indecent or grossly offensive" and/or language intended to cause "distress and anxiety" can lead to a prison sentence of six months and a potentially large fine.[48][49]Australia, while not directly addressing the issue of harassment, includes most forms of online harassment under the Criminal Code Act of 1995. Using telecommunication to send threats, harass, or cause offense is a direct violation of this act.[50]
Althoughfreedom of speechis protected by law in most democratic societies, it does not include all types of speech. Spoken or written threats can be criminalized because they harm or intimidate. This applies to online or network-related threats.
Cyberbullying has increased drastically with the growing popularity of online social networking. As of January 2020, 44 percent of adult internet users in the United States had "personally experienced online harassment".[51]Online harassment of children often has negative and even life-threatening effects. According to a 2021 survey, 41 percent of children develop social anxiety, 37 percent develop depression, and 26 percent have suicidal thoughts.[52]
TheUnited Arab Emirateswas found to have purchased theNSO Group's mobile spywarePegasusfor mass surveillance and a campaign of harassment of prominent activists and journalists, includingAhmed Mansoor,Princess Latifa,Princess Haya, and others.Ghada Owaiswas one of the many high-profile female journalists and activists who were targeted. She filed a lawsuit against UAE rulerMohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyanalong with other defendants, accusing them of sharing her photos online.[53]
Darknet marketsare used to buy and sellcontrolled substancesonline. Somedrug traffickersuseencryptedmessaging tools to communicate with drug mules or potential customers. The dark web siteSilk Road, which started operations in 2011, was the first major online marketplace for drugs. It was permanently shut down in October 2013 by the FBI and Europol. After Silk Road 2.0 went down, Silk Road 3 Reloaded emerged. However, it was just an older marketplace namedDiabolus Marketthat used the Silk Road name in order to get more exposure from the Silk Road brand's earlier success.[54]
Darknet markets have had a rise in traffic in recent years for many reasons, such as the anonymous purchases and often a system of reviews by other buyers.[55]There are many ways in which darknet markets can financially drain individuals. Vendors and customers alike go to great lengths to keep their identities a secret while online. Commonly used tools for hiding their online presence includevirtual private networks (VPNs),Tails, and theTor Browser. Darknet markets entice customers by making them feel comfortable. Although people can easily gain access to a Tor browser, actually gaining access to an illicit market is not as simple as typing it in on a search engine, as one would with Google. Darknet markets have special links that change frequently, ending in.onionas opposed to the typical.com, .net, and.orgdomain extensions. To add to privacy, the most prevalent currencies on these markets areBitcoinandMonero, which allows transactions to be anonymous.[56][57]
A problem that marketplace users sometimes face isexit scamming.[58]In cases of individual vendors, a vendor with a high rating acts as if they are selling on the market and has users pay for products they never receive.[59]The vendor then closes their account after receiving money from multiple buyers and never sending what was paid for. Any vendor on a darknet market, all of which are involved in illegal activities, has no reason not to engage in exit scamming when they no longer want to be a vendor. In 2019, an entire market known as Wall Street Market allegedly exit scammed, stealing $30 million dollars in bitcoin.[60]
The FBI has cracked down on these markets. In July 2017, the FBI seized one of the biggest markets, commonly calledAlphabay, which re-opened in August 2021 under the control of DeSnake, one of the original administrators.[61][62]Investigators pose as buyers and order products from darknet vendors in the hope that the vendors leave a trail the investigators can follow. In one case an investigator posed as a firearms seller, and for six months people purchased from them and provided home addresses.[63]The FBI was able to make over a dozen arrests during this six-month investigation.[63]Another crackdown targeted vendors sellingfentanylandopiates. With thousands of people dying each year due to drug overdose, investigators have made internet drug sales a priority.[64]Many vendors do not realize the extra criminal charges that go along with selling drugs online, such as money laundering and illegal use of the mail.[65]In 2019, a vendor was sentenced to 10 years in prison after selling cocaine and methamphetamine under the name JetSetLife.[66]But despite the large amount of time investigators spend tracking down people, in 2018 only 65 suspects who bought and sold illegal goods on some of the biggest markets were identified.[67]Meanwhile, thousands of transactions take place daily on these markets.
Due to cybercriminals using the internet for cross-border attacks and crimes, the process of prosecuting cybercriminals has been difficult. The number of vulnerabilities that a cybercriminal could use as points of opportunity to exploit has also increased over the years. From 2008 to 2014 alone, there has been a 17.75% increase in vulnerabilities across all online devices.[86]The internet's expansive reach causes the damage inflicted to people to be magnified since many methods of cybercrime have the opportunity to reach many people. The availability of virtual spaces[87]has allowed cybercrime to become an everyday occurrence.[88]In 2018, theInternet Crime Complaint Centerreceived 351,937 complaints of cybercrime, which led to $2.7 billion lost.[89]
In a criminal investigation, a computer can be a source of evidence (seedigital forensics). Even when a computer is not directly used for criminal purposes, it may contain records of value to criminal investigators in the form of alogfile. In many countries,[90]Internet Service Providersare required by law to keep their logfiles for a predetermined amount of time.
There are many ways for cybercrime to take place, and investigations tend to start with anIP Addresstrace; however, that does not necessarily enable detectives to solve a case. Different types of high-tech crime may also include elements of low-tech crime, and vice versa, making cybercrime investigators an indispensable part of modern law enforcement. Methods of cybercrime detective work are dynamic and constantly improving, whether in closed police units or in the framework of international cooperation.[91]
In the United States, the FBI[92]and theDepartment of Homeland Security(DHS)[93]are government agencies that combat cybercrime. The FBI has trained agents and analysts in cybercrime placed in their field offices and headquarters.[92]In the DHS, theSecret Servicehas a Cyber Intelligence Section that works to target financial cybercrimes. They combat international cybercrime and work to protect institutions such as banks from intrusions and information breaches. Based in Alabama, the Secret Service and the Alabama Office of Prosecution Services work together to train professionals in law enforcement at the National Computer Forensic Institute.[93][94][95]The NCFI provides "state and local members of the law enforcement community with training in cyber incident response, investigation, and forensic examination in cyber incident response, investigation, and forensic examination."[95]
Investigating cyber crime within the United States and globally often requires partnerships. Within the United States, cyber crime may be investigated by law enforcement, the Department of Homeland Security, among other federal agencies. However, as the world becomes more dependent on technology, cyber attacks and cyber crime are going to expand as threat actors will continue to exploit weaknesses in protection and existing vulnerabilities to achieve their end goals, often being data theft or exfiltration. To combat cybercrime, the United States Secret Service maintains an Electronic Crimes Task Force which extends beyond the United States as it helps to locate threat actors that are located globally and performing cyber related crimes within the United States. The Secret Service is also responsible for the National Computer Forensic Institute which allows law enforcement and people of the court to receive cyber training and information on how to combat cyber crime. The United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement is responsible for the Cyber Crimes Center (C3) providing cyber crime related services for federal, state, local and international agencies. Finally, the United States also has resources relating to Law Enforcement Cyber Incident Reporting to allow local and state agencies to understand how, when, and what should be reported as a cyber incident to the federal government.[96]
Because cybercriminals commonly use encryption and other techniques to hide their identity and location, it can be difficult to trace a perpetrator after a crime is committed, so prevention measures are crucial.[88][97]
The Department of Homeland Security also instituted the Continuous Diagnostics and Mitigation (CDM) Program.[98]The CDM Program monitors and secures government networks by tracking network risks and informing system personnel so that they can take action. In an attempt to catch intrusions before the damage is done, the DHS created the Enhanced Cybersecurity Services (ECS).[99]TheCyber Security and Infrastructure Security Agencyapproves the private partners that provide intrusion detection and prevention services through the ECS.[99][100]
Cybersecurity professionals have been skeptical of prevention-focused strategies.[101]The mode of use of cybersecurity products has also been called into question.Shuman Ghosemajumderhas argued that individual companies using a combination of products for security is not a scalable approach and has advocated for the use of cybersecurity technology primarily at the platform level.[102]Law enforcement agencies often struggle with applying traditional policing methods to digital crimes, which evolve faster than investigative practices.[103]
On a personal level, there are some strategies available to defend against cybercrime:[104]
Because of weak laws, cybercriminals operating from developing countries can often evade detection and prosecution. In countries such as thePhilippines, laws against cybercrime are weak or sometimes nonexistent. Cybercriminals can then strike from across international borders and remain undetected. Even when identified, these criminals can typically avoid being extradited to a country such as the US that has laws that allow for prosecution. For this reason, agencies such as theFBIhave used deception and subterfuge to catch criminals. For example, two Russian hackers had been evading the FBI for some time. The FBI set up a fake computing company based in Seattle, Washington. They proceeded to lure the two Russian men into the United States by offering them work with this company. Upon completion of the interview, the suspects were arrested. Clever tricks like that are sometimes a necessary part of catching cybercriminals when weak laws and limited international cooperation make it impossible otherwise.[105]
The first cyber related law in the United States was the Privacy Act of 1974 which was only required for federal agencies to follow to ensure privacy and protection of personally identifiable information (PII). However, since 1974, in the United States other laws and regulations have been drafted and implemented, but there is still a gap in responding to current cyber related crime. The most recent cyber related law, according to NIST, was the NIST Small Business Cybersecurity Act, which came out in 2018, and provides guidelines to small businesses to ensure that cybersecurity risks are being identified and addressed accurately.[106]
During President Barack Obama's presidency three cybersecurity related bills were signed into order in December 2014. The first was the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014, the second was the National Cybersecurity Protection Act of 2014, and the third was the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2014. Although the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 was just an update of an older version of the act, it focused on the practices federal agencies were to abide by relating to cybersecurity. While the National Cybersecurity Protection Act of 2014 was aimed toward increasing the amount of information sharing that occurs across the federal and private sector to improve cybersecurity amongst the industries. Finally, the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2014 relates to cybersecurity research and education.[107]
In April 2015, then-President Barack Obama released an executive order that allows the US to freeze the assets of convicted cybercriminals and block their economic activity within the United States.[108]
The European Union adopted cybercrime directive 2013/40/EU, which was elaborated upon in theCouncil of Europe'sConvention on Cybercrime.[109]
It is not only the US and the European Union that have been introducing measures against cybercrime. On 31 May 2017, China announced that its new cybersecurity law was taking effect.[110]
In Australia, legislation to combat cybercrime includes theCriminal Code Act 1995, theTelecommunications Act 1997, and theEnhancing Online Safety Act 2015.
Penalties for computer-related crimes inNew York Statecan range from a fine and a short period of jail time for a Class A misdemeanor, such as unauthorized use of a computer, up to 3 to 15 years in prison for a Class C felony, such as computer tampering in the first degree.[111]
However, some former cybercriminals have been hired as information security experts by private companies due to their inside knowledge of computer crime, a phenomenon which theoretically could createperverse incentives. A possible counter to this is for courts to ban convicted hackers from using the internet or computers, even after they have been released from prison – though as computers and the internet become more and more central to everyday life, this type of punishment becomes more and more draconian. Nuanced approaches have been developed that manage cyber offenders' behavior without resorting to total computer or internet bans.[112]These approaches involve restricting individuals to specific devices which are subject to monitoring or searches by probation or parole officers.[113]A 2023 GAO report noted that the United States lacks coordination and sufficient resources to effectively counter growing cybercrime threats.[114]
Cybercrime is becoming more of a threat in our society. According to Accenture's State of Cybersecurity, security attacks increased 31% from 2020 to 2021. The number of attacks per company increased from 206 to 270. Due to this rising threat, the importance of raising awareness about measures to protect information and the tactics criminals use to steal that information is paramount. However, despite cybercrime becoming a mounting problem, many people are not aware of the severity of this problem. This could be attributed to a lack of experience and knowledge of technological issues. There are 1.5 million cyber-attacks annually, which means that there are over 4,000 attacks a day, 170 attacks every hour, or nearly three attacks every minute, with studies showing that only 16 percent of victims had asked the people who were carrying out the attacks to stop.[115]Comparitech's 2023 study shows that cybercrime victims have peaked to 71 million annually, which means there is a cyberattack every 39 seconds.[116]Anybody who uses the internet for any reason can be a victim, which is why it is important to be aware of how to be protected while online.
As cybercrime proliferated, a professional ecosystem evolved to support individuals and groups seeking to profit from cybercrime activities. The ecosystem has become quite specialized, and includes malware developers, botnet operators, professional cybercrime groups, groups specializing in the sale of stolen content, and so forth. A few of the leading cybersecurity companies have the skills and resources to follow the activities of these individuals and groups.[117]A wide variety of information that can be used for defensive purposes is available from these sources, for example, technical indicators such as hashes of infected files[118]and malicious IPs/URLs,[118]as well as strategic information profiling the goals and techniques of the profiled groups. Much of it is freely available, but consistent, ongoing access typically requires a subscription. Some in the corporate sector see a crucial role forartificial intelligencein the future development of cybersecurity.[119][120]
Interpol's Cyber Fusion Center began a collaboration with key cybersecurity players to distribute information on the latest online scams, cyber threats, and risks to internet users. Since 2017, reports on social engineering frauds, ransomware, phishing, and other attacks have been distributed to security agencies in over 150 countries.[121]
The increasing prevalence of cybercrime has resulted in more attention to computer crime detection and prosecution.
Hacking has become less complex as hacking communities disseminate their knowledge through the internet.[citation needed]Blogs and social networks have contributed substantially to information sharing, so that beginners can benefit from older hackers' knowledge and advice.
Furthermore, hacking is cheaper than ever. Before thecloud computingera, in order to spam or scam, one needed a variety of resources, such as a dedicated server; skills in server management, network configuration, and network maintenance; and knowledge of internet service provider standards. By comparison, asoftware-as-a-servicefor mail is a scalable and inexpensive bulk e-mail-sending service for marketing purposes that could be easily set up for spam.[122]Cloud computing could help cybercriminals leverage their attacks, whether brute-forcing a password, improving the reach of a botnet, or facilitating a spamming campaign.[123]
Cyber Crime. (n.d.). [Folder]. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved April 24, 2024, fromCybercrime
Herrero, J., Torres, A., Vivas, P., & Urueña, A. (2022). Smartphone Addiction, Social Support, and Cybercrime Victimization: A Discrete Survival and Growth Mixture Model: Psychosocial Intervention. Psychosocial Intervention, 31(1), 59–66.Smartphone Addiction, Social Support, and Cybercrime Victimization: A Discrete Survival and Growth Mixture Model
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybercrime
|
Exec Shieldis a project started atRed Hat, Inc in late 2002 with the aim of reducing the risk of worm or other automated remote attacks on Linux systems. The first result of the project was asecuritypatch for theLinux kernelthat emulates anNX bitonx86CPUsthat lack a native NX implementation in hardware. While the Exec Shield project has had many other components, some people refer to this first patch as Exec Shield.
The first Exec Shield patch attempts to flag data memory as non-executable and program memory as non-writeable. This suppresses manysecurity exploits, such as those stemming frombuffer overflowsand other techniques relying on overwriting data and inserting code into those structures. Exec Shield also supplies someaddress space layout randomizationfor themmap() and heap base.
The patch additionally increases the difficulty of inserting and executingshellcode, rendering most exploits ineffective. No application recompilation is necessary to fully utilize exec-shield, although some applications (Mono,Wine,XEmacs,Mplayer) are not fully compatible.
Other features that came out of the Exec Shield project were thePosition Independent Executables(PIE), the address space randomization patch for Linux kernels, a wide set of glibc internal security checks that make heap and format string exploits near impossible, the GCCFortify Sourcefeature, and the port and merge of the GCCstack-protectorfeature.
Exec Shield works on all x86 CPUs utilizing the Code Segment limit. Because of the way Exec Shield works, it is very lightweight; however, it won't fully protect arbitraryvirtual memorylayouts. If the CS limit is raised, for example by calling mprotect() to make higher memory executable, then the protections are lost below that limit.Ingo Molnarpoints this out in an e-mail conversation. Most applications are fairly sane at this; the stack (the important part) at least winds up above any mapped libraries, so does not become executable except by explicit calls by the application.
As of August, 2004, nothing from the Exec Shield projects attempt to enforce memory protections by restrictingmprotect() on any architecture; although memory may not initially be executable, it may become executable later, so the kernel will allow an application to mark memory pages as both writable and executable at the same time. However, in cooperation with theSecurity-Enhanced Linuxproject (SELinux), the standard policy for theFedora Coredistribution does prohibit this behavior for most executables, with only a few exceptions for compatibility reasons.
Exec Shield was developed by various people at Red Hat; the first patch was released byIngo Molnarof Red Hat and first released in May 2003. It is part of Fedora Core 1 through 6 and Red Hat Enterprise Linux since version 3.[1][2]Other people involved include Jakub Jelínek,Ulrich Drepper, Richard Henderson and Arjan van de Ven.
Molnar commented in 2007 onLWN.netthat "bits of [exec-shield] went upstream, but a fair chunk didn't."[3]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExecShield
|
Incomputer programming, aninteger overflowoccurs when anarithmeticoperation on integers attempts to create a numeric value that is outside of the range that can be represented with a given number of digits – either higher than the maximum or lower than the minimum representable value.
The most common result of an overflow is that the least significant representable digits of the result are stored; the result is said towraparound the maximum (i.e.moduloa power of theradix, usually two in modern computers, but sometimes ten or other number). On some processors likegraphics processing units(GPUs) anddigital signal processors(DSPs) which supportsaturation arithmetic, overflowed results would beclamped, i.e. set to the minimum value in the representable range if the result is below the minimum and set to the maximum value in the representable range if the result is above the maximum, rather than wrapped around.
An overflow condition may give results leading to unintended behavior. In particular, if the possibility has not been anticipated, overflow can compromise a program's reliability andsecurity.
For some applications, such as timers and clocks, wrapping on overflow can be desirable. TheC11 standardstates that for unsigned integers, modulo wrapping is the defined behavior and the term overflow never applies: "a computation involving unsigned operands can never overflow."[1]
Theregister widthof a processor determines the range of values that can be represented in its registers. Though the vast majority of computers can perform multiple-precision arithmetic on operands in memory, allowing numbers to be arbitrarily long and overflow to be avoided, the register width limits the sizes of numbers that can be operated on (e.g., added or subtracted) using a singleinstructionper operation. Typicalbinaryregister widths for unsigned integers include:
When an unsigned arithmetic operation produces a result larger than the maximum above for an N-bit integer, an overflow reduces the result tomoduloN-th power of 2, retaining only the least significant bits of the result and effectively causing awrap around.
In particular, multiplying or adding two integers may result in a value that is unexpectedly small, and subtracting from a small integer may cause a wrap to a large positive value (for example, 8-bit integer addition 255 + 2 results in 1, which is257 mod 28, and similarly subtraction 0 − 1 results in 255, atwo's complementrepresentation of −1).
Such wraparound may cause security detriments—if an overflowed value is used as the number of bytes to allocate for a buffer, the buffer will be allocated unexpectedly small, potentially leading to abuffer overflowwhich, depending on the use of the buffer, might in turn cause arbitrary code execution.
If the variable has asigned integertype, a program may make the assumption that a variable always contains a positive value. An integer overflow can cause the value to wrap and become negative, which violates the program's assumption and may lead to unexpected behavior (for example, 8-bit integer addition of 127 + 1 results in −128, a two's complement of 128). (A solution for this particular problem is to use unsigned integer types for values that a program expects and assumes will never be negative.)
Most computers have two dedicated processor flags to check for overflow conditions.
Thecarry flagis set when the result of an addition or subtraction, considering the operands and result as unsigned numbers, does not fit in the given number of bits. This indicates an overflow with acarryorborrowfrom themost significant bit. An immediately followingadd with carryorsubtract with borrowoperation would use the contents of this flag to modify a register or a memory location that contains the higher part of a multi-word value.
Theoverflow flagis set when the result of an operation on signed numbers does not have the sign that one would predict from the signs of the operands, e.g., a negative result when adding two positive numbers. This indicates that an overflow has occurred and the signed result represented intwo's complementform would not fit in the given number of bits.
For an unsigned type, when the ideal result of an operation is outside the type's representable range and the returned result is obtained by wrapping, then this event is commonly defined as an overflow. In contrast, the C11 standard defines that this event is not an overflow and states "a computation involving unsigned operands can never overflow."[1]
When the ideal result of an integer operation is outside the type's representable range and the returned result is obtained by clamping, then this event is commonly defined as a saturation. Use varies as to whether a saturation is or is not an overflow. To eliminate ambiguity, the terms wrapping overflow[2]and saturating overflow[3]can be used.
Many references can be found to integer underflow.[4][5][6][7][8]When the term integer underflow is used, it means the ideal result was closer to negative infinity than the output type's representable value closest to negative infinity. Depending on context, the definition of overflow may include all types including underflows, or it may only include cases where the ideal result was closer to positive infinity than the output type's representable value closest to positive infinity.
When the ideal result of an operation is not an exact integer, the meaning of overflow can be ambiguous in edge cases. Consider the case where the ideal result has a value of 127.25 and the output type's maximum representable value is 127. If overflow is defined as the ideal value being outside the representable range of the output type, then this case would be classified as an overflow. For operations that have well defined rounding behavior, overflow classification may need to be postponed until after rounding is applied. The C11 standard[1]defines that conversions from floating point to integer must round toward zero. If C is used to convert the floating point value 127.25 to integer, then rounding should be applied first to give an ideal integer output of 127. Since the rounded integer is in the outputs range, the C standard would not classify this conversion as an overflow.
The behavior on occurrence of overflow may not be consistent in all circumstances. For example, in the languageRust, while functionality is provided to give users choice and control, the behavior for basic use of mathematic operators is naturally fixed; however, this fixed behavior differs between a program built in 'debug' mode and one built in 'release' mode.[9]In C, unsigned integer overflow is defined to wrap around, while signed integer overflow causesundefined behavior.
Run-time overflow detection implementationUBSan(undefined behaviorsanitizer) is available forC compilers.
In Java 8, there areoverloaded methods, for exampleMath.addExact(int, int), which will throw anArithmeticExceptionin case of overflow.
Computer emergency response team(CERT) developed the As-if Infinitely Ranged (AIR) integer model, a largely automated mechanism to eliminate integer overflow and truncation in C/C++ using run-time error handling.[13]
By allocating variables with data types that are large enough to contain all values that may possibly be computed and stored in them, it is always possible to avoid overflow. Even when the available space or the fixed data types provided by a programming language or environment are too limited to allow for variables to be defensively allocated with generous sizes, by carefully ordering operations and checking operands in advance, it is often possible to ensurea priorithat the result will never be larger than can be stored.Static analysistools,formal verificationanddesign by contracttechniques can be used to more confidently and robustly ensure that an overflow cannot accidentally result.
If it is anticipated that overflow may occur, then tests can be inserted into the program to detect when it happens, or is about to happen, and do other processing to mitigate it. For example, if an important result computed from user input overflows, the program can stop, reject the input, and perhaps prompt the user for different input, rather than the program proceeding with the invalid overflowed input and probably malfunctioning as a consequence.
CPUsgenerally have a way to detect this to support addition of numbers larger than their register size, typically using a status bit. The technique is called multiple-precision arithmetic. Thus, it is possible to perform byte-wide addition on operands wider than a byte: first add the low bytes, store the result and check for overflow; then add the high bytes, and if necessary add thecarryfrom the low bytes, then store the result.
Handling possible overflow of a calculation may sometimes present a choice between performing a checkbeforea calculation (to determine whether or not overflow is going to occur), orafterit (to consider whether or not it likely occurred based on the resulting value). Since some implementations might generate atrapcondition on integer overflow, the most portable programs test in advance of performing the operation that might overflow.
Programming languages implement various mitigation methods against an accidental overflow:Ada,Seed7, and certain variants of functional languages trigger an exception condition on overflow, whilePython(since 2.4) seamlessly converts internal representation of the number to match its growth, eventually representing it aslong– whose ability is only limited by the available memory.[14]
In languages with native support forarbitrary-precision arithmeticandtype safety(such asPython,Smalltalk, orCommon Lisp), numbers are promoted to a larger size automatically when overflows occur, or exceptions thrown (conditions signaled) when a range constraint exists. Using such languages may thus be helpful to mitigate this issue. However, in some such languages, situations are still possible where an integer overflow can occur. An example is explicit optimization of a code path which is considered a bottleneck by the profiler. In the case ofCommon Lisp, this is possible by using an explicit declaration to type-annotate a variable to a machine-size word (fixnum)[15]and lower the type safety level to zero[16]for a particular code block.[17][18][19][20]
In stark contrast to older languages such as C, some newer languages such asRustprovide built-in functions that allow easy detection and user choice over how overflow should be handled case-by-case. In Rust, while use of basic mathematic operators naturally lacks such flexibility, users can alternatively perform calculations via a set of methods provided by each of the integer primitive types. These methods give users several choices between performing achecked(oroverflowing) operation (which indicates whether or not overflow occurred via the return type); an 'unchecked' operation; an operation that performs wrapping, or an operation which performs saturation at the numeric bounds.
Incomputer graphicsorsignal processing, it is typical to work on data that ranges from 0 to 1 or from −1 to 1. For example, take agrayscaleimage where 0 represents black, 1 represents white, and the values in between represent shades of gray. One operation that one may want to support is brightening the image by multiplying everypixelby a constant.Saturated arithmeticallows one to just blindly multiply every pixel by that constant without worrying about overflow by just sticking to a reasonable outcome that all these pixels larger than 1 (i.e.,"brighter than white") just become white and all values "darker than black" just become black.
Unanticipated arithmetic overflow is a fairly common cause ofprogram errors. Such overflow bugs may be hard to discover and diagnose because they may manifest themselves only for very large input data sets, which are less likely to be used in validation tests.
Taking the arithmetic mean of two numbers by adding them and dividing by two, as done in manysearch algorithms, causes error if the sum (although not the resulting mean) is too large to be represented and hence overflows.[21]
Between 1985 and 1987, arithmetic overflow in theTherac-25radiation therapymachines, along with a lack of hardware safety controls, caused the death of at least six people from radiation overdoses.[22]
An unhandled arithmetic overflow in the engine steering software was the primary cause of the crash of the 1996 maiden flight of theAriane 5rocket.[23]The software had been considered bug-free since it had been used in many previous flights, but those used smaller rockets which generated lower acceleration than Ariane 5. Frustratingly, the part of the software in which the overflow error occurred was not even required to be running for the Ariane 5 at the time that it caused the rocket to fail: it was a launch-regime process for a smaller predecessor of the Ariane 5 that had remained in the software when it was adapted for the new rocket. Further, the true cause of the failure was a flaw in the engineering specification of how the software dealt with the overflow when it was detected: it did a diagnostic dump to its bus, which would have been connected to test equipment during software testing during development but was connected to the rocket steering motors during flight; the data dump drove the engine nozzle hard to one side which put the rocket out of aerodynamic control and precipitated its rapid breakup in the air.[24]
On 30 April 2015, the U.S.Federal Aviation Administrationannounced it will orderBoeing 787operators to reset its electrical system periodically, to avoid an integer overflow which could lead to loss of electrical power andram air turbinedeployment, and Boeing deployed asoftware updatein the fourth quarter.[25]TheEuropean Aviation Safety Agencyfollowed on 4 May 2015.[26]The error happens after 231hundredths of a second (about 249 days), indicating a 32-bitsignedinteger.
Overflow bugs are evident in some computer games. InSuper Mario Bros.for theNES, the stored number of lives is a signed byte (ranging from −128 to 127) meaning the player can safely have 127 lives, but when the player reaches their 128th life, the counter rolls over to zero lives (although the number counter is glitched before this happens) and stops keeping count. As such, if the player then dies it's an immediate game over. This is caused by the game's data overflow that was an error of programming as the developers may not have thought said number of lives would be reasonably earned in a full playthrough.[citation needed]
In the arcade gameDonkey Kong, it is impossible to advance past level 22 due to an integer overflow in its time/bonus. The game calculates the time/bonus by taking the level number a user is on, multiplying it by 10, and adding 40. When they reach level 22, the time/bonus number is 260, which is too large for its 8-bit 256 value register, so it overflows to a value of 4 – too short to finish the level. InDonkey Kong Jr. Math, when trying to calculate a number over 10,000, it shows only the first 4 digits. Overflow is the cause of the famous"split-screen" levelinPac-Man.[27]Such a bug also caused theFar LandsinMinecraftJava Edition which existed from the Infdev development period to Beta 1.7.3; it was later fixed in Beta 1.8. The same bug also existed inMinecraftBedrock Edition but has since been fixed.[28][unreliable source?]
IBM–Microsoft Macro Assembler(MASM) version 1.00, and likely all other programs built by the samePascalcompiler, had an integer overflow and signedness error in the stack setup code, which prevented them from running on newerDOSmachines or emulators under some common configurations with more than 512 KiB of memory. The program either hangs or displays an error message and exits to DOS.[29]
In August 2016, acasinomachine atResorts Worldcasino printed a prize ticket of $42,949,672.76 as a result of an overflow bug. The casino refused to pay this amount, calling it a malfunction, using in their defense that the machine clearly stated that the maximum payout was $10,000, so any prize exceeding that had to be the result of a programming bug. TheNew York State Gaming Commissionruled in favor of the casino.[30]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_overflow
|
TheNX bit(no-execute bit) is aprocessorfeature that separates areas of avirtual address space(the memory layout a program uses) into sections for storing data or program instructions. Anoperating systemsupporting the NX bit can mark certain areas of the virtual address space as non-executable, preventing the processor from running any code stored there. This technique, known asexecutable space protectionorWrite XOR Execute, protects computers from malicious software that attempts to insert harmful code into another program’s data storage area and execute it, such as in abuffer overflowattack.
The term "NX bit" was introduced byAdvanced Micro Devices(AMD) as a marketing term.Intelmarkets this feature as theXD bit(execute disable), while theMIPS architecturerefers to it as theXI bit(execute inhibit). In theARM architecture, introduced inARMv6, it is known asXN(execute never).[1]The term NX bit is often used broadly to describe similar executable space protection technologies in other processors.
x86processors, since the80286, included a similar capability implemented at thesegmentlevel. However, almost all operating systems for the80386and later x86 processors implement theflat memory model, so they cannot use this capability. There was no "Executable" flag in the page table entry (page descriptor) in those processors, until, to make this capability available to operating systems using the flat memory model, AMD added a "no-execute" or NX bit to the page table entry in itsAMD64architecture, providing a mechanism that can control execution perpagerather than per whole segment.
Intel implemented a similar feature in itsItanium(Merced) processor—havingIA-64architecture—in 2001, but did not bring it to the more popular x86 processor families (Pentium,Celeron,Xeon, etc.). In the x86 architecture it was first implemented by AMD, as theNX bit, for use by itsAMD64line of processors, such as theAthlon 64andOpteron.[2]
After AMD's decision to include this functionality in its AMD64 instruction set, Intel implemented the similar XD bit feature in x86 processors beginning with thePentium 4processors based on later iterations of the Prescott core.[3]The NX bit specifically refers to bit number 63 (i.e. the most significant bit) of a 64-bit entry in thepage table. If this bit is set to 0, then code can be executed from that page; if set to 1, code cannot be executed from that page, and anything residing there is assumed to be data. It is only available with the long mode (64-bit mode) or legacyPhysical Address Extension(PAE) page-table formats, but not x86's original 32-bit page table format because page table entries in that format lack the 64th bit used to disable and enable execution.
Windows XP SP2 and later supportData Execution Prevention(DEP).
InARMv6, a new page table entry format was introduced; it includes an "execute never" bit.[1]ForARMv8-A, VMSAv8-64 block and page descriptors, and VMSAv8-32 long-descriptor block and page descriptors, for stage 1 translations have "execute never" bits for both privileged and unprivileged modes, and block and page descriptors for stage 2 translations have a single "execute never" bit (two bits due to ARMv8.2-TTS2UXN feature); VMSAv8-32 short-descriptor translation table descriptors at level 1 have "execute never" bits for both privileged and unprivileged mode and at level 2 have a single "execute never" bit.[4]
As of the Fourth Edition of the Alpha Architecture manual,DEC(now HP)Alphahas a Fault on Execute bit in page table entries with theOpenVMS,Tru64 UNIX, and Alpha LinuxPALcode.[5]
The SPARC Reference MMU forSunSPARCversion 8 has permission values of Read Only, Read/Write, Read/Execute, and Read/Write/Execute in page table entries,[6]although not all SPARC processors have a SPARC Reference MMU.
A SPARC version 9 MMU may provide, but is not required to provide, any combination of read/write/execute permissions.[7]A Translation Table Entry in a Translation Storage Buffer in Oracle SPARC Architecture 2011, Draft D1.0.0 has separate Executable and Writable bits.[8]
Page table entries forIBMPowerPC's hashed page tables have a no-execute page bit.[9]Page table entries for radix-tree page tables in the Power ISA have separate permission bits granting read/write and execute access.[10]
Translation lookaside buffer(TLB) entries and page table entries inPA-RISC1.1 and PA-RISC 2.0 support read-only, read/write, read/execute, and read/write/execute pages.[11][12]
TLB entries inItaniumsupport read-only, read/write, read/execute, and read/write/execute pages.[13]
As of the twelfth edition of thez/ArchitecturePrinciples of Operation, z/Architecture processors may support the Instruction-Execution Protection facility, which adds a bit in page table entries that controls whether instructions from a given region, segment, or page can be executed.[14]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NX_Bit
|
Security-Enhanced Linux(SELinux) is aLinux kernelsecurity modulethat provides a mechanism for supportingaccess controlsecurity policies, includingmandatory access controls(MAC).
SELinux is a set of kernel modifications and user-space tools that have been added to variousLinux distributions. Itsarchitecturestrives to separate enforcement of security decisions from the security policy, and streamlines the amount of software involved with security policy enforcement.[3][4]The key concepts underlying SELinux can be traced to several earlier projects by the United States National Security Agency (NSA).
The NSA Security-enhanced Linux Team describes NSA SELinux as[5]
a set ofpatchesto theLinux kerneland utilities to provide a strong, flexible, mandatory access control (MAC) architecture into the major subsystems of the kernel. It provides an enhanced mechanism to enforce the separation of information based on confidentiality and integrity requirements, which allows threats of tampering, and bypassing of application security mechanisms, to be addressed and enables the confinement of damage that can be caused by malicious or flawed applications. It includes a set of sample security policy configuration files designed to meet common, general-purpose security goals.
A Linux kernel integrating SELinux enforces mandatory access control policies that confine user programs and system services, as well as access to files and network resources. Limiting privilege to the minimum required to work reduces or eliminates the ability of these programs anddaemonsto cause harm if faulty or compromised (for example viabuffer overflowsor misconfigurations). This confinement mechanism operates independently of the traditional Linux (discretionary) access control mechanisms. It has no concept of a "root"superuser, and does not share the well-known shortcomings of the traditional Linux security mechanisms, such as a dependence onsetuid/setgidbinaries.
The security of an "unmodified" Linux system (a system without SELinux) depends on the correctness of the kernel, of all the privileged applications, and of each of their configurations. A fault in any one of these areas may allow the compromise of the entire system. In contrast, the security of a "modified" system (based on an SELinux kernel) depends primarily on the correctness of the kernel and its security-policy configuration. While problems with the correctness or configuration of applications may allow the limited compromise of individual user programs and system daemons, they do not necessarily pose a threat to the security of other user programs and system daemons or to the security of the system as a whole.
From a purist perspective, SELinux provides a hybrid of concepts and capabilities drawn from mandatory access controls,mandatory integrity controls,role-based access control(RBAC), andtype enforcement architecture. Third-party tools enable one to build a variety of security policies.
The earliest work directed toward standardizing an approach providing mandatory and discretionary access controls (MAC and DAC) within a UNIX (more precisely, POSIX) computing environment can be attributed to theNational Security Agency's Trusted UNIX (TRUSIX) Working Group, which met from 1987 to 1991 and published oneRainbow Book(#020A), and produced a formal model and associated evaluation evidence prototype (#020B) that was ultimately unpublished.
SELinux was designed to demonstrate the value of mandatory access controls to the Linux community and how such controls could be added to Linux. Originally, the patches that make up SELinux had to be explicitly applied to the Linux kernel source; SELinux was merged into theLinux kernel mainlinein the 2.6 series of the Linux kernel.
The NSA, the original primary developer of SELinux, released the first version to theopen sourcedevelopment community under theGNU GPLon December 22, 2000.[6]The software was merged into the mainline Linux kernel 2.6.0-test3, released on 8 August 2003. Other significant contributors includeRed Hat,Network Associates,Secure Computing Corporation, Tresys Technology, and Trusted Computer Solutions. Experimental ports of theFLASK/TE implementation have been made available via theTrustedBSDProject for theFreeBSDandDarwinoperating systems.
Security-Enhanced Linux implements theFlux Advanced Security Kernel(FLASK). Such a kernel contains architectural components prototyped in theFluke operating system. These provide general support for enforcing many kinds of mandatory access control policies, including those based on the concepts oftype enforcement,role-based access control, andmultilevel security. FLASK, in turn, was based on DTOS, a Mach-derivedDistributed Trusted Operating System, as well as on Trusted Mach, a research project fromTrusted Information Systemsthat had an influence on the design and implementation of DTOS.[citation needed]
A comprehensive list of the original and external contributors to SELinux was hosted at the NSA website until maintenance ceased sometime in 2009. The following list reproduces the original aspreservedby the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. The scope of their contributions was listed in the page and has been omitted for brevity, but it can be accessed through the archived copy.[7]
SELinux users and roles do not have to be related to the actual system users and roles. For every current user or process, SELinux assigns a three string context consisting of a username, role, and domain (or type). This system is more flexible than normally required: as a rule, most of the real users share the same SELinux username, and all access control is managed through the third tag, the domain. The circumstances under which a process is allowed into a certain domain must be configured in the policies. The commandrunconallows for the launching of a process into an explicitly specified context (user, role, and domain), but SELinux may deny the transition if it is not approved by the policy.
Files, network ports, and other hardware also have an SELinux context, consisting of a name, role (seldom used), and type. In the case of file systems, mapping between files and the security contexts is called labeling. The labeling is defined in policy files but can also be manually adjusted without changing the policies. Hardware types are quite detailed, for instance,bin_t(all files in the folder /bin) orpostgresql_port_t(PostgreSQL port, 5432). The SELinux context for a remote file system can be specified explicitly at mount time.
SELinux adds the-Zswitch to the shell commandsls,ps, and some others, allowing the security context of the files or process to be seen.
Typical policy rules consist of explicit permissions, for example, which domains the user must possess to perform certain actions with the given target (read, execute, or, in case of network port, bind or connect), and so on. More complex mappings are also possible, involving roles and security levels.
A typical policy consists of a mapping (labeling) file, a rule file, and an interface file, that define the domain transition. These three files must be compiled together with the SELinux tools to produce a single policy file. The resulting policy file can be loaded into the kernel to make it active. Loading and unloading policies does not require a reboot. The policy files are either hand written or can be generated from the more user friendly SELinux management tool. They are normally tested in permissive mode first, where violations are logged but allowed. Theaudit2allowtool can be used later to produce additional rules that extend the policy to allow all legitimate activities of the application being confined.
SELinux features include:
SELinux has been implemented inAndroidsince version 4.3.[12]
Among free community-supported Linux distributions,Fedorawas one of the earliest adopters, including support for it by default since Fedora Core 2. Other distributions include support for it such asDebianas of version 9 Stretch release[13]andUbuntuas of 8.04 Hardy Heron.[14]As of version 11.1,openSUSEcontains SELinux "basic enablement".[15]SUSE Linux Enterprise(SLE) 11 features SELinux as a "technology preview".[16]
SELinux is popular in systems based onLinux containers, such asCoreOS Container Linuxand rkt.[17]It is useful as an additional security control to help further enforce isolation between deployed containers and their host.
SELinux is available since 2005 as part ofRed Hat Enterprise Linux(RHEL) version 4 and all future releases. This presence is also reflected in corresponding versions of derived systems such asCentOS,Scientific Linux,AlmaLinuxandRocky Linux. The supported policy in RHEL4 is targeted policy which aims for maximum ease of use and thus is not as restrictive as it might be. Future versions of RHEL are planned to have more targets in the targeted policy which will mean more restrictive policies. RHEL version 5 introducedmultilevel security(MLS) policy for servers only. Fedora Linux 10 introduced a minimum policy, designed for certain platforms such as low-memory devices andvirtual machines.[18]
openSUSE Tumbleweed transitioned fromAppArmorto SELinux for new installation since 11 February 2025, upcoming SLE/openSUSE Leap 16 will be shipped with SELinux by default as well.[19]openSUSE/SLE adopted RHEL/Fedora policies for its SELinux implementation although with some differences.[20]AppArmor is retained for existing Tumbleweed and SLE/openSUSE Leap 15.x installation (users can manually migrate their existing installation to SELinux). AppArmor is also available as install-time selection for users who prefer it.[21]
SELinux can potentially control which activities a system allows each user, process, and daemon, with very precise specifications. It is used to confinedaemonssuch as database engines or web servers that have clearly defined data access and activity rights. This limits potential harm from a confined daemon that becomes compromised.
Command-line utilities include:[22]chcon,[23]restorecon,[24]restorecond,[25]runcon,[26]secon,[27]fixfiles,[28]setfiles,[29]load_policy,[30]booleans,[31]getsebool,[32]setsebool,[33]togglesebool[34]setenforce,semodule,postfix-nochroot,check-selinux-installation,semodule_package,checkmodule,selinux-config-enforcing,[35]selinuxenabled,[36]andselinux-policy-upgrade[37]
To put SELinux into enforcing mode:
To query the SELinux status:
SELinux represents one of several possible approaches to the problem of restricting the actions that installed software can take. Another popular alternative is calledAppArmorand is available onSUSE Linux Enterprise Server(SLES),openSUSE, andDebian-basedplatforms. AppArmor was developed as a component to the now-defunctImmunix Linuxplatform. Because AppArmor and SELinux differ radically from one another, they form distinct alternatives for software control. Whereas SELinux re-invents certain concepts to provide access to a more expressive set of policy choices, AppArmor was designed to be simple by extending the same administrative semantics used forDACup to the mandatory access control level.
There are several key differences:
Isolation of processes can also be accomplished by mechanisms such asvirtualization; theOLPCproject, for example, in its first implementation[40]sandboxedindividual applications in lightweightVservers. Also, theNSAhas adopted some of the SELinux concepts in Security-EnhancedAndroid.[41]
General Dynamicsbuilds and distributes PitBull Trusted Operating System,[42]amultilevel security(MLS) enhancement forRed Hat Enterprise Linux.
Multi-Category Security (MCS) is an enhancement to SELinux forRed Hat Enterprise Linuxthat allows users to label files with categories, in order to further restrict access through discretionary access control and type enforcement. Categories provide additional compartments within sensitivity levels used bymultilevel security(MLS).[43]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security-Enhanced_Linux
|
In software, astack overflowoccurs if thecall stackpointer exceeds thestackbound. The call stack may consist of a limited amount ofaddress space, often determined at the start of the program. The size of the call stack depends on many factors, including the programming language, machine architecture, multi-threading, and amount of available memory. When a program attempts to use more space than is available on the call stack (that is, when it attempts to access memory beyond the call stack's bounds, which is essentially abuffer overflow), the stack is said tooverflow, typically resulting in a programcrash.[1]
The most-common cause of stack overflow is excessively deep or infinite recursion, in which a function calls itself so many times that the space needed to store the variables and information associated with each call is more than can fit on the stack.[2]
An example of infinite recursion inC.
The functionfoo, when it is invoked, continues to invoke itself, allocating additional space on the stack each time, until the stack overflows resulting in asegmentation fault.[2]However, some compilers implementtail-call optimization, allowing infinite recursion of a specific sort—tail recursion—to occur without stack overflow. This works because tail-recursion calls do not take up additional stack space.[3]
Some C compiler options will effectively enabletail-call optimization; for example, compiling the above simple program usinggccwith-O1will result in a segmentation fault, but not when using-O2or-O3, since these optimization levels imply the-foptimize-sibling-callscompiler option.[4]Other languages, such asScheme, require all implementations to include tail-recursion as part of the language standard.[5]
A recursive function that terminates in theory but causes a call stack buffer overflow in practice can be fixed by transforming the recursion into a loop and storing the function arguments in an explicit stack (rather than the implicit use of the call stack). This is always possible because the class ofprimitive recursive functionsis equivalent to the class of LOOP computable functions. Consider this example inC++-like pseudocode:
A primitive recursive function like the one on the left side can always be transformed into a loop like on the right side.
A function like the example above on the left would not be a problem in an environment supportingtail-call optimization; however, it is still possible to create a recursive function that may result in a stack overflow in these languages. Consider the example below of two simple integer exponentiation functions.
Bothpow(base, exp)functions above compute an equivalent result, however, the one on the left is prone to causing a stack overflow because tail-call optimization is not possible for this function. During execution, the stack for these functions will look like this:
Notice that the function on the left must store in its stackexpnumber of integers, which will be multiplied when the recursion terminates and the function returns 1. In contrast, the function at the right must only store 3 integers at any time, and computes an intermediary result which is passed to its following invocation. As no other information outside of the current function invocation must be stored, a tail-recursion optimizer can "drop" the prior stack frames, eliminating the possibility of a stack overflow.
The other major cause of a stack overflow results from an attempt to allocate more memory on the stack than will fit, for example by creating local array variables that are too large. For this reason some authors recommend that arrays larger than a few kilobytes should beallocated dynamicallyinstead of as a local variable.[6]
An example of a very large stack variable inC:
On a C implementation with 8 bytedouble-precision floats, the declared array consumes 8megabytesof data; if this is more memory than is available on the stack (as set by thread creation parameters or operating system limits), a stack overflow will occur.
Stack overflows are made worse by anything that reduces the effective stack size of a given program. For example, the same program being run without multiple threads might work fine, but as soon as multi-threading is enabled the program will crash. This is because most programs with threads have less stack space per thread than a program with no threading support. Because kernels are generally multi-threaded, people new tokerneldevelopment are usually discouraged from using recursive algorithms or large stack buffers.[7]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_overflow
|
Incomputingastorage violationis a hardware or softwarefaultthat occurs when ataskattempts to access an area ofcomputer storagewhich it is not permitted to access.
Storage violation can, for instance, consist of reading from, writing to, or freeing storage not owned by the task. A common type of storage violation is known as astack buffer overflowwhere a program attempts to exceed the limits set for itscall stack. It can also refer to attempted modification of memory "owned" by another thread where there is incomplete (or no) memory protection.
Storage violations can occur in transaction systems such asCICSin circumstances where it is possible to write to storage not owned by the transaction; such violations can be reduced by enabling features such asstorage protectionandtransaction isolation.
Storage violations can be difficult to detect as a program can often run for a period of time after the violation before it crashes. For example, a pointer to a freed area of memory can be retained and later reused causing an error. As a result, efforts focus on detecting violations as they occur, rather than later when the problem is observed.
In systems such as CICS, storage violations are sometimes detected (by the CICSkernel) by the use of "signatures", which can be tested to see if they have been overlaid.
An alternative runtime library may be used to better detect storage violations, at the cost of additional overhead.[1]Some programming languages use softwarebounds checkingto prevent these occurrences.
Some programdebuggingsoftware will also detect violations during testing.
Thiscomputer sciencearticle is astub. You can help Wikipedia byexpanding it.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storage_violation
|
From the mid-1980s to September 2003, the inflation-adjusted price of abarrelofcrude oilonNYMEXwas generally under US$25/barrel in 2008 dollars. During 2003, the price rose above $30, reached $60 by 11 August 2005, and peaked at $147.30 in July 2008.[1]Commentators attributed these price increases to multiple factors, includingMiddle Easttension, soaring demand from China,[2]the falling value of the U.S. dollar, reports showing a decline inpetroleum reserves,[3][4]worries overpeak oil,[5]and financial speculation.[6]
For a time, geopolitical events and natural disasters had strong short-term effects on oil prices, such asNorth Korean missile tests,[7]the2006 conflict between Israel and Lebanon,[8]worries overIranian nuclear plans in 2006,[9]Hurricane Katrina,[10]and various other factors.[11]By 2008, such pressures appeared to have an insignificant impact on oil prices given the onset of theglobal recession.[12]The recession caused demand for energy to shrink in late 2008, with oil prices collapsing from the July 2008 high of $147 to a December 2008 low of $32.[13]However, it has been disputed that the laws ofsupply and demandof oil could have been responsible for an almost 80% drop in the oil price within a six-month period.[14]Oil prices stabilized by August 2009 and generally remained in a broad trading range between $70 and $120 through November 2014,[15]before returning to 2003 pre-crisis levels by early 2016, as US production increased dramatically. The United States went on to become the largest oil producer by 2018.[16]
The price of crude oil in 2003 traded in a range between $20–$30/bbl.[17]Between 2003 and July 2008, prices steadily rose, reaching $100/bbl in late 2007, coming close to the previous inflation-adjusted peak set in 1980.[18][better source needed]A steep rise in the price of oil in 2008 –also mirrored by other commodities– culminated in an all-time high of $147.27 during trading on 11 July 2008,[19]more than a third above the previous inflation-adjusted high.[citation needed]
High oil prices and economic weakness contributed to a demand contraction in 2007–2008. In the United States, gasoline consumption declined by 0.4% in 2007,[20]then fell by 0.5% in the first two months of 2008 alone.[21]Record-setting oil prices in the first half of 2008 and economic weakness in the second half of the year prompted a 1.2 Mbbl (190,000 m3)/day contraction in US consumption of petroleum products, representing 5.8% of total US consumption, the largest annual decline since 1980 at the climax of the1979 energy crisis.[22]
World crude oildemandgrew an average of 1.76% per year from 1994 to 2006, with a high of 3.4% in 2003–2004. World demand for oil is projected to increase 37% over 2006 levels by 2030, according to the 2007 U.S.Energy Information Administration's (EIA) annual report.[23]In 2007, the EIA expected demand to reach an ultimate high of 118 million barrels per day (18.8×10^6m3/d), from 2006's 86 million barrels (13.7×10^6m3), driven in large part by thetransportationsector.[24][25]A 2008 report from theInternational Energy Agency(IEA) predicted that although drops in petroleum demand due to high prices have been observed in developed countries and are expected to continue, a 3.7 percent rise in demand by 2013 is predicted in developing countries. This is projected to cause a net rise in global petroleum demand during that period.[26]
Transportation consumes the largest proportion of energy, and has seen the largest growth in demand in recent decades. This growth has largely come from new demand for cars and other personal-use vehicles powered byinternal combustion engines.[27]This sector also has the highest consumption rates, accounting for approximately 55% of oil use worldwide as documented in theHirsch reportand 68.9% of the oil used in the United States in 2006.[28]Cars and trucks are predicted to cause almost 75% of the increase in oil consumption byIndiaandChinabetween 2001 and 2025.[29]In 2008, auto sales in China were expected to grow by as much as 15–20 percent, resulting in part from economic growth rates of over 10 percent for five years in a row.[30]
Demand growth is highest in thedeveloping world,[31]but the United States is the world's largest consumer of petroleum. Between 1995 and 2005, US consumption grew from 17.7 million barrels (2,810,000 m3) a day to 20.7 million barrels (3,290,000 m3) a day, an increase of 3 million barrels (480,000 m3) a day. China, by comparison, increased consumption from 3.4 million barrels (540,000 m3) a day to 7 million barrels (1,100,000 m3) a day, an increase of 3.6 million barrels (570,000 m3) a day, in the same time frame.[32]Per capita, annual consumption is 24.85 barrels (3.951 m3) by people in the US,[33]1.79 barrels (0.285 m3) in China,[34]and 0.79 barrels (0.126 m3) in India.[35]
As countriesdevelop, industry, rapid urbanization and higherliving standardsdrive up energy use, most often of oil. Thriving economies such asChinaandIndiaare quickly becoming large oil consumers.[2]China has seen oil consumption grow by 8% yearly since 2002, doubling from 1996–2006.[31]
Although swift continued growth in China is often predicted, others predict that China's export-dominated economy will not continue such growth trends due to wage and price inflation and reduced demand from the US.[36]India's oil imports are expected to more than triple from 2005 levels by 2020, rising to 5 million barrels per day (790×10^3m3/d).[37]
Another large factor on petroleum demand has been humanpopulation growth. Becauseworld populationgrew faster than oil production, production per capita peaked in 1979 (preceded by a plateau during the period of 1973–1979).[38]The world’s population in 2030 is expected to be double that of 1980.[39]
Statefuel subsidiesshielded consumers in multiple nations from higher market prices, but a number of these subsidies were reduced or removed as the governmental cost rose.
In June 2008, AFP reported that:
China became the latest Asian nation to curbenergy subsidieslast week after hiking retail petrol and diesel prices as much as 18 percent... Elsewhere in Asia, Malaysia has hiked fuel prices by 41 percent and Indonesia by around 29 percent, while Taiwan and India have also raised their energy costs.[40]
In the same month, Reuters reported that:
Countries like China and India, along with Gulf nations whose retail oil prices are kept below global prices, contributed 61 percent of the increase in global consumption of crude oil from 2000 to 2006, according to JPMorgan.
Other than Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea, most Asian nations subsidize domestic fuel prices. The more countries subsidize them, the less likely high oil prices will have any affect [sic] in reducing overall demand, forcing governments in weaker financial situations to surrender first and stop their subsidies.
That is what happened over the past two weeks. Indonesia, Taiwan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, India, and Malaysia have either raised regulated fuel prices or pledged that they will.[41]
The Economistreported: "Half of the world's population enjoys fuel subsidies. This estimate, from Morgan Stanley, implies that almost a quarter of the world's petrol is sold at less than the market price."[42]U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman stated that around 30 million barrels per day (4,800,000 m3/d) of oil consumption (over a third of the global total) was subsidized.[40]
An important contributor to the price increase was the slowdown in oil supply growth, which has been a general trend since oil production surpassed new discoveries in 1980. The likelihood thatglobal oil production will declineat some point, leading to lower supply, is a long-termfundamental cause of rising prices.[43]Although there is contention about the exact time at which global production will peak, a majority of industry participants acknowledge that the concept of a production peak is valid.[citation needed]However, some commentators argued thatglobal warmingawareness and new energy sources would limit demand before the effects of supply could, suggesting that reserve depletion would be a non-issue.[44]
A large factor in the lower supply growth of petroleum has been that oil's historically high ratio ofEnergy Returned on Energy Investedis in significant decline. Petroleum is alimited resource, and the remaining accessible reserves are consumed more rapidly each year. Remaining reserves are increasingly difficult to extract and therefore more expensive. Eventually, reserves will only be economically feasible to extract at extremely high prices. Even if total oil supply does not decline, increasing numbers of experts[who?]believe the easily accessible sources oflight sweet crudeare almost exhausted and in the future the world will depend on more-expensiveunconventional oilreserves andheavy crude oil, as well as renewable energy sources. It is thought by a number of people, including energy economists such asMatthew Simmons, that prices could continue to rise indefinitely until a new market equilibrium is reached at which point supply satisfies worldwide demand.
Timothy Kailing, in a 2008Journal of Energy Securityarticle, pointed out the difficulty of increasing production in mature petroleum regions, even with vastly increasedinvestment in exploration and production. By looking at the historical response of production to variation in drilling effort, he claimed that very little increase of production could be attributed to increased drilling. This was due to a tight quantitative relationship of diminishing returns with increasing drilling effort: As drilling effort increased, the energy obtained per activedrill rigwas reduced according to a severely diminishingpower law. This analysis suggested that even an enormous increase of drilling effort was unlikely to lead to significantly increased oil and gas production in a mature petroleum region like the United States.[45]
A prominent example of investment in non-conventional sources is seen in the Canadianoil sands. They are a far less cost-efficient source of heavy, low-grade oil than conventional crude; but when oil trades above $60/bbl, the tar sands become attractive to exploration and production companies. While Canada's oil sands region is estimated to contain as much "heavy" oil as all the world's reserves of "conventional" oil,[citation needed]efforts to economically exploit these resources lag behind the increasing demand of recent years.[46]
Until 2008,CERA(a consulting company wholly owned by energy consultants IHS Energy)[47]did not believe this would be such an immediate problem. However, in an interview withThe Wall Street Journal,Daniel Yergin, previously known for his quotes that the price of oil would soon return down to "normal", amended the company's position on 7 May 2008 to predict that oil would reach $150 during 2008, due to tightness of supply.[48]This reversal of opinion was significant, as CERA, among other consultancies, provided price projections that were used by multiple official bodies to plan long-term strategy in respect of energy mix and price.
Other major energy organisations, such as theInternational Energy Agency(IEA), had already been much less optimistic in their assessments for some time.[49]In 2008, the IEA drastically accelerated its prediction of production decline for existing oilfields, from 3.7% a year to 6.7% a year, based largely on better accounting methods, including actual research of individual oil field production throughout the world.[50]
Terrorist and insurgent groups have increasingly targeted oil and gas installations, and succeeded in stopping a substantial volume of exports during the 2003–2008 height of theAmerican occupation of Iraq.[51][52]Such attacks are sometimes perpetrated by militias in regions where oil wealth has produced few tangible benefits for the local citizenry, as is the case in theNiger Delta.
A number of factors have resulted in possible and/or actual concerns about the reduced supply of oil. The post-9/11war on terror, labor strikes, hurricane threats to oil platforms, fires and terrorist threats at refineries, and other short-lived problems are not solely responsible for the higher prices. Such problems do push prices higher temporarily, but have not historically been fundamental to long-term price increases.[clarification needed]
Investment demand for oil occurs when investors purchasefutures contractsto buy a commodity at a set price for future delivery. "Speculators are not buying any actual crude. ... When [the] contracts mature, they either settle them with a cash payment or sell them on to genuine consumers."[53]
Several claims have been made implicating financial speculation as a major cause of the price increases. In May 2008 the transport chief for Germany's Social Democrats estimated that 25 percent of the rise to $135 a barrel had nothing to do with underlying supply and demand.[54]Testimony was given to aU.S. Senatecommittee in May indicating that "demand shock" from "institutional investors" had increased by 848 million barrels (134,800,000 m3) over the previous five years, almost as much as the increased physical demand from China (920 million barrels (146,000,000 m3)).[55]The influence of institutional investors, such assovereign wealth funds, was also discussed in June 2008, whenLehman Brotherssuggested that price increases were related to increases in exposure to commodities by such investors. It claimed that "for every $100 million in new inflows, the price ofWest Texas Intermediate, the U.S. benchmark, increased by 1.6%."[56]Also in May 2008, an article inThe Economistpointed out that oil futures transactions on theNew York Mercantile Exchange(NYMEX), nearly mirrored the price of oil increases for a several-year period; however, the article conceded that the increased investment might be following rising prices, rather than causing them, and that the nickelmarket valuehad halved in the year between May 2007 and May 2008 despite significant speculative interest. It also reminded readers that "Investment can flood into the oil market without driving up prices because speculators are not buying any actual crude... no oil is hoarded or somehow kept off the market," and that prices of some commodities which are not openly traded have actually risen faster than oil prices.[53]In June 2008,OPEC's Secretary GeneralAbdallah Salem el-Badristated that current world consumption of oil at 87 million bpd was far exceeded by the "paper market" for oil, which equaled about 1.36 billion bpd, or more than 15 times the actual market demand.[57]
An interagency task force on commodities markets was formed in the U.S. government to investigate the claims of speculators' influence on the petroleum market. The task force concluded in July 2008 that "market fundamentals" such as supply and demand provided the best explanations for oil price increases, and that increased speculation was not statistically correlated with the increases. The report also noted that increased prices with an elastic supply would cause increases in petroleum inventories. As inventories actually declined, the task force concluded that market pressures were most likely to blame. Other commodities that were not subject to market speculation (such as coal, steel, and onions) saw similar price increases over the same time period.[58]
In June 2008 U.S. energy secretarySamuel Bodmansaid that insufficient oil production, not financial speculation, was driving rising crude prices. He said that oil production had not kept pace with growing demand. "In the absence of any additional crude supply, for every 1% of crude demand, we will expect a 20% increase in price in order to balance the market," Bodman said.[59]This contradicted earlier statements byIranianOPEC governor Mohammad-Ali Khatibi indicating that the oil market was saturated and that an increase in production announced by Saudi Arabia was "wrong".[citation needed]
In September 2008, Masters Capital Management released a study of the oil market, concluding that speculation did significantly impact the price. The study stated that over $60 billion was invested in oil during the first six months of 2008, helping drive the price per barrel from $95 to $147, and that by the beginning of September, $39 billion had been withdrawn by speculators, causing prices to fall.[60]
There is debate over what theeffects of the 2000s energy crisiswill be over the long term. Some speculated that an oil-price spike could create a recession comparable to those that followed the1973and1979 energy crisesor a potentially worse situation such as a globaloil crash. Increased petroleum prices are reflected in a vast number of products derived from petroleum, as well as those transported using petroleum fuels.[61]
Political scientistGeorge Friedmanhas postulated that if high prices for oil and food persist, they will define the fourth distinct geopolitical regime since the end of World War II, the previous three being theCold War, the 1989–2001 period in whicheconomic globalizationwas primary, and the post-9/11 "war on terror".[62]
In addition to high oil prices, from year 2000volatilityin the price of oil has increased notably and this volatility has been suggested to be a cause of the2008 financial crisis.[63]
The perceived increase in oil price differs internationally according to currency market fluctuations and the purchasing power of currencies. For example, excluding changes in relative purchasing power of various currencies, from 1 January 2002 to 1 January 2008:[64]
On average, oil prices roughly quadrupled for these areas, triggering widespread protest activities.[65]A similar price surge for petroleum-based fertilizers contributed to the2007–08 world food price crisisand further unrest.[66]
In 2008, a report byCambridge Energy Research Associatesstated that 2007 had been the year of peak gasoline usage in the United States, and that record energy prices would cause an "enduring shift" in energy consumption practices.[67]According to the report, in April gas consumption had been lower than a year before for the sixth straight month, suggesting 2008 would be the first year U.S. gasoline usage declined in 17 years. The total miles driven in the U.S. began declining in 2006.[68]
In the United States, oil prices contributed to inflation averaging 3.3% in 2005–2006, significantly above the average of 2.5% in the preceding 10-year period.[69]As a result, during this period theFederal Reservesteadily raisedinterest ratesto curb inflation.
High oil prices typically affect less-affluent countries first, particularly the developing world with less discretionary income. There are fewer vehicles per capita, and oil is often used for electricity generation as well as private transport. TheWorld Bankhas looked more deeply at the effect of oil prices in the developing countries. One analysis found that in South Africa a 125 percent increase in the price of crude oil and refined petroleum reduces employment and GDP by approximately 2 percent, and reduces household consumption by approximately 7 percent, affecting mainly the poor.[70]
OPEC's annual oil export revenue surged to a new record in 2008, estimated around US$800 billion.[71]
According to informed observers, OPEC, meeting in early December 2007, seemed to desire a high but stable price that would deliver substantial needed income to the oil-producing states, but avoid prices so high that they would negatively impact the economies of the oil-consuming nations. A range of US$70–80 per barrel was suggested by some analysts to be OPEC's goal.[72]
In November 2008, as prices fell below $60 a barrel, theIEAwarned that falling prices could lead to both a lack of investment in new sources of oil and a fall in production of more-expensive unconventional reserves such as theoil sandsof Canada. The IEA's chief economist warned, "Oil supplies in the future will come more and more from smaller and more-difficult fields," meaning that future production requires more investment every year. A lack of new investment in such projects, which had already been observed, could eventually cause new and more-severe supply issues than had been experienced in the early 2000s according to the IEA. Because the sharpest production declines had been seen in developed countries, the IEA warned that the greatest growth in production was expected to come from smaller projects inOPECstates, raising their world production share from 44% in 2008 to a projected 51% in 2030. The IEA also pointed out that demand from the developed world may have also peaked, so that future demand growth was likely to come from developing nations such as China, contributing 43%, and India and the Middle East, each about 20%.[73]
By the beginning of September 2008, prices had fallen to $110. OPEC Secretary General El-Badri said that the organization intended to cut output by about 500,000 barrels (79,000 m3) a day, which he saw as correcting a "huge oversupply" due to declining economies and a stronger U.S. dollar.[74]On 10 September, theInternational Energy Agency(IEA) lowered its 2009 demand forecast by 140,000 barrels (22,000 m3) to 87.6 million barrels (13,930,000 m3) a day.[74]
As countries throughout the world entered an economic recession in the third quarter of 2008 and the global banking system came under severe strain, oil prices continued to slide. In November and December, global demand growth fell, and U.S. oil demand fell an estimated 10% overall from early October to early November 2008 (accompanying a significant drop in auto sales).[75]
In their December meeting, OPEC members agreed to reduce their production by 2.2 million barrels (350,000 m3) per day, and said their resolution to reduce production in October had an 85% compliance rate.[76]
Petroleum prices fell below $35 in February 2009, but by May 2009 had risen back to mid-November 2008 levels around $55. The global economic downturn left oil-storage facilities with more oil than in any year since 1990, when Iraq's invasion of Kuwait upset the market.[77]
In early 2011, crude oil rebounded above US$100/bbl due to theArab Springprotests in the Middle East and North Africa, including the2011 Egyptian revolution, the2011 Libyan civil war, and steadily tightening internationalsanctions against Iran.[78]The oil price fluctuated around $100 through early 2014.
By 2014–2015, the world oil market was againsteadily oversupplied, led by an unexpected near-doubling in U.S. oil production from 2008 levels due to substantial improvements inshale"fracking" technology.[79][80]By January 2016, theOPEC Reference Basketfell to US$22.48/bbl – less than one-sixth of its record from July 2008 ($140.73), and back below the April 2003 starting point ($23.27) of its historic run-up.[81]OPECproduction was poised to rise further with the lifting of Iranian sanctions, at a time when markets already appeared to be oversupplied by at least 2 million barrels per day.[82]
Attempts to mitigate the impacts of oil price increases include:
In mainstream economic theory, afree marketrations anincreasingly scarce commodityby increasing its price. A higher price shouldstimulate producers to produce more, andconsumers to consume less, while possibly shifting tosubstitutes. The first three mitigation strategies in the above list are, therefore, in keeping with mainstream economic theory, as government policies can affect the supply and demand for petroleum as well as the availability of substitutes. In contrast, the last type of strategy in the list (attempting to shield consumers from rising prices) would seem to work against classical economic theory, by encouraging consumers to overconsume the scarce quantity, thus making it even scarcer. To avoid creating outrightshortages, attempts atprice controlmay require some sort ofrationingscheme.
Economists say that thesubstitution effectwill spur demand foralternate fossil fuels, such as coal orliquefied natural gasand forrenewable energy, such assolar power,wind power, andadvanced biofuels.
For example, China and India are currently heavily investing in natural gas andcoal liquefactionfacilities. Nigeria is working on burning natural gas to produce electricity instead of simply flaring the gas, where all non-emergency gas flaring will be forbidden after 2008.[83][84]Outside the U.S., more than 50% of oil is consumed for stationary, non-transportation purposes such as electricity production where it is relatively easy to substitute natural gas for oil.[85]
Oil companies including thesupermajorshave begun to fund research into alternative fuel.BPhas investedhalf a billion dollars for researchover the next several years. The motivations behind such moves are to acquire the patent rights as well as understanding the technology sovertical integrationof the future industry could be achieved.
The rise in oil prices caused renewed interest in electric cars, with several new models hitting the market, both hybrid and purely electric. The most successful among the former being theToyota Priusand among the latter the cars of companies likeTesla. Several countries also incentivized the use of electric cars through tax-breaks or subsidies or by building charging stations.
In a similar vein as the original TGV that was switched from gas turbine to electric propulsion after the 1973 oil crisis, several countries have renewed and increased their efforts for electric propulsion in their rail systems, specificallyhigh-speed rail. In the time since 2003, the global High speed rail network almost doubled and there are plans globally that amount to the network being doubled again within the next ten to twenty years, based on current constructions. China in particular went from having no high-speed rail whatsoever in 2003 to havingthe longest network in the world in 2015.
Another major factor in petroleum demand is the widespread use of petroleum products such as plastic. These could be partially replaced by bioplastics, which are derived from renewable plant feedstocks such as vegetable oil,cornstarch, pea starch,[86]ormicrobiota.[87]They are used either as a direct replacement for traditional plastics or as blends with traditional plastics. The most common end use market is for packaging materials. Japan has also been a pioneer in bioplastics, incorporating them into electronics and automobiles.
Bioasphaltcan also be used as a replacement of petroleum asphalt.
The United StatesStrategic Petroleum Reservecould, on its own, supply current U.S. demand for about a month in the event of an emergency, unless it were also destroyed or inaccessible in the emergency. This could potentially be the case if a major storm were to hit theGulf of Mexico, where the reserve is located. While total consumption has increased,[88]the western economies are less reliant on oil than they were twenty-five years ago, due both to substantial growth in productivity and the growth of sectors of the economy with little oil dependence such as finance and banking, retail, etc. The decline of heavy industry and manufacturing in most developed countries has reduced the amount of oil per unit GDP; however, since these items are imported anyway, there is less change in the oil dependence of industrialized countries than the direct consumption statistics indicate.
One recourse used and discussed in the past to avoid the negative impacts of oil shocks in the a number of developed countries which have high fuel taxes has been to temporarily or permanently suspend these taxes as fuel costs rise.
France, Italy, and the Netherlands lowered taxes in 2000 in response to protests over high prices, but other European nations resisted this option because public service finance is partly based on energy taxes.[89]The issue came up again in 2004, when oil reached $40 a barrel causing a meeting of 25 EU finance ministers to lower economic growth forecasts for that year. Because of budget deficits in several countries, they decided to pressureOPECto lower prices instead of lowering taxes.[90]In 2007, Europeantruckers, farmers, andfishermenagain raised concerns over record oil prices cutting into their earnings, hoping to have taxes lowered. In the United Kingdom, where fuel taxes were raised in October and were scheduled to rise again in April 2008, there was talk of protests androadblocksif the tax issue was not addressed.[91]On 1 April 2008, a 25 yen per liter fuel tax in Japan was allowed to lapse temporarily.[92]
This method of softening price shocks is even less viable to countries with much lower gas taxes, such as the United States.
Locally decreasing fuel tax can decrease fuel prices, but globally prices are set by supply and demand, and therefore fuel tax decreases may have no effect on fuel prices, and fuel tax increases might actually decrease fuel prices by reducing demand.[93]But this depends on theprice elasticity of demandfor fuel which is -0.09 to -0.31, meaning that fuel is a relatively inelastic commodity, i.e. increasing or decreasing prices have overall only a small effect on demand and therefore price change.[94]
Transportation demand managementhas the potential to be an effective policy response to fuel shortages[95]or price increases and has a greater probability of long term benefits than other mitigation options.[96]
There are major differences in energy consumption for private transport between cities; an average U.S. urban dweller uses 24 times more energy annually for private transport as a Chinese urban resident. These differences cannot be explained by wealth alone but are closely linked to the rates of walking, cycling, and public transport use and to enduring features of the city includingurban densityand urban design.[97]
For individuals,remote workprovides alternatives to dailycommutingand long-distance air travel for business. Technologies such asvideoconferencing, e-mail, andcorporate wikis, continue to improve. As the cost of moving human workers continues to rise, while the cost of moving information electronically continues to fall, presumably market forces should cause more people to substitute virtual travel for physical travel.Matthew Simmonsexplicitly calls for "liberating the workforce" by changing the corporate mindset from paying people to show up physically to work every day, to paying them instead for the work they do, from any location.[98]This would allow moreinformation workersto work from home either part-time or full-time, or from satellite offices orInternet cafesnear to where they live, freeing them from long daily commutes to central offices. However, even full adoption ofremote workby all eligible workers might only decrease energy consumption by about 1% (with present energy savings estimated at 0.01–0.04%). By comparison, a 20% increase in automobile fuel economy would save 5.4%.[99]
Theprice rises of mid-2008led to a variety of proposals to change the rules governing energy markets and energy futures markets, in order to prevent rises due to market speculation.
On 26 July 2008, theUnited States House of Representativespassed theEnergy Markets Emergency Act of 2008(H.R. 6377),[100]which directs theCommodity Futures Trading Commission(CFTC) "to utilize all its authority, including its emergency powers, to curb immediately the role of excessive speculation in any contract market within the jurisdiction and control of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, on or through which energy futures or swaps are traded, and to eliminate excessive speculation, price distortion, sudden or unreasonable fluctuations or unwarranted changes in prices, or other unlawful activity causing major market disturbances that prevent the market from accurately reflecting the forces of supply and demand for energy commodities."
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000s_energy_crisis
|
Conflatis aUnited Kingdomrailway term for a short wheelbaseflat wagoncontainer wagon.
British Railwaysused several standard types of wagon. The Conflat A, which could carry one type 'B', or two type 'A', containers, was the most common. It was regularly used to carry AF (frozen food) containers: while the Conflat L, which could carry three smaller containers forbulkpowders, was also produced in large numbers.
The Conflat B wagon could carry 2 AFP (frozen food) containers. These were slightly wider than the standard AF containers, and were designed to carry loads onpallets.
'Conflat' is thetelegraphic codewithin theGreat Western Railway's coding of railway wagons for a container wagon. Unlike normal wagon loads, containers were only listed to carry furniture or goods (unless they were refrigerated containers, which carried frozen products kept cold by ice) which needed to be placed on a specialistflatbed wagonwhich had train braking capability due to the fragile nature of the products carried.
The wagons were removed from service (as were the containers themselves) whenmore modern containerscame into use.
This United Kingdom rail transport related article is astub. You can help Wikipedia byexpanding it.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflat
|
Container port design processis a set of correlated practices considered duringcontainer portdesign, aiming to transfer general business mission into detailed design documents for future construction and operation.[1]
The design process involves both conceptual design and detailed design.
The source of funding determines the mission and scope of the project. Choices include federal funding (subsidies),[2]state or local funding, and private funding.
American ports require subsidies from the federal government in order to keep up with advances in maritime transportation as well as the capabilities of the inland freight movement. Often, roughly 50% of the costs every year come from federal sources. TheAmerican Association of Port Authorities(AAPA) is an association that aims at ensuring and increasing federal funds to American ports.
A few federal bills which provide funding for ports are
Most often, the State's Department of Transportation (DOT) is the largest state/local financier of public money investments. The DOTs see the ports as key elements in the systems of movement they are responsible for, such as railways and highways.
Investment from private entities is critical to the creation and execution of port activities. American ports are often run by private entities in the sense that day-to-day functions are financed and managed with the primary goal of creating revenue. The municipalities of the terminals are kept up by the Port Authority, but the equipment and infrastructure required for operations are under the private entities' power.
With the creation of new ports, oftenPublic-Private Partnerships, otherwise known as 3P, are formed to bring in the upfront capital necessary for someone to take on the financial risk of operating a terminal. Container terminals are no different in this sense from other types of terminals.
Cargo determines the main function, transportation mode, and related characters required for the container port. In container port design, the object cargo is anintermodal container. Containers are usually classified as 20-foot and 40-foot. 53-foot containers were introduced and used both in the US and Canada, mainly for domestic road and rail transport.[4]
The type of vessel, its dimension, and capacity determine the required capacity for a port's input capacity, which involves berth design, water-borne handling equipment selection, and requirements for both storage and land-mode capacity.
The characteristics of vessels and the port characteristics:
The selection of designed vessel shall also consider the development of the container ship. Underestimating the trend of size development of container ship will result in incapability and low sustainability.
It should start with data collection and get finished by receiving government permits. The choice of location is considered with the philosophy oftriple-bottom lineand with considerations of waterside access, natural conditions, inter-modal connections, and stakeholders.
For ports[5]
For container terminals[5]
Waterside access is the condition of waterways in the location, which determines the expected depth, berth quantities, vessel accessibility, and effort required for the development. The access channel is a waterway that linking the basins of a port to the open sea.[6]The importance of the location of access channels is that it determines theoceanographicfactors such as wave,tidal cycle, current, wind met by the ships in the channel. Also, it needs to keep the depth of thechanneland be able to accommodate the world's largest cargo vessels. For example, in order to meet the need, thePort Authority of New York and New Jerseyruns the Main Navigation Channel Deepening Program, dredged 38 miles of federal channels to as deep as 50 feet by 30 years. There are several aspects, based on PIANC (1997), a designer needs to consider:[5]
Natural conditions are classified as to whether the area selected is developed or natural. Natural condition determines whether there will be existing utilities and constraint for future terminal development.
An intermodal connection is a place whererail,truck,barge, and other transport methods converge. Intermodal connection for container terminal mainly consists of road and rail. The capacity ofintermodal connection---docking and the handling, storage, and transfer of cargo---determines the capability of terminal cargo transportation to/from the land.
Stakeholders as any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization's objectives. (R. Edward Freeman 1984.)[7]Stakeholder analysis is a process of systematically gathering and analyzing qualitative information to determine whose interests should be taken into account when developing and or implementing a policy or program. The purpose of a stakeholder analysis is to assess the attitudes of the stakeholders regarding the realization of a new container terminal.[citation needed]
Stakeholders in location selection mainly consist of trade organizations, maritime groups, regional government, neighborhood societies, environment groups, and other people with direct/indirect interest related to the terminal. Selection shall involve their participation so as to avoid strong conflicts in future development and to keep terminal development adapt to the changing demand from these stakeholders.[citation needed]
Agencies and societies involved in this process are:
Permits are crucial in the designing process. Large scale development projects that have the potential for causing significant adverse environmental impacts need permits to start operation.[8]Projects without permits will be identified as an offense. Port needs port permits to open. Environmental permits will be issued by Local Environmental Protection Agencies. Usually include three-part: water side, land side, and air emissions. Permits for ports should include a clean air permit, construction permit, discharge permit, dredge permits, and water discharge permit.[9]
The consideration of infrastructure includes plans for deployment and construction of infrastructures to implement the functions of the terminal. Thewharfat a terminal is the structure that forms the edge of the landside facility. It is made up of both the topside and the face. The face of the wharf is where equipment is mounted to allow vessels to berth. It is also designed to be within the high water levels, thus making its structures susceptible to corrosion. Water-tightness and corrosion protection are a must for any structural elements that make up the face. The topside of the wharf is what is broken down into berths. Pre-designated lengths of the wharf are separated into identified berths based on the design vessels characteristics.Container cranesoperate along the wharf when vessels have berthed.[citation needed]
Warehousesare created at container terminals to hold specific goods that are transported to the port but are not being shipped out in the same container. This style of transport is not common. However, this can be a service supplied by the terminal owners to increase imports. Those goods, when warehoused, incur additional handling and storage costs, increasing revenue as well.
Maintenanceis the conception that uses engineering theories and practices, risk management, and maintenance strategy to plan and implement routine maintenance of facilities and operation systems. The overall maintenance policy for port or terminal should be to maintain all of the facility assets to the extent that the level of expenditure is justified in order that the assets remain serviceable during their design life or longer and for reasons of safety and security.[1]A typical maintenance team involves experienced personnel under the control of a qualified engineering maintenance manager and supervisory staff, and engineering inspection staff. It should meet the requirements listed in ISM (International Safety Management Code). The maintenance facilities required will include a workshop with sufficient space to work on approximately 10% of the mobile equipment and spreaders at any one time. The maintenance facilities should be located outside but close to the container yard. It is necessary to provide a Stores section within the maintenance facility that will hold necessary spare components and materials. Following are the specific requirements for maintenance.[5]
Planned preventive maintenance and statutory inspections of equipment are normally carried out during the day shift when all specialist trades are available. Outside of the day shift, minimal manning levels are normally retained to cover breakdowns and emergency repairs only. For other specialist areas such as IT and electronics, it is usual to retain specialized personnel due to the specific needs of such systems and equipment. Mechanical and electrical engineering and IT personnel will be responsible for the daily maintenance of cargo handling equipment and other aspects of the facility that require these skills and for specific IT operating systems such as the TOS. High voltage electrical cables and switchgear should be maintained by specialist contractors whilst maintenance of low and medium cables and domestic electrics can be undertaken by electrical tradesmen.[citation needed]
A lay-down area is the space where container handling equipment places full or empty containers prior to loading onto the containers' next step in its journey to its destination. The lay-down area is composed of multiple structural layers to support the loads brought on by the equipment and cargo. The first layer, the foundation, consists of either the existing or improvedsubgradeof the location. To add extra strength to the foundation, the existing soils are compacted; further, Soil Improvements such as stone columns are installed, or the unsatisfactory soils are removed and a new fill soil is brought in, graded, and compacted to meet requirements.[citation needed]
The second layer is asphalt paving. This pavement differs from the typical highway and road pavement as the loads are generally more stationary as well as much smaller in magnitude. This type of pavement contains Hydraulically Bound Materials (HBM), an ingredient used to provide higher compressive strength to the asphalt. The mixture is the first part of designing the asphalt, with the second being the thickness. Both the materials and the thickness can be calculated by following existing design guides published by engineering societies. TheWorld Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure's (PIANC) Report 165-2015 can provide further guidance on container terminal pavements.[10]
The lay-down area surface is also designed for multiple functions. The pavement must drain towards a drainage system as well as have a sufficient grip to prevent skidding. Finally, the pavement is painted to show lanes for travel as well as rows to placeIntermodal containercontainers when not in transit.
Intermodal yards mainly consist of two parts, rail yards, and container storage yards. Rail yards should have access to rails, and container storage yards should have access to trucks. Container storage yards include yards for inbound containers with cargo and internal movements, yards for outbound containers with cargo, yards for trans-shipment containers, and yards for empties. The area requirements are measured in TEU ground slots (the area required for one 20-ft container) plus operating space for equipment that transfers containers to and from the yards and stack and deliver containers.
Port securityconsists of cargo security, port facility security, staff security, and maritime domain security. Port security should be worked jointly by the coast guards and custom and border protection together. Internationally, port security is governed by rules issued by theInternational Maritime Organizationand its 2002International Ship and Port Facility Security Code.
During the design process, ports need to come up with a port security plan and implement it. The port security plan should include security survey and risk assessment, physical security and access control, information security, personnel security, maritime terrorism, drug smuggling, stowaways and alien smuggling, roles/ responsibilities/ legal authorities of port agencies, sea robbery, cargo security, and hazardous materials and intelligence.[11]
Customs should have both base offices at the warehouse and around the gates. The office at the warehouse is mainly for detecting harmful agriculture and smuggling (drugs, dirty money). Office at gates is mainly for the reason of detecting mis-picked cargo or radiation containers. At gates, there should be radiation-detection equipment aim at detecting dangerous weapons and radiation stuff that can be used to make dirty bombs.Radiation Portal Monitors(RPMs) are passive radiation detection devices used for the screening of individuals, vehicles, cargo, or other vectors for the detection of illicit sources such as at borders or secure facilities. Portal VACIS imaging system helps trained operators see the contents of closed containers, assisting them in intercepting weapons, contraband, and other items of interest and verifying shipping manifests. Patented drive-through technology lets trucks drive through the system without stopping, providing an effective solution for high-traffic situations where lengthy manual inspection processes are impractical or undesirable.[12]
Mooring (watercraft)infrastructure at a port describes those structures that mooring lines from vessels can tie off to in order to prevent drifting along or away from the wharf face. The mooring structures are calledcleat (nautical)orbollards, depending on their size and shape. Bollards are designed to handle much larger loads, and in turn, much larger vessels. Manufacturers of these items typically design the items and supply the finished design to the consultant to include in the bid documents.
Cleats and bollards can be found on all different forms of structures. The common one is the wharf face of a terminal. Other locations can include dolphins, which are stand-alone structures that are off the face of the landside infrastructure. Another source can be other barges or sea vessels allowing vessels to tie off to each other.
Bollards and cleats can have multiple types of mooring lines tied off to them. Bow and stern lines, found at the front and the back of the vessel, are lines designed to prevent vessels from drifting perpendicular to the berth location. Breast lines come from closer to the centerline of the vessel and span along the vessel to the mooring location to keep the vessel from drifting parallel to the berth. PIANC Report _______ can provide further details on the design of mooring structures. Bollard and cleat manufacturers can provide more details on dimensions, weights, and capacities of mooring structures[13]
Berthing of the vessels is analyzed using the design vessel's characteristics of weight, draught, and other specifications in addition to the requirements set by the terminal location such as wind speeds, direction, currents, and safe berthing velocities of the approach channel and berth. All these factors come together to determine the maximum amounts of energy that must be resisted by the terminal foundation and wharf. Multiple styles of berthing equipment have been designed in response to this requirement.
Container terminals are, for the most part, directly on land, eliminating the need for berthing dolphins similar to those described in the Mooring section. Fender systems installed on the wharf face are the main facility for reducing the amount of energy the wharf structure must absorb during berthing. A fender system consists of thefender (boating)itself, the panel, and the various hardware required to anchor and stabilize the unit.
Fenders are made of a grade of rubber chosen for their flexibility. The more compressible, the more energy the fender can resist. They come in multiple sizes and shapes, aimed at handling different situations. Fenders do not need to be mounted in the same location at all times. Some fenders are designed to rise and fall with water levels.
Panels are large faces that connect to the fender giving more contact space for the vessel. The size also helps reduce the reaction on the vessel's hull, which is designed for a certain maximum pressure. They are often covered with a friction-reducing surface to prevent lateral forces trying to shear the fender apart. One final element of panel design is associated not just with its dimensions but with its location relative to another fender. The spacing of the fenders relative to the size of the panel must be set so that the design vessel cannot compress the fender in an angled situation and contact the wharf. Either a second fender panel must be contacted, or the fender cannot compress too much in an unsymmetrical fashion.
The structural elements of a fender system must be analyzed to ensure the equilibrium and stability of each unit at all times. Chains are installed to keep the panel from putting unnecessary shear due to vessel action or weight of the panel. Also, anchors are installed into the wharf to anchor the fender to the wharf face. At these locations, the foundation of the terminal is strengthened more so than at areas of non-contact due to the larger forces imparted on the structure.
Container quay crane rails
Container storage yards
Cargo berths
Pavements
Communication is very important in ports because ports are areas with high risks; by good communication, people can avoid risks. In the design process, people should consider adding more base stations to ensure good quality of radio contact and video contact. The customs officers should have both radio contact and video contact with truck drivers driving through the gate to make sure they have picked up the right container. Pilots in the port should have good radio communications to guide them sailing. Port laborers should have good communication through radio with each other to avoid conflicts and risks.
The consideration of equipment includes plans for procurement and construction of terminal facilities to implement the function of the terminal. Equipment involved in the detailed design includescontainer craneswhich can be identified by mode: Rail Mounted Quay Crane (RMQC) or Ship to Shore (STS) Crane; andinter-modal containertransport facilitiesused for storage areas such asReach Stackers, Tractor-Trailer Units (TTUs) and Vehicles.[1]Parameters for cranes and inter-modal cargo transport facilities considered in detailed design are quantities, size limit, power requirement, handling capacity, handling speed, cost, load to land limit, and other working environment constraints.
The deployment of equipment shall be designed with a key mission to create enough cargo transportation to balance the cargo flow.Queueing theoryshall be introduced to the quantity and quality of equipment required.
Some staff, such as coast guards or customs, need personal security clearances to obtain a job at ports because they need to have access to classified information. There are three levels of security clearance, confidential, secret, and top secret. A critical investigation in it is a background investigation of a face-to-face interview with officers. Sometimes staff just need to get an interim security clearance. There will also be a periodic reinvestigation every 5 years to obtain a new security clearance. The investigation will again cover key aspects of the individual's life but will start from one's previous background investigation.[14]
In the ports, operating systems and personnel development are based on skills acquired through experience, which is easily undertaken in advanced industrial environments.
Several agreements we should take into account:
Safety is the condition of a "steady state" of an organization or place.Security is the process or means, physical or human, of delaying, preventing, and otherwise protecting against external or internal defects, dangers, loss, criminals, and other individuals or actions. The main documents related to terminal operations are theILO convention152 (1979) and the ILO code of practice (2003) which cope with the health and safety of port labor.
Logistics is the generalsupply chainof how resources are acquired, stored and transported to their final destination. It involves identifying prospective distributors andsuppliersand determining their effectiveness and accessibility.
Customs and Border Protection exists to a safeguard country's borders, thereby protecting the public from dangerous people and materials while enhancing the nation's global economic competitiveness by enabling legitimate trade and travel.[17]Customs at ports of entry have two main tasks: cargo security and protecting agriculture.[18]Every port should have its own nation's customs. They should have base offices both at the administration building and the warehouse (check agriculture) and outside offices at both the entry gates, leaving gates. Groups of customs at the port should be consisted of Marine Interdiction Agents, Border Patrol Agents, Agriculture Specialists, Custom and Border Protection Officers, and Import Specialists.[19]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_terminal_design_process
|
Double-stack rail transportis a form ofintermodal freight transportin which railroad cars carry two layers ofintermodal containers. Invented in the United States in 1984, it is now being used for nearly seventy percent ofUnited Statesintermodal shipments. Using double stack technology, a freight train of a given length can carry roughly twice as many containers, sharply reducing transport costs per container. On United States railroads, specialwell carsare used for double-stack shipment to reduce the needed vertical clearance and to lower thecenter of gravityof a loaded car. In addition, thewell cardesign reduces damage in transit and provides greater cargo security by cradling the lower containers so their doors cannot be opened. A succession of larger container sizes have been introduced to further increase shipping productivity in the United States.
Double-stack rail operations are growing in other parts of the world, but are often constrained byclearanceand otherinfrastructurelimitations.
Southern Pacific Railroad(SP), and Robert Ingram, ofSeaLand, debuted the double-stack intermodal car in 1977. SP and Ingram jointly designed the first car withACF Industriesin 1976.[1][2][3]At first it was slow to become an industry standard, then in 1984American President Lines, started working with theUnion Pacific Railroadand that same year, the first all double-stack train leftLos Angeles, CaliforniaforSouth Kearny, New Jersey, under the name of "Stacktrain" rail service. Along the way the train transferred from the UP to theChicago and North Western Railwayand then toConrail.
Double-stack cars come in a number of sizes, related to the standard sizes of the containers they are designed to carry. Well lengths of 12.19 m (40.0 ft), 14.63 m (48.0 ft) and 16.15 m (53.0 ft) are most common.[5]Heights range from 2.44 m (8 ft 0 in) to2.908 m (9 ft6+1⁄2in) ("high cube").
Double stack requires a higherclearanceabove the tracks, orstructure gauge, than do other forms of rail freight. Double-stack cars are most common inNorth Americawhere intermodal traffic is heavy andelectrificationis less widespread; thus overhead clearances are typically more manageable. Nonetheless, North American railroads have invested large sums to raisebridges and tunnel clearancesalong their routes and remove other obstacles to allow greater use of double stack trains and to give them more direct routes. Outside North America some rail routes have been built or upgraded to such standards as to allow both electrification withoverhead wiresand double stacking.[6][7]
CSXlists threeclearance heightsabove top of rail for double stack service:[8]
The last 2 clearances offer the most flexibility, allowing two high cube containers to be stacked.
Forty-foot containers are the standard unit length and load bearing points are at the ends of such containers. Longer containers, such as 45, 48 and 53 feet long, still have the load bearing points 40 feet apart, with the excess protruding equally outside this length. Therefore, 40-foot containers, or larger, can be stacked on 20-foot containers if there are two 20-foot containers in a row; however, 20-foot containers cannot be stacked on top of 40-foot or longer containers. The possible double-stacking patterns are:
The container coupling holes are all female and double maletwistlocksare required to securely mate container stacks together.
China had started[when?]to experiment using reduced-size containers to be stacked on to normal containers to allow transport under25 kV overhead line electrification.
India has started[when?]to build a series ofdwarf containerfor domestic transport to be run under 25 kV electrification. With a height of 6 feet 4 inches (1,930 mm) they are 662 mm shorter than ISO shipping containers but 162 mm wider while still allowing for 67% more capacity when double stacked as compared to single stack ISO container.[11][failed verification]The width is comparable to that of North American53-foot containers.
Containers have weight limits designed to allow their transport by roadtrucks, which have lower weight limits than trains. Outside the U.S., a common limit for railways is 8tonnespermetre(8.1short ton/yd; 7.2long ton/yd) train length and 22.5tonnes(22.1long tons; 24.8short tons) peraxle. A four axle container car can take 90 tonnes (99.2 short tons; 88.6 long tons). Since a container is limited to 30.5 tonnes (33.6 short tons; 30.0 long tons), even including the empty weight of the rail car, single stacking uses only part of the load capacity of the railway. A 20-foot (6.1 m) container is limited to 24 tonnes (26.5 short tons; 23.6 long tons) and two such can fit into a car for a 40-foot (12.2 m) container, or even three if double-stacking[citation needed], but not four unless very high axle load is permitted. The North American railways permit two 53-foot (16.15 m) containers as shown in the images on this page.
Another consideration is the maximum weight of a train. A maximum length train in Europe, 750 m (2,461 ft) long can have 50 container cars with a total weight of 2,250 tonnes (2,480 short tons; 2,210 long tons), and more if 20 ft containers are included. This is not far from the limit usingstandard European (freight) couplers.[citation needed]
Intermodal containers shipped by rail within North America are primarily 53 feet (16.15 m) long, withtrailer-on-flat-car(TOFC) units used as well. The 53-foot length reflects a common maximum length for highwaysemi-trailers, which varies by state.[12]Major domestic intermodal carriers include:
Containers shipped between North America and other continents consist of mostly 40-foot (12.19 m) and some 45-foot (13.72 m) and 20-foot (6.10 m) containers. Container ships only take 40's, 20's and also 45's above deck. 90% of the containers that these ships carry are 40-footers and 90% of the world's freight moves on container ships; so 81% of the world's freight moves by 40-foot containers. Most of these 40-foot containers are owned by non-U.S. companies likeMaersk,MSC, andCMA CGM. The only U.S. 40-foot container companies are leasing companies likeTextainer,Triton International,[13]andCAI Leasing.[14]
Low bridges and narrow tunnels in various locations prevent the operation of double-stack trains until costly upgrades are made. SomeClass I railroadcompanies in the U.S., often in partnership with government agencies, have implemented improvement programs to remove obstructions to double-stack trains. Double-stack projects include:
On the vast majority of its network, Europe has more restrictedloading gaugeand train weight limits as well asaxle loadlimits. In other words, many bridges and tunnels are too low for double-stacking. In addition, since European electrification standards generally predated double stacking and were not designed to accommodate for larger clearances than those permitted by existing bridges and tunnels, the overhead catenary in Europe is also too low to accommodate double stacking. Only a few newly built routes make accommodation for possible double stacking in the future such as theBetuweroutein the Netherlands which however links to no other railway line allowing double stacking.
Standard gauge railways in North America and China must use specialwell carsto lower thecenter of gravity,[20]fit within theloading gaugeand in China allow double stack trains to run under specially heightenedoverhead lines.1,676 mm(5 ft 6 in)broad gaugeused in India enables trains to carry standard shipping containers double-stacked on standardflat wagons. Flat wagons, in addition to being much less expensive than well wagons, can carry more containers in a given length of train.[21][22]Indian Railways is able to carry containers double-stacked on standard flat wagons at 100 km/h (62 mph). Experiments with triple-stacked operation using lower, 1,981 mm (6 ft 6 in) containers, were done unsuccessfully in 2006.[23]Experiments in India for double stacking using flatcars under25 kV ACoverhead linesset7.45 m (24 ft5+1⁄4in) above rail have begun with funds given by Japan.[24][25][26]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-stack_rail_transport
|
Henry Robinson Palmer(1795–1844) was a British civil engineer who designed the world's secondmonorailand the first elevated railway. He is also credited as the inventor of corrugated metal roofing, which is one of the world's major building materials.
A son ofSamuel Palmerand his wife Elizabeth Walker, Henry Robinson Palmer was born inHackney, east London. He served a five-year apprenticeship with the mechanical engineerBryan Donkinfrom 1811, where he also became a skilled draughtsman. He was then taken on byThomas Telford, for whom he worked for some seven years, rising to become his chief assistant. He carried out numerous surveys for Telford, including the Knaresborough Canal and Railway, Burnham Marshes, Archway Road London, Portishead Harbour, and theIsles of Scilly. He may have acted as the resident engineer for the Loose Hill and Valley Road improvement scheme, which he surveyed in 1820.[1]
In 1821 he obtained a patent for a monorail system, which was deemed at the time to be somewhat impractical, but his work on resistance to tractive effort was much more important. In 1825 he visited theStockton and Darlington Railwayand theHetton colliery railway. On the latter he carried out a series of tests on behalf of Telford, to measure the amount of resistance that horses and locomotives had to overcome to move their loads. Further tests were carried out with boats on a number of canals, including theEllesmere Canal, theMersey and Irwell Navigationand theGrand Junction Canal. The results of these experiments were quoted in Parliament, when navigation interests opposed the bill to authorise theLiverpool and Manchester Railway, for instance.[1]
By 1825, Palmer was keen to set up on his own. The Kentish Railway had employed Telford to be its engineer when the scheme was launched in 1824, but after he withdrew, Palmer took over, surveying a route that ran fromDovertoWoolwichviaStroodandErith, with a section north of theRiver Thamesbeyond Woolwich. Reservations about a bridge over theRiver Medway, and what to do at Woolwich meant that funding did not materialise, and the scheme folded before a full survey was completed. He was approached again in the 1830s, when there were plans to revive the scheme. Also in 1825, he was asked to survey the Norfolk and Suffolk Railway scheme, but when he submitted an invoice for £1,573 in August 1826, there were not enough subscribers to meet such expense. He received about half of the money and the scheme was abandoned.[2]
He had more success with the scheme to extend the Eastern Dock in London. This had been designed byWilliam Chapman, and Palmer took over as resident engineer when the original incumbent, J W Hemingway, died in 1825. He had overall responsibility for the works after the works supervisorDaniel Asher Alexanderretired in 1828. The project involved construction of the dock, warehousing, an extrance lock and basins at Shadwell, and some swing bridges. The works were substantially finished by 1833, but by the time he left they company in 1835, there were issues with the entrance lock walls, which were resolved by George Rennie andJohn Smeaton. There were suggestions that he was too busy with other work to provide adequate supervision.[3]
During his career, he seems to have carried out a lot of surveys, but saw few of the schemes through to completion. Notable exceptions were improvements to Penzance harbour from 1836 to 1839, work onIpswich Docksfrom 1837 to 1842, and two Welsh schemes in 1840, on Port Talbot Harbour and Swansea Bridge. He was again involved in a railway route to Dover, giving evidence to the Engineer in 1836, and organising surveys conducted by others, but he was in poor health, andWilliam Cubittwas appointed engineer when the Act of Parliament was obtained. The Port Talbot harbour scheme was hampered by inadequate capital, and Palmer diverted flood water to scour out the channel, as he could not employ sufficient labourers. The Ipswich Docks scheme was his design, which he supervised until 1842, when he retired, leaving his resident engineer G Horwood to complete the work.[4]
Although Palmer was a prolific surveyor, he left few major schemes by which his work can be assessed. However, his main enduring legacy is theInstitution of Civil Engineers(ICE), which he founded in 1818. He was keen on self-improvement, and set up a mechanics institute when he was working in Bermondsey, between 1813 and 1814. This led him to plan a grander scheme, where young engineers could discuss engineering issues, and learn from one another. With several other young engineers, the inaugural meeting of the ICE was held on 2 January 1818, and the aims and objectives which he laid out have stood the test of time, with only the upper age limit being relaxed. This allowed Telford to become president, with Palmer as vice-president, and the institution prospered under their joint leadership.[5][6]In his capacity as vice-president, he represented the Institution at the laying of the first stone of Ipswich Docks.[7]
He died in 1844, just two years after retiring. All of his papers, including more than 400 drawings, were given to the ICE by his widow, but were subsequently lost.[6]
Palmer made a patent application in 1821 for an elevated single rail supported on a series of pillars in an ordinary distance of ten feet, inserted into conical apertures in the ground, with carriages suspended on both sides, hanging on two wheels the one placed before the other. A horse is connected to the carriage with a towing rope, proceeding on one side of the rail on a towing path.
There was an earliermonorail in Russia, of which Palmer was unaware. By 1823George Smarthad set up a trial version of Palmer's monorail.[8]
Palmer wrote in the study presenting his system: "the charge of carrying the raw material to the manufacturing district, and the manufactured article to the market, forming no small proportion of its price to the consumer.[...] The leading problem in our present subject is, to convey any given quantity of weight between two points at the least possible expense.[...] In order to retain a perfectly smooth and hard surface, unencumbered with extraneous obstacles to which the rails near the ground are exposed,it appeared desirable to elevate the surface from the reach of those obstacles and at the same time be released from the impediments occasioned by snows in the winter season."[9]
The first horse-powered elevated monorail started operating atCheshunton 25 June 1825. Although designed to transport materials, it was here used to carry passengers.[10]In 1826 German railway pioneerFriedrich Harkorthad a demonstration track of Palmer's system built by his steel factory inElberfeld, one of the main towns in the early industrialised region of theWupper Valley. Palmer's monorail can be regarded as the precursor of theLartigue Monorailand of theSchwebebahn Wuppertal.
In his study, Palmer has one of the earliest descriptions of the principle ofcontainerisation: "The arrangement also enables us to continue a conveyance by other means with very little interruption, as it is evident that the receptacles may be received from the one, and lodged on to another kind of carriage or vessel separately from the wheels and frame work, without displacing the goods".
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Robinson_Palmer
|
Atwistlockortwist lock, together with matchingcorner castings, as defined in norms including ISO 1161:1984, form a standardized (rotating) connector system, for connecting and securing intermodal, and predominantly ISO-standardinternational shipping containers. The primary uses are to securelystackcontainers, for locking them into place on acontainer ship,[1]: 4:18semi-trailerorrail carriage, and for lifting and handling by specific container-handling equipment, likestraddle carriers,reach stackers, container-handlingforklifts,sidelifters, and various types ofcontainer cranes.
Twist-locks also have to be used when stacking containers shorter than 40 feet (12 m) together with 40‑foot and longer containers. Containers shorter than 40feet containers must be joined together horizontally with twist-locks, to form a rigid combined whole 40feet in length, to make them stackable and be able to support and be supported by an ISO standard 40- or 45‑foot container stacked underneath or above them.[Note 1][Note 2]
The twistlock was developed inSpokane, Washington, in the 1950s by transport engineerKeith Tantlinger.[2][3]The relative obscurity of this invention belies its importance to a more efficient world trade and transport, as the Tantlinger lock made handling and stacking standard containers much easier. Tantlinger later released his patent royalty-free, which enabled the twist-lock to become an industry and international standard.[4]
A major advantage of this approach to attachment is that containers, which may be stored or transported without being inspected for months at a time, do not require any maintenance in order to function effectively. Even with long-term exposure to the weather the container remains as simple to move as ever. Only when corrosion is very extensive (to the extent of being easily visible) does the twistlock become dangerous to move the crate. Themalepart (which is more exposed and susceptible to damage) is placed on vehicles and equipment that are inspected very frequently, and will work with all standard containers.
Thefemale part of the connectoris the7×7×4+1⁄2in (180×180×110 mm)corner casting, which forms each of the eight corners, welded to the container itself, and has no moving parts, only an oval hole in the tops of the four upper corners, and in the bottom of the four lower corners. The hole is an oval 4.9 in (124.5 mm) on the long axis with two flat sides 2.5 in (63.5 mm) apart. The male component is the twistlock, which is fitted to cranes and transport bases. This can be inserted through the hole (it is roughly 4.1 in or 104.1 mm long and 2.2 in or 55.9 mm wide), and then the top portion (normally pointed to make insertion easier) is rotated 90°, so that it cannot be withdrawn. The mechanism is similar to that of aKensington lock, but of a much larger size. The maximum size and position of the holes in the connector defined in the original patent[5]and is now defined ininternational standardISO 1161:2016.[6]Thetensile strengthof a twistlock is rated at either 20 or 25 tonnes (19.7 or 24.6 long tons; 22.0 or 27.6 short tons).[7]
Some twistlocks have built-in levers or mechanisms, while simpler versions require tools for installation or removal. Some twistlocks are permanently installed (e.g., on the decks ofcontainer shipsor on the beds ofsemi-trailers), while others are temporarily installed and removed as needed, for instance to stack containers securely on ships, or in storage yards.
Double male twistlocks (midlocks) are also used to lock two stacked containers vertically, for example indouble-stack rail transportor onwell cars.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-box_connector
|
Anintermodal container, often called ashipping container, or afreight container, (or simply "container") is a large metal crate designed and built forintermodal freight transport, meaning these containers can be used across differentmodes of transport– such as fromshipstotrainstotrucks– without unloading and reloading their cargo.[1]Intermodal containers are primarily used to store and transport materials and products efficiently and securely in the globalcontainerizedintermodal freight transport system, but smaller numbers are in regional use as well. It is like aboxcarthat does not have wheels. Based on size alone, up to 95% of intermodal containers comply with ISO standards,[2]and can officially be calledISO containers. These containers are known by many names:cargo container,sea container,ocean container,container vanorsea van,sea canorC can, orMILVAN,[3][4]orSEAVAN.[citation needed]The termCONEX (Box)is a technically incorrect carry-over usage of the name of an important predecessor of the ISO containers: the much smaller steelCONEX boxesused by theU.S. Army.
Intermodal containers exist in many types and standardized sizes, but 90 percent of the global container fleet are "dry freight" or "general purpose" containers:[2][5]durableclosed rectangular boxes, made of rust-retardantweathering steel; almost all 8 feet (2.4 m) wide, and of either 20 or 40 feet (6.1 or 12.2 m) standard length, as defined byInternational Organization for Standardization(ISO)standard 668:2020.[2][6]The worldwide standard heights are 8 feet 6 inches (2.6 m) and 9 feet 6 inches (2.9 m) – the latter are known asHigh CubeorHi-Cube(HCorHQ) containers.[7]Depending on the source, these containers may be termed TEUs (twenty-foot equivalent units), reflecting the 20- or 40-foot dimensions.
Invented in the early 20th century, 40-foot intermodal containers proliferated during the 1960s and 1970s under thecontainerizationinnovations of the American shipping companySeaLand. Likecardboard boxesandpallets, these containers are a means to bundle cargo and goods into larger,unitized loadsthat can be easily handled, moved, and stacked, and that will pack tightly in a ship or yard. Intermodal containers share a number of construction features to withstand the stresses of intermodal shipping, to facilitate their handling, and to allow stacking. Each has a uniqueISO 6346reporting mark.
In 2012, there were about 20.5 million intermodal containers in the world of varying types to suit different cargoes.[6][nb 1]Containers have largely supplanted the traditionalbreak bulk cargo; in 2010, containers accounted for 60% of the world's seaborne trade.[9][10]The predominant alternative methods of transport carrybulk cargo, whether gaseous, liquid, or solid—e.g., bybulk carrierortank ship,tank car, ortruck. Forair freight, the lighter weightIATA-definedunit load devicesare used.
Containerization has its origins in earlycoal mining regions in Englandbeginning in the late 18th century. In 1766James Brindleydesigned the box boat 'Starvationer' with ten wooden containers, to transport coal fromWorsleyDelph (quarry) to Manchester byBridgewater Canal. In 1795,Benjamin Outramopened the Little Eaton Gangway, upon which coal was carried inwagonsbuilt at his Butterley Ironwork. The horse-drawn wheeled wagons on the gangway took the form of containers, which, loaded with coal, could be transshipped from canalbargeson theDerby Canal, which Outram had also promoted.[12]
By the 1830s, railways were carrying containers that could be transferred to other modes of transport. TheLiverpool and Manchester Railwayin the UK was one of these, making use of "simple rectangular timber boxes" to convey coal from Lancashire collieries to Liverpool, where a crane transferred them to horse-drawn carriages.[13]Originally used for moving coal on and off barges, "loose boxes" were used to containerize coal from the late 1780s, at places like theBridgewater Canal. By the 1840s, iron boxes were in use as well as wooden ones. The early 1900s saw the adoption of closed container boxes designed for movement between road and rail.
The first international standard for containers was established by theBureau International des Containerset du Transport Intermodal in 1933, and a second one in 1935, primarily for transport between European countries. American containers at this time were not standardized, and these early containers were not yet stackable – neither in the U.S. nor Europe. In November 1932, the first container terminal in the world was opened by the Pennsylvania Rail Road Company inEnola, Pennsylvania. Containerization was developed in Europe and the US as a way to revitalize rail companies after theWall Street crash of 1929, in New York, which resulted in economic collapse and a drop in all modes of transport.[14]
In April 1951 atZürich Tiefenbrunnen railway station, theSwiss Museum of Transportand theBureau International des Containers(BIC) held demonstrations of container systems for representatives from a number of European countries, and from the United States. A system was selected for Western Europe, based on the Netherlands' system for consumer goods and waste transportation calledLaadkisten(lit. "Loading chests"), in use since 1934. This system usedroller containersfor transport by rail, truck and ship, in various configurations up to 12,100 pounds (5,500 kg) capacity, and up to10 ft 2 in × 7 ft6+1⁄2in × 6 ft6+3⁄4in (3.1 m × 2.3 m × 2 m) in size.[15][16]This became the first post World War II European railway standard of theInternational Union of Railways–UIC-590, known as "pa-Behälter". It was implemented in the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, West Germany, Switzerland, Sweden and Denmark.[17]
The use of standardized steelshipping containersbegan during the late 1940s and early 1950s, when commercial shipping operators and the US military started developing such units.[18]In 1948 theU.S. ArmyTransportation Corpsdeveloped the "Transporter", a rigid, corrugated steel container, able to carry 9,000 pounds (4,100 kg). It was 8 ft 6 in (2.6 m) long, 6 ft 3 in (1.9 m) wide, and 6 ft 10 in (2.1 m) high, with double doors on one end, was mounted on skids, and had lifting rings on the top four corners.[19]After proving successful in Korea, the Transporter was developed into the Container Express(CONEX) boxsystem in late 1952. Based on the Transporter, the size and capacity of the Conex were about the same,[nb 2]but the system was made modular, by the addition of a smaller, half-size unit of 6 ft 3 in (1.9 m) long, 4 ft 3 in (1.3 m) wide and6 ft10+1⁄2in (2.1 m) high.[22][23][nb 3]Conexes could be stacked three high, and protected their contents from the elements.[20]By 1965 the US military used some 100,000 Conex boxes, and more than 200,000 in 1967,[22][26]making this the first worldwide application of intermodal containers.[20]Their invention made a major contribution to theglobalizationof commerce in the second half of the 20th century, dramatically reducing the cost of transporting goods and hence of long-distance trade.[27][28]
From 1949 onward, engineerKeith Tantlingerrepeatedly contributed to the development of containers, as well as their handling and transportation equipment. In 1949, while at Brown Trailers Inc. ofSpokane, Washington, he modified the design of theirstressed skinaluminum 30-foot trailer, to fulfil an order of two-hundred 30-by-8-by-8.5-foot (9.1 m × 2.4 m × 2.6 m) containers that could be stacked two high, for Alaska-basedOcean Van Lines. Steel castings on the top corners provided lifting and securing points.[29]
In 1955, trucking magnateMalcom McLeanboughtPan-Atlantic Steamship Company, to form a container shipping enterprise, later known asSea-Land. The first containers were supplied by Brown Trailers Inc, where McLean metKeith Tantlinger, and hired him as vice-president of engineering and research.[30]Under the supervision of Tantlinger, a new 35 ft × 8 ft × 8.5 ft (10.7 m × 2.4 m × 2.6 m) Sea-Land container was developed, the length determined by the maximum length of trailers then allowed on Pennsylvanian highways. Each container had a frame with eight corner castings that could withstand stacking loads.[31]Tantlinger also designed automaticspreadersfor handling the containers, as well as thetwistlockmechanism that connects with the corner castings.
Containers in their modern 21st-century form first began to gain widespread use around 1956. Businesses began to devise a structured process to use and to get optimal benefits from the role and use of shipping containers. Over time, the invention of the modern telecommunications of the late 20th century made it highly beneficial to have standardized shipping containers and made these shipping processes more standardized, modular, easier to schedule, and easier to manage.[32]
Two years after McLean's first container ship, theIdeal X, started container shipping on the US East Coast,[33]Matson Navigationfollowed suit between California and Hawaii. Just likePan-Atlantic's containers, Matson's were 8 ft (2.44 m) wide and 8 ft 6 in (2.59 m) high, but due to California's different traffic code Matson chose to make theirs 24 ft (7.32 m) long.[34]In 1968, McLean began container service to South Vietnam for the US military with great success.
ISO standards for containers were published between 1968 and 1970 by the International Maritime Organization. These standards allow for more consistent loading, transporting, and unloading of goods in ports throughout the world, thus saving time and resources.[35]
The International Convention for Safe Containers (CSC) is a 1972 regulation by theInter-governmental Maritime Consultative Organizationon the safe handling and transport of containers. It decrees that every container traveling internationally be fitted with a CSC safety-approval plate.[36][37]This holds essential information about the container, including age, registration number, dimensions and weights, as well as its strength and maximum stacking capability.
Longshoremen and related unions around the world struggled with this revolution in shipping goods.[38][39]For example, by 1971 a clause in theInternational Longshoremen's Association(ILA) contract stipulated that the work of "stuffing" (filling) or "stripping" (emptying) a container within 50 miles (80 km) of a port must be done by ILA workers, or if not done by ILA, that the shipper needed to pay royalties and penalties to the ILA. Unions for truckers and consolidators argued that the ILA rules were not valid work preservation clauses, because the work of stuffing and stripping containers away from the pier had not traditionally been done by ILA members.[38][39]In 1980 theSupreme Court of the United Statesheard this case and ruled against the ILA.[38][39]
Some experts have said that the centralized, continuous shipping process made possible by containers has created dangerous liabilities: one bottleneck, delay, or other breakdown at any point in the process can easily cause major delays everywhere up and down the supply chain.[32]
The reliance on containers exacerbated some of the economic and societal damage from the2021 global supply chain crisisof 2020 and 2021, and the resultingshortages related to the COVID-19 pandemic. In January 2021, for example, a shortage of shipping containers at ports caused shipping to be backlogged.[40][41][42]
Marc Levinson, author ofOutside the Box: How Globalization Changed from Moving Stuff to Spreading IdeasandThe Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger, said in an interview:[32]
Because of delays in the process, it's taking a container longer to go from its origin to its final destination where it's unloaded, so the container is in use longer for each trip. You've just lost a big hunk of the total capacity because the containers can't be used as intensively.
We've had in the United States an additional problem, which is that the ship lines typically charge much higher rates on services from Asia to North America than from North America to Asia. This has resulted in complaints, for example, from farmers and agricultural companies, that it's hard to get containers in some parts of the country because the ship lines want to ship them empty back to Asia, rather than letting them go to South Dakota and load over the course of several days. So we've had exporters in the United States complaining that they have a hard time finding a container that they can use to send their own goods abroad.[32]
Ninety percent of the global container fleet consists of "dry freight" or "general purpose" containers – both of standard and special sizes.[2][5]And although lengths of containers vary from 8 to 56 feet (2.4 to 17.1 m), according to two 2012 container census reports[nb 4]about 80% of the world's containers are either 20- or 40-foot standard-length boxes of the dry freight design.[6]These typical containers are rectangular, closed box models, with doors fitted at one end, and made ofcorrugatedweathering steel(commonly known as CorTen)[nb 5]with aplywoodfloor.[44]Although corrugating thesheet metalused for the sides and roof contributes significantly to the container's rigidity and stacking strength, just like incorrugated ironor incardboard boxes, the corrugated sides cause aerodynamic drag, and up to 10% fuel economy loss in road or rail transport, compared to smooth-sided vans.[45]
Standard containers are 8 feet (2.4 m) wide by 8 ft 6 in (2.6 m) high,[nb 6]although the taller "High Cube" or "hi-cube" units measuring 9 feet 6 inches (2.9 m) have become very common in recent years[when?]. By the end of 2013, high-cube 40 ft containers represented almost 50% of the world's maritime container fleet, according to Drewry's Container Census report.[47]
About 90% of the world's containers are eithernominal20-foot (6.1 m) or 40-foot (12.2 m) long,[6][48]although the United States and Canada also use longer units of 45 ft (13.7 m), 48 ft (14.6 m) and 53 ft (16.2 m). ISO containers have castings with openings fortwistlockfasteners at each of the eight corners, to allow gripping the box from above, below, or the side, and they can be stacked up to ten units high.[49]
Although ISO standard 1496 of 1990 only required nine-high stacking,and onlyof containers rated at 53,000 pounds (24,000 kg),[50]currentUltra Large Container Vesselsof the Post New Panamax andMaersk Triple E classare stacking them ten or eleven high.[51][52]Moreover, vessels like theMarie Maerskno longer use separate stacks in their holds, and other stacks above deck – instead they maximize their capacity by stacking continuously from the bottom of the hull, to as much as 21 high.[53]This requires automated planning to keep heavy containers at the bottom of the stack and light ones on top to stabilize the ship and to prevent crushing the bottom containers.
Regional intermodal containers, such as European, Japanese and U.S. domestic units however, are mainly transported by road and rail, and can frequently only be stacked up to two or three laden units high.[49]Although the two ends are quite rigid, containers flex somewhat during transport.[54]
Container capacity is often expressed intwenty-foot equivalent units(TEU, or sometimesteu). A twenty-foot equivalent unit is a measure of containerized cargo capacity equal to one standard 20-foot (6.1 m) long container. This is an approximate measure, wherein the height of the box is not considered. For example, the 9 ft 6 in (2.9 m) tall high-cube, as well as 4-foot-3-inch half-height (1.3 m) 20-foot (6.1 m) containers are equally counted as one TEU. Similarly, extra long 45 ft (13.7 m) containers are commonly counted as just two TEU, no different from standard 40-foot (12.2 m) long units. Two TEU are equivalent to one forty-foot equivalent unit (FEU).[55][56]
In 2014 the global container fleet grew to a volume of 36.6 million TEU, based on Drewry Shipping Consultants' Container Census.[57][nb 7]Moreover, in 2014 for the first time in history 40-foot High-Cube containers accounted for the majority of boxes in service, measured in TEU.[57]In 2019 it was noted by global logistics data analysisstartupUpply[58]that China's role as 'factory of the world' is further incentivizing the use of 40-foot containers, and that the computational standard 1 TEU boxes only make up 20% of units on major east–west liner routes, and demand for shipping them keeps dropping.[59]In the 21st century, the market has shifted to using 40-foot high-cube dry and refrigerated containers more and more predominantly. Forty-foot units have become the standard to such an extent that the sea freight industry now charges less than 30% more for moving a 40-ft unit than for a 1 TEU box. Although 20-ft units mostly have heavy cargo, and are useful for stabilizing both ships and revenue,[nb 8]carriers financially penalize 1 TEU boxes by comparison.[59]
For container manufacturers, 40-foot High-Cubes now dominate market demand both for dry and refrigerated units.[59]Manufacturing prices for regular dry freight containers are typically in the range of $1750–$2000 U.S. per CEU (container equivalent unit),[57]and about 90% of the world's containers are made in China.[48]The average age of the global container fleet was a little over 5 years from end 1994 to end 2009, meaning containers remain in shipping use for well over 10 years.[8]
Agooseneck tunnel, an indentation in the floor structure, that meshes with thegooseneckon dedicated containersemi-trailers, is a mandatory feature in the bottom structure of 1AAA and 1EEE (40- and 45-ft high-cube) containers, and optional but typical on standard height, forty-foot and longer containers.[62]
Other than the standard, general purpose container, many variations exist for use with different cargoes. The most prominent of these arerefrigerated containers(also calledreefers) for perishable goods, that make up 6% of the world's shipping boxes.[5][48]Tanks in a frame, for bulk liquids, account for another 0.75% of the global container fleet.[5]
Although these variations are not of the standard type, they mostly areISO standardcontainers – in fact theISO 6346standard classifies a broad spectrum of container types in great detail. Aside from different size options, the most important container types are:[63][nb 10]
Containers foroffshoreuse have a few different features, likepad eyes, and must meet additional strength and design requirements, standards and certification, such as the DNV2.7-1 byDet Norske Veritas, LRCCS byLloyd's Register, Guide for Certification of Offshore Containers byAmerican Bureau of Shippingand theInternational standardISO10855:Offshore containers and associated lifting sets, in support ofIMO MSC/Circ. 860[71]
A multitude of equipment, such as generators, has been installed in containers of different types to simplify logistics – see§ Containerized equipmentfor more details.
Swap bodyunits usually have the same bottom corner fixtures as intermodal containers, and often have folding legs under their frame so that they can be moved between trucks without using a crane. However they frequently do not have the upper corner fittings of ISO containers, and are not stackable, nor can they be lifted and handled by the usual equipment like reach-stackers or straddle-carriers. They are generally more expensive to procure.[72]
Basic terminology of globally standardized intermodal shipping containers is set out in standard:
From its inception, ISO standards on international shipping containers, consistently speak of them sofar as 'Series 1' containers – deliberately so conceived, to leave room for another such series of interrelated container standards in the future.[nb 11]
Basic dimensions and permissible gross weights of intermodal containers are largely determined by two ISO standards:
Weights and dimensions of the most common (standardized) types of containers are given below.[nb 12]Forty-eight foot and fifty-three foot containers have not yet been incorporated in the latest, 2020 edition of the ISO 668.[74]ISO standard maximum gross mass for all standard sizes except 10-ft boxes was raised to 79,000 lb (36,000 kg) per Amendment 1 on ISO 668:2013, in 2016.[75]Draft Amendment 1 of ISO 668: 2020 – for the eighth edition – maintains this.[76]Given the average container lifespan, the majority of the global container fleet have not caught up with this change yet.
Values vary slightly from manufacturer to manufacturer, but must stay within the tolerances dictated by the standards. Empty weight (tare weight) is not determined by the standards, but by the container's construction, and is therefore indicative, but necessary to calculate a net load figure, by subtracting it from the maximum permitted gross weight.
The bottom row in the table gives the legal maximum cargo weights for U.S. highway transport, and those based on use of an industry common tri-axle chassis. Cargo must also be loaded evenly inside the container, to avoid axle weight violations.[77]The maximum gross weights that U.S. railroads accept or deliver are 52,900 lb (24,000 kg) for 20-foot containers, and 67,200 lb (30,500 kg) for 40-foot containers,[78]in contrast to the global ISO-standard gross weight for 20-footers having been raised to the same as 40-footers in the year 2005.[79]In the U.S., containers loaded up to the rail cargo weight limit cannot move over the road, as they will exceed the U.S. 80,000 lb (36,000 kg) highway limit.[78]
AustralianRACEcontainers are also slightly wider to optimise them for the use ofAustralia Standard Pallets, or are 41 ft (12.5 m) long and 8 ft 2 in (2.5 m) wide to be able to fit up to 40 pallets.[86][87]
European pallet wide (or PW) containers are minimally wider, and have shallow side corrugation, to offer just enough internal width, to allow common EuropeanEuro-palletsof47+1⁄4in (1.20 m) long by31+1⁄2in (0.80 m) wide,[88]to be loaded with significantly greater efficiency and capacity. Having a typical internal width of96+1⁄8in (2.44 m),[89](a gain of about3+15⁄16inches (10 cm) over the ISO-usual92+1⁄8in (2.34 m),[90]givespallet-widecontainers a usable internal floor width of94+1⁄2in (2.40 m), compared to78+3⁄4in (2.00 m) in standard containers, because the extra width enables their users to either load two Euro-pallets end on end across their width, or three of them side by side (providing the pallets were neatly stacked, without overspill), whereas in standard ISO containers, a strip of internal floor-width of about 13 inches (33 cm) cannot be used by Euro-pallets.
As a result, while being virtually interchangeable:[89]
Somepallet-widesare simply manufactured with the same, ISO-standard floor structure, but with the side-panels welded in, such that the ribs/corrugations are embossed outwards, instead of indenting to the inside.[91]This makes it possible for somepallet-widesto be just96+7⁄8in (2.462 m) wide,[89]but others can be98+3⁄8in (2.50 m) wide.[92]
The 45 ft (13.72 m) pallet-wide high-cube container has gained particularly wide acceptance, as these containers can replace the44 ft7+3⁄8in (13.6 m) swap bodies that are common for truck transport in Europe. The EU has started a standardization for pallet wide containerization in the European Intermodal Loading Unit (EILU) initiative.[93]
Many sea shipping providers in Europe allow these on board, as their external width overhangs over standard containers are sufficiently minor that they fit in the usual interlock spaces in ship's holds,[91]as long as their corner-castings patterns (both in the floor and the top) still match with regular 40-foot units, for stacking and securing.
The North American market has widely adopted containerization, especially for domestic shipments that need to move between road and rail transport.[94]While they appear similar to the ISO-standard containers, there are several significant differences: they are considered High-Cubes based on their 9 ft 6 in (2.90 m) ISO-standard height, their 102-inch (2.6 m) width matches the maximum width of road vehicles in the region but is 6 inches (15 cm) wider than ISO-standard containers,[95]and they are often not built strong enough to endure the rigors of ocean transport.[94]
The first North American containers to come to market were 48 feet (15 m) long. This size was introduced by container shipping companyAmerican President Lines(APL) in 1986.[94]The size of the containers matched new federal regulations passed in 1983 which prohibited states from outlawing the operation of single trailers shorter than 48 feet (15 m) long or 102 inches (260 cm) wide.[96]This size being 8 feet (2.44 m) longer and 6 inches (15 cm) wider has 29% more volume capacity than the standard 40-ft High-Cube,[97]yet costs of moving it by truck or rail are almost the same.
In the late 1980s, the federal government announced it would once again allow an increase in the length of trailers to 53 feet (16 m) at the start of 1990. Anticipating this change, 53-foot containers were introduced in 1989. These large boxes have 60% more capacity than 40-foot containers, enabling shippers to consolidate more cargo into fewer containers.[97][98][99]
In 2007, APL introduced the first 53-foot ocean-capable containers designed to withstand voyages on its South China-to-Los Angeles service.[94]In 2013, APL stopped offering vessel space for 53-foot containers on its trans-Pacific ships.[100]In 2015 bothCrowleyand TOTE Maritime each announced the construction of their respective second combined container androll-on/roll-offships for Puerto Rico trade, with the specific design to maximize cubic cargo capacity by carrying 53-foot, 102-inch wide (2,591 mm) containers.[101][102]Within Canada,Oceanexoffers 53-foot-container ocean service to and from Newfoundland.[103]53-foot containers are also being used on some Asia Pacific international shipping routes.[73]
In April 2017,Canadian TireandCanadian Pacific Railwayannounced deployment of what they claimed to be the first60-footintermodal containers in North America.[104]The containers are transportable on the road using specially configured trucks and telescoping trailers (where vehicle size limits permit it), and on the railway using the top positions of double-stack container cars.[105]According to initial projections, Canadian Tire believed it would allow them to increase the volume of goods shipped per container by 13%.[104]Five years after the deployment of the containers, analyst Larry Gross observed that United States truck size regulations are more constraining than those in Canada, and predicted that for the foreseeable future, these larger containers would remain exclusive to Canada.[106]
TheISO 668standard has so far never standardized 10 ft (3 m) containers to be the same height as so-called "Standard-height", 8 ft 6 in (2.59 m), 20- and 40-foot containers. By the ISO standard, 10-foot (and previously included 5-ft and 61⁄2-ft boxes) are only of unnamed, 8-foot (2.44 m) height. But industry makes 10-foot units more frequently of 8 ft 6 in (2.59 m) height,[90]to mix, match (and stack) better in a fleet of longer, 8 ft 6 in tall containers. Smaller units, on the other hand, are no longer standardized, leading to deviating lengths, like 8 ft (2.44 m) or6+1⁄2ft (1.98 m), with non-standard widths of 7 ft 3 in (2.20 m) and 6 ft 5 in (1.95 m) in respectively, and non-standard heights of 7 ft 5 in (2.26 m) and 6 ft 3 in (1.91 m) respectively,[90]for storage or off-shore use.
The United States military continues to use small containers, strongly reminiscent of their Transporter andConex boxesof the 1950s and 1960s. These mostly comply with (previous) ISO standard dimensions, or are a direct derivative thereof. Current terminology of the United States armed forces calls these small containersBicon,TriconandQuadcon, with sizes that correspond with (previous)ISO 668standard sizes 1D, 1E and 1F respectively. These containers are of a standard 8 ft (2.44 m) height, and with a footprint size either one half (Bicon), one third (Tricon) or one quarter (Quadcon) the size of a standard 20-foot, one TEU container.[107][108][109]At a nominal length of 10 feet (3.05 m), two Bicons coupled together lengthwise match one 20-foot ISO container, but their height is 6 inches (152 mm) shy of the more commonly available 10-foot ISO containers of so-called 'standard' height, which are 8 ft 6 in (2.59 m) tall. Tricons and Quadcons however have to be coupled transversely – either three or four in a row – to be stackable with twenty foot containers.[110]Their length of 8 ft (2.44 m) corresponds to the width of a standard 20-foot container, which is why there are forklift pockets at their ends, as well as in the sides of these boxes, and the doors only have one locking bar each. The smallest of these, the Quadcon, exists in two heights: 96 in (2.44 m) or 82 in (2.08 m).[111]Only the first conforms to ISO-668 standard dimensions (size 1F).
ABC containers are small containers, typically 20 ft long and 5 ft high, used for hauling dense materials. The smaller size reduces the tare weight (as compared to using a half-full standard height container). They are normally shipped on specialized railroad flatcars, where 6 containers can be carried in the space of 4 standard containers.[112]
In Japan's domestic freight rail transport, most of the containers are 12 ft (3.66 m) long in order to fit Japan's unique standard pallet sizes.[113]
Each container is allocated a standardizedISO 6346reporting mark(ownership code), four letters long ending in either U, J or Z, followed by six digits and a check digit.[114]The ownership code for intermodal containers is issued by theBureau International des Containers(International container bureau, or BIC) in France, hence the name "BIC-Code" for the intermodal container reporting mark. So far there exist only four-letter BIC-Codes ending in "U".
The placement and registration of BIC Codes is standardized by the commissions TC104 and TC122 in the JTC1 of the ISO which are dominated by shipping companies.Shipping containersare labelled with a series of identification codes that includes the manufacturer code, the ownership code, usage classification code, UN placard for hazardous goods and reference codes for additional transport control and security.
Following the extended usage of pallet-wide containers in Europe the EU started the Intermodal Loading Unit (ILU) initiative. This showed advantages for intermodal transport of containers and swap bodies. This led to the introduction of ILU-Codes defined by the standard EN 13044 which has the same format as the earlier BIC-Codes. The International Container Office BIC agreed to only issue ownership codes ending with U, J or Z. The new allocation office of the UIRR (International Union of Combined Road-Rail Transport Companies) agreed to only issue ownership reporting marks for swap bodies ending with A, B, C, D or K – companies having a BIC-Code ending with U can allocate an ILU-Code ending with K having the same preceding letters. Since July 2011 the new ILU codes can be registered, beginning with July 2014 all intermodal ISO containers and intermodal swap bodies must have an ownership code and by July 2019 all of them must bear a standard-conforming placard.[115]
Containers are transferred between rail, truck, and ship bycontainer cranesatcontainer terminals.Forklifts,reach stackers,straddle carriers, container jacks andcranesmay be used to load and unload trucks or trains outside of container terminals.Swap bodies,sidelifters, tilt deck trucks, andhook trucksallow transfer to and from trucks with no extra equipment.
ISO-standard containers can be handled and lifted in a variety of ways by their corner fixtures, but the structure and strength of 45-foot (14 m) (type E) containers limits their tolerance of side-lifting, nor can they be forklifted, based on ISO 3874 (1997).[116]
Containers can be transported bycontainer ship, truck andfreight trainsas part of a single journey without unpacking. Units can be secured in transit using "twistlock" points located at each corner of the container. Every container has a uniqueBIC codepainted on the outside for identification and tracking, and is capable of carrying up to 20–25tonnes. Costs for transport are calculated intwenty-foot equivalent units(TEU).
When carried by rail, containers may be carried on aspine car,flatcar, orwell cars. The latter are specially designed for container transport, and can accommodatedouble-stacked containers. However, theloading gaugeof a rail system may restrict the modes and types of container shipment. The smaller loading gauges often found in European railroads will only accommodate single-stacked containers. In some countries, such as the United Kingdom, there are sections of the rail network through which high-cube containers cannot pass, or can pass through only on well cars. On the other hand,Indian Railwaysruns double-stacked containers on flatcars under25 kVoverhead electrical wires. The wires must be at least 24 feet 5 inches (7.45 m) above the track.China Railwayalso runs double-stacked containers under overhead wires, but must use well cars to do so, since the wires are only 21 feet 8 inches (6.6 m) above the track.[117]
About 90% of non-bulk cargo worldwide is transported by container, and the largest container ships can carry over 19,000 TEU. Between 2011 and 2013, an average of 2,683 containers were reported lost at sea.[118]Other estimates go up to 10,000; of these 10% are expected to contain chemicals toxic to marine life.[119]Various systems are used for securing containers on ships.[120][121]Losses of containers at sea are low.[122]
Containers can also be transported in planes, as seen within intermodal freight transport. However, transporting containers in this way is typically avoided due to the cost of doing such and the lack of availability of planes which can accommodate such awkwardly sized cargo.
There are special aviation containers, smaller than intermodal containers, calledunit load devices.
There are many established methods and materials for stabilizing and securing intermodal containers loaded on ships, as well as the internal cargo inside the boxes. Conventional restraint methods and materials such as steelstrappingand wood blocking and bracing have been around for decades and are still widely used. Polyester strapping and lashing, and synthetic webbings are also common today.Dunnage bags(also known as "air bags") are used to keepunit loadsin place.
Flexi-bagscan also be directly loaded, stacked in food-grade containers. Indeed, their standard shape fills the entire ground surface of a 20 ft ISO container.
Container-sized units are also often used for moving large pieces of equipment to temporary sites. Specialised containers are particularly attractive to militaries already using containerisation to move much of their freight around. Shipment of specialized equipment in this way simplifies logistics and may prevent identification of high value equipment by enemies. Such systems may include command and control facilities, mobile operating theatres[124]or evenmissile launchers[125](such as the Russian3M-54 Klubsurface-to-surface missile).
Complete water treatment systems can be installed in containers and shipped around the world.[126]
Electric generators can be permanently installed in containers to be used for portable power.[127]
Containers have also been used by contemporary artists, exhibitions, and galleries.[128]Artists may conductresidenciesinside stationary or traveling containers.[129]Containers may also be used to install temporary art exhibitions in one or many containers at a site such as the 2005–2012Containerartproject.
Half the containers that enter the United States leave empty.[130]Their value in the US is lower than in China, so they are sometimes used for other purposes. This is typically but not always at the end of their voyaging lives. The US military often used itsConex containersas on-site storage, or easily transportable housing for command staff and medical clinics.[131]Nearly all of the more than 150,000 Conex containers shipped to Vietnam remained in the country, primarily as storage or other mobile facilities.[26]Permanent or semi-permanent placement of containers for storage is common. A regular forty-foot container has about 9,000 pounds (4,000 kg) of steel, which takes 8,000kWh(28,800MJ) of energy to melt down. Repurposing used shipping containers is increasingly a practical solution to both social and ecological problems.
Shipping container architectureemploys used shipping containers as the main framing of modular home designs, where the steel may be an integrated part of the design, or be camouflaged into a traditional looking home. They have also been used to make temporary shops, cafes, andcomputer datacenters, e.g. theSun Modular Datacenter.
Intermodal containers are notstrong enoughfor conversion to underground bunkers without additional bracing, as the walls cannot sustain much lateral pressure and will collapse.[citation needed]Also, the wooden floor of many used containers could contain some fumigation residues, rendering them unsuitable as confined spaces, such as for prison cells or bunkers. Cleaning or replacing the wood floor can make these used containers habitable, with proper attention to such essential issues as ventilation and insulation.
The City ofGöttingenhas deployed containers for the disablement ofunexploded ordnance: eitherFIBCsfilled with sand orIBCsfilled with water.
When the bomb squad performs controlled detonations, such prepared containers absorb shock and fragments.[132]This use requires level, load-bearing ground. The deformed containers are unsuitable for further circulation.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_container
|
This article lists the world's busiestcontainerports(ports withcontainer terminalsthat specialize in handling goods transported inintermodal shipping containers), by total number oftwenty-foot equivalent units(TEUs) transported through the port. The table lists volume in thousands of TEU per year. The vast majority of containers moved by large, ocean-faringcontainer shipsare 20-foot (1 TEU) and 40-foot (2 TEU)ISO-standardshipping containers, with 40-foot units outnumbering 20-foot units to such an extent that the actual number of containers moved is between 55%–60% of the number of TEUs counted.[1]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world%27s_busiest_container_ports
|
TheLittle Eaton Gangway, officially theDerby Canal Railway, was anarrow gaugeindustrialwagonwayserving theDerby Canal, in England, atLittle EatoninDerbyshire.
In 1792,Benjamin Outramwas asked to prepare plans for a broad canal fromSwarkestoneto Smithy Houses, nearDenby, with a branch at Derby to theErewash CanalatSandiacre, which he estimated would cost £60,000. The original report has been lost in time with only a dated and signed map drawing surviving in Derbyshire Records Office.William Jessopon 3 November 1792 confirmed Outram's proposals. TheDerby Canal Act 1793authorized a rail connection between theDerby CanalatLittle Eatonand the collieries to the north. The wagonway ran four miles (6 km) from the canal wharf toSmithy Housesand another mile further to Denby Hall Colliery. Further short branches served Salterwood North and Henmoor Collieries as well as theDenby Pottery.
The purpose of this 5-mile-long (8 km) plateway was to carry coal from Kilburn andDenbydown to the canal at Little Eaton and general goods including stone, pottery and "clogs of wood".
Outram's original plan was for a conventional waggonway with woodensleepersand oak rails reinforced withcast ironplates. Accordingly, an advertisement appeared in theLincoln & Stamford Mercuryfor 16 August 1793[1]for 10,000 oak sleepers 4 feet 6 inches (1.37 m) long squared at each end for a length of 9 inches (229 mm).
However, by the time the railway was approved, Outram had decided to use the flanged rails with which his name has become associated. In this he may have been greatly influenced by William Jessop (1745 to 1814) and also by Joseph Butler ofWingerworthnearChesterfield, who had constructed a similar line in 1788. Butler is believed to have been the first to do so in Derbyshire and supplied the rails, rather than Outram's own works. Outram considered himself the first to use stone blocks as sleepers. These were drilled with a six-inch (152 mm) hole into which an oak plug was fitted. The rails of cast iron were usually three feet (0.91 m) long (he also manufactured four-foot (1.22 m) long rails when asked) and of L-shaped cross-section, were attached by means of spikes into a notch at the end of the rail. The line was originally3 ft 6 in(1,067 mm) gauge, being increased later to4 ft(1,219 mm) at an unknown date.
The cast iron plates used to build the track initially weighed 28 lb/yd (13.9 kg/m) although this was increased to 40 lb/yd (19.8 kg/m) for plates made after 1804. By 1825, there were nine passing places on the single-track line, which carried 2-long-ton (2.2-short-ton; 2.0 t) waggons. Each waggon carried a box of coal, with a load of between 1.65 and 1.87 long tons (1.85 and 2.09 short tons; 1.68 and 1.90 t), which was transferred to a barge at Little Eaton wharf by a crane. From Smithy Houses, several private lines served the Denby Main colliery and other mines in the locality.[2]Further extensions were made between 1827 and 1829, when lines were built to provide links to the colliery owned by Harrison, Pattinson and Davenport at Denby, to Kilburn colliery and to Salterwood pits.[3]
The waggons, built at Outram'sButterley worksconsisted of containers mounted loosely on a chassis, or tram, with four cast iron wheels. The container would be lifted off at Little Eaton and loaded complete into narrowboats or transferred to two-wheeled carts for carriage by road. The canal line from Little Eaton led to Gandy's Wharf in Derby for onward distribution through the canal network or by road and was an early example of a containerised system (see Duke of Bridgewater Canal for first use)
The gangway and the Little Eaton line of the canal opened in 1795 to a great ceremonial fanfare with the wagons being kitted out with seats for the dignitaries and a Band to mark the occasion. The first load of coal from Denby was distributed to the poor of Derby.
When theMidland Railwaybuilt itsbranch line to Ripleyin 1856, it lost most of its trade, finally closing in 1908.[4]
The trackbed was used for a new road, theA61, bypassing the old road throughCoxbench. This, in turn, was superseded at the end of the twentieth century by theA38 trunk road, demoting it to theB6179. Thus there are three generations of highway side-by-side, plus the remains of the railway.
The only remaining trace of the gangway is the Wharf building seen in the photo above, the easternmost arch of Jack O' Darley bridge, and another two arch bridge over theBottle Brook, with a few of the sleeper stones that have been used in nearby walls. A wagon from this period of the gangway's history was preserved in theNational Mining Museumat Lound Hall,Bothamsalland is now in theNational Railway Museum.[5]
A replica Little Eaton Gangway wagon is on display at the Midland Railway Trust near Ripley.
"Little Eaton Tramroad".
"Canal and Clock House".
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Eaton_Gangway
|
Multimodal transport(also known ascombined transport) is thetransportationofgoodsunder a single contract, but performed with at least two differentmodes of transport; the carrier is liable (in a legal sense) for the entire carriage, even though it is performed by several different modes of transport (byrail, sea and road, for example). The carrier does not have to possess all the means oftransport, and in practice usually does not; the carriage is often performed by sub-carriers (referred to in legal language as "actual carriers"). The carrier responsible for the entire carriage is referred to as a multimodal transport operator, or MTO.
Article 1.1. of theUnited Nations Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Goods(Geneva, 24 May 1980) (which will only enter into force 12 months after 30 countries ratify; as of May 2019, only 6 countries have ratified the treaty[1]) defines multimodal transport as follows: "'International multimodal transport' means the carriage of goods by at least two different modes of transport on the basis of a multimodal transport contract from a place in one country at which the goods are taken in charge by the multimodal transport operator to a place designated for delivery situated in a different country".[2]
In practice,freight forwardershave become important MTOs; they have moved away from their traditional role as agents for the sender, accepting a greater liability as carriers. Large sea carriers have also evolved into MTOs; they provide customers with so-called door-to-door service. The sea carrier offers transport from the sender's premises (usually located inland) to the receiver's premises (also usually situated inland), rather than offering traditional tackle-to-tackle or pier-to-pier service. MTOs not in the possession of a sea vessel (even though the transport includes a sea leg) are referred to as Non-Vessel Operating Carriers (NVOC) incommon lawcountries (especially the United States).
Multimodal transport developed in connection with the "container revolution" of the 1960s and 1970s; as of 2011,containerizedtransports are by far the most important multimodalconsignments. However, it is important to remember that multimodal transport is not equivalent to container transport; multimodal transport is feasible without any form of container. The MTO works on behalf of the supplier; it assures the supplier (and the buyer) that their goods will be effectively managed and supplied.
Multimodal transport research is being conducted across a wide range of government, commercial and academic centers. TheResearch and Innovative Technology Administration(RITA) within theU.S. Department of Transportation(USDOT) chairs an inter-agency Research, Development and Technology (RD&T) Planning Team. The University Transportation Center (UTC) program, which consists of more than 100 universities nationwide conducts multi-modal research and education programs.[3]The European Commission has invested heavily in multimodal research under the H2020 programme[4]– examples are CORE[5]and SYNCHRO-NET.[6]
From a legal standpoint, multimodal transport creates several problems. Unimodal transports are currently governed by different, often-mandatoryinternational conventions. These conventions stipulate different bases forliability, and different limitations of liability for the carrier. As of 2011, the solution to this problem has been the so-callednetwork principle. According to the network principle, the different conventions coexist unchanged; the carrier's liability is defined according to where thebreach of contracthas occurred (where the goods have been damaged during transport, for example). However, problems arise if the breach of contract is systemic (not localized).
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimodal_transport
|
TheNew York Central Rail Roadintroduced a container system in 1922.[1]
Details include:
This United States rail–related article is astub. You can help Wikipedia byexpanding it.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NYC_container
|
Shipping portalsare websites which allowshippers, consignees and forwarders access to multiple carriers through a single site. Portals provide bookings, track and trace, and documentation, and allow users to communicate with their carriers. In many respects, ashippingportal is to the maritime industry what aglobal distribution system(GDS) is to theairlineindustry.
Shipping portals first emerged in 2000-2001 whenCargoSmart,GT NexusandINTTRA Inc.all launched their trial phases.[citation needed]
Membership across the three main shipping portals comprises 30 carriers of varying sizes, but the majority are amongst the world's largest, so most of the industry'sTEUcapacity is represented.[1]
No portals can access allshipping lines. With around 250container shippinglines world-wide, many carriers are left out. Sailing schedule search engines have emerged to allow users to find an appropriate service.[citation needed]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shipping_portal
|
Stowage plan for container shipsorbay planis the plan and method by which different types ofcontainer vesselsare loaded withcontainersof specific standard sizes. The plans are used to maximize the economy ofshippingand safety on board.
In order to maximize the economy of handling and shipping of containers on a container ship, stowage plans,[1]sometimes known as bay plans,[2]have become essential in theshipping trade. The plans are also vital for safety on board the ship and it is recommended that personnel working on ships are familiar with them.[3][4][5][6]Modern stowage plans are executed by computer programs using mathematical calculations similar to those used for solving complicatedTetrisproblems.[7]One such system of programs is theMACS3,[8]Cloud CASP,CASP.
The most common and noted type of containers are the 20 feet and 40 feet containers. There are also containers with an extent in height called "High Cube" containers.[3][9]The fixed exterior dimension of the standard size boxes are:[9][10]
Container vessels are built to contain as many containers as possible, accordingly the vessels are divided into sections:
The cargo hold and on-deck are the spaces where the cargo, stored in containers, is kept.[11]
On container ships the position of containers are identified by a bay-row-tier coordinate system. The bays illustrate the cross sections of the ship and are numbered frombowtostern. The rows run the length of the ship and are numbered from the middle of the ship outwards, even numbers on theportside and odd numbers on thestarboardside. The tiers are the layers of containers, numbered from the bottom and up.[12]
In the example image the position coordinates of the containers are:
In order to stow the cargo on a vessel, planners have specific computer programs to aid them. Planners use ports of call and vessel schedule to adjust vessel's route in the planning program. To plan the stowing the following parameters are essential:[4][5]
After that, planners get discharge lists/plans in the form of anEDI file(the COPRAR) and send information to the container terminals for all the re-stows (discharging containers and re-loading them) which may be required for completing the discharge process. Planners will also classify the loading data according to the kind of cargo in the containers as well as the size and shape of the containers and their destinations.[4][5][14]Each container is marked with a series of numbers and codes to identify the container's operator, specifications and what kind of cargo it may hold.[3]The parameters are:
The stowage plan shows cross sections of the ship bay by bay, to indicate where all the containers should be loaded. The plans change with each port of call as container are discharged or re-stowed and new containers are taken on board.[3][14]
Refrigerated cargo units– Container vessels are equipped with power source for specific places to plug in therefrigerated containersknown as "reefers", hence, the reefer containers places are known and are usually the first type of containers to consider in the stowage plan.[14][17][18]
Dangerous cargo– Containers where certain segregation rules must be followed, for example dangerous cargo that should be kept away from direct sunlight, from reefer container's motors, of some kind of another dangerous cargo or segregated away from all of the above. Accordingly, planners start with reefer units then continue with dangerous cargo units when planning the vessel.[14][18]
Out of gauge cargo– For most international shipping, cargo that cannot be packed within a 40' high cube container is out of gauge. It may be possible to pack such cargo in specialty containers. Open top containers are suitable for too-tall cargo and flat rack containers can accommodate over height, over width or over weight cargo. Container platforms can handle over height, width or length cargo, but require slings to load and unload. Also out of gauge for most ships are containers between 45' and 53' long used in some countries for domestic rail and truck transport. These loads are usually added after planning all other containers and are usually stowed on top of other containers (on deck or in hold) as the planners strive to minimize the number of "lost slots" (unused positions) as much as possible.[14][18]
Dry hide containers– Normal containers packed with cargo that may result in some leakage (such as liquid from fresh leather), they are usually stowed in outer road/first tier in order to make the necessary arrangements in case of leakage.[19]
Dry cargo containers– Usually stowed according to next port of calls depending on container size and weight of cargo, the heavy weights below and the lighter weights on top.[20]
Port of discharge– When trying to find a suitable stowage position for containers, the planners must take into consideration the sequence of the ports of call. For example, if the port of calls are A, B and C, for the port A discharge, the planner must take into consideration not to choose a stowage position for a container for ports B or C on top of the container destined for port A.[14]
Container size– A 20 feet container can not be loaded up on a 40 feet container, but the reverse is possible if the vessel structure allows it. Planners can also load a 40 feet container on top of two units of 20 feet container, this known as a "Russian stowage" or "mixed stowage".[21]
Hatch cover clearance– Hatch cover clearance refers to how many "High Cube" (height over 8.6 ft (2.6 m)) containers allowed to load in the hold without preventing the hatch cover from closing correctly.[3]
Visibility– The number of High cube containers shouldn't exceed a set number of High cube containers in each row/bay on-deck. If the number of high cube units exceeded the set number it will prevent the full/clearline of sightof the ship from the bridge or other vital vantage points.[22][23][24]
Other factors included at stowing are:[18][25]
Once a ship has arrived in port, other plans for handling, sorting and storage at theterminalgo into operation.[26]
As stowage plans are transmitted electronically as data files between ships and terminals, they can be intercepted bymodern piratesworking withorganized crime syndicates. These attacks are called Major Criminal Hijacks (MCH) or South China Sea Piracy; pirates board the ship with good knowledge of its layout and where the most coveted cargo is stowed.[27]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stowage_plan_for_container_ships
|
Atank containerortanktaineris anintermodal containerfor the transport ofliquids,gasesandpowdersasbulk cargo. It is built to theISO standards, making it suitable for different modes of transportation; as such, it is also called anISO tank.[1]Both hazardous and non-hazardous products can be transported in tank containers.
A tank container is a vessel ofstainless steelsurrounded by an insulation and protective layer of usuallypolyurethaneandaluminum. The vessel is in the middle of a steel frame. The frame is made according to ISO standards and is 19.8556 feet (6.05 meters) long, 7.874 feet (2.40 meters) wide and 7.874 feet (2.40 meters) or 8.374 feet (2.55 meters) high. The contents of the tank range from 17,500 to 26,000 liters (3,800 to 5,700 imp gal; 4,600 to 6,900 U.S. gal). There are both smaller and larger tank containers, which usually have a size different from the ISO standard sizes. For example, there are some 27,000 liters (5,900 imp gal; 7,100 U.S. gal) and above litre tank containers in the European swap body fleets in Europe but they are not used on international business only on intra European traffic.
The trade organizationITCOestimates that as of January 1, 2024, the global fleet of tank containers stands at 848,400 units.[2]Most of these tank containers are owned by operators and leasing companies.
ISO tank containers built to transport hazardous cargo have to meet a variety of regulations including but not limited to IMDG, ADR-RID- US DOT and other. There are a variety of UN Portable tank types, the most common of which is T11 as it is permitted to transport a thousand or more hazardous bulk chemicals.
There are hundreds of tank container operators worldwide; they can vary on the service they offer. The bigger operators typically offer a wide range of services, while smaller operators may only offer services in one region or with one type of tank.
The tank container concept was also employed in Europe by Bob Fossey, an engineer who worked for Williams Fairclough inLondon. They improved on the 1950s framed American elliptical container tanks, oft noted carrying specified USA engine oils for the UK’s MoD aircraft built in Preston, Lancashire. In 1964, Fairclough made a swap body tank for combined transport by truck and train, but not yet constructed according to ISO standards. In 1966, commercial production began and one year later the first tank container to ISO dimensions was developed. The first mass-produced tank containers were purchased by Trafpak, a part ofPakhoed.
In 1969, the ISOTANK was registered as a name by Andrews of Aintree Ltd., Liverpool. Their's were the first ISO container tanks in the world to get Lloyds Register and the UK DoT Hazardous Goods Department design approvals for international transport. They were essential and additional to UK approvals, much good advice was gained from several relevant, sound authorities in USA; Canada; Australia; R S Africa et al..
Built by Andrews of Aintree., Liverpool, and tested at Ellis Research facility. George Lambert, the ISOTANK’S designer, was also the company’s division head, thus responsible for sales or advising clients on the new product’s wide range of complex issues.
This first order to Andrews came from a major shipping line entering the bulk sensitive liquids by ISO means. It was reported as won by merit of the approved data and reputation. The initial order was for 20 off insulated and electrically heated units, 10 for hazardous substances, 10 for non- hazardous substances.
In the early 1970s, the tank container evolved to its current form and the production was also well underway. In the early days, production took place in Europe. In 2010 and afterward, production is mainly inChinaandSouth Africa.
A tank container can be loaded and unloaded from the top and the bottom. On a standard tank container there is amanhole, at least onevalveon the top, and there is a valve at the bottom. Loading and unloading is done by connecting hoses of the loading and unloading facility to the valves of the tank. The loading or unloading is often done using apump. Depending on the installation and regulation of certain products, it is determined how the tank container should be loaded or unloaded.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanktainer
|
The termunit loadrefers to the size of an assemblage into which a number of individual items are combined for ease of storage and handling,[1]for example apalletload represents a unit load which can be moved easily with apallet jackorforklift truck, or a container load represents a unit for shipping purposes. A unit load can be packed tightly into awarehouserack,intermodal container,truckorboxcars, yet can be easily broken apart at a distribution point, usually adistribution center,wholesaler, orretail storefor sale to consumers or for use.[2]
Most consumer and industrial products move through the supply chain in unitized or unit load form for at least part of their distribution cycle. Unit loads make handling, storage, and distribution more efficient. They help reduce handling costs and damage by reducing individual handling.
A typical unit load might consist ofcorrugated fiberboardboxes stacked on apalletorslip sheetand stabilized withstretch wrap,pressure-sensitive tape,strappingorshrink wrap. About 2 billion unit loads are in daily use in the United States.[3]
There are three kinds of unit load design: component-based, systems-based, and standards-compliant. These have different applications.
Component-based design is the outmodedad hocmethod of unit load design. Components are sometimes over-specified to get assured performance, or tested to get inexpensive economic performance.
Unit load storage and distribution systems consist of several interacting parts:
Considerable knowledge exists regarding the design of each of these components: their interactions have more recently been studied. When packaging, pallet, and handling systems are designed separately at different locations by different teams, the result might be inefficient unit load systems.
The consequences of independent component-based design in the supply chain can include:
Systems-based design is a proven process of unit load component cost optimization based on an understanding of how the pallet, packaging and material handling equipment interact during product distribution and storage to design the unit load component parts.
A systems-based approach to unit load design uses software tools and lab testing to create a package that uses just the right amount of material to protect the product, make for safe handling and transportation and minimize the use of non-recyclable materials.[4]
Companies must now consider sustainability when determining how their packaging products will be reused or recycled at the end of their journey. By combining sustainability with unit load science, they not only create the optimal unit load, but also reduce the amount of packaging material used to transport that load, maximizing the materials that can be recycled and minimizing what goes into a landfill.[4]
Unit loads move via an unpredictable combination of many types of vehicles and storage areas, and the exact set is difficult to predict. Therefore, unit loads must be designed to travel by any such vehicles, and be stored in a wide variety of places. There are many similarities in the requirements for long-term storage and long-distance transportation of unit loads.
Factors considered in unit load systems-based design include:
Often a few inexpensive additions to the packaging can stabilize or stiffen a critical part and give good unit-load performance at a low cost.[5]
Standardspermit a unit load to be designed and tested to meet a writtenspecificationortest method. A unit load can beverifiedto comply with a standard andvalidatedto determine that the unit load is indeed effective.
Standards provide institutional memory of the many conditions in real logistic trains, and collect the best practices for design and testing unit loads. Standards also describe load requirements, so that logistic providers can plan to meet them.
ASTMD4169 has standard test protocols for unit loads. These vary based on the value of the load, the expected hazards, and the distribution environment. This is a performance-based standard.
Another standard for unit loads is MIL-STD-1660, a standard for ammunition unit loads.[1]DOD unit loads generally use 40 in × 48 in (1,016 mm × 1,219 mm) pallets, which unfortunately do not pack efficiently into ISO containers. They weigh less than 4,000 lb (1,814 kg) to limit the stresses on handling equipment. They are weatherproof, and stack 16 ft (4.877 m) high. They often use steel pallets, steel straps with notched seals, outdoor plywood, and plastic film. MIL-STD-1660 mandates that loads must never be less than the width of a pallet, while permitting some overhang. The markings are LOGMARSbar codesand standard inventory numbers. The standard describes major parts of the logistic path, including storage, ship, air, truck, forklift and sling (i.e. ship-to-ship and parachute). There are auxiliary standards for ship-to-ship transfers, and amphibious transfers. There are tests for stacking, transport, sling, forklift and pallet jack, impact, drop tests, tip, water-retention (i.e. weather), and safe disassembly.
MIL-STD-1660 at first looks like overdesign to commercial unit-load designers. However, similar marking standards, safety, stability, volumetric efficiency, weight limits and impact resistance are routinely needed in commercial logistics. Sling handling is routine for small ports and noncontainer transports. Weatherproofness could be optional. It is sometimes valuable, and the baggies are cheap. High, standardized stacking could be optional as well. It is expensive, but sometimes valuable for rackless and military customers.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_load
|
Browser securityis the application ofInternet securitytoweb browsersin order to protectnetworkeddata andcomputer systemsfrom breaches of privacy ormalware. Security exploits ofbrowsersoften useJavaScript, sometimes withcross-site scripting(XSS) with a secondary payload usingAdobe Flash. Security exploits can also take advantage ofvulnerabilities(security holes) that are commonly exploited in allbrowsers.
The first web browser, WorldWideWeb, created in 1990 by SirTim Berners-Lee, was rudimentary, using theHTTP protocolto navigate between documents. TheMosaic web browser, released in April 1993, featured a graphical user interface that made the Web more accessible, sparking the Internet boom of the 1990s. This boom led to the browser wars betweenNetscape Navigator, developed by Mosaic's creators, and Microsoft'sInternet Explorer. This fierce competition was characterized by a rapid race to incorporate new features, often at the expense of userprivacyandsecurity.[1][2]Features were added to HTML to support interoperability with proprietary systems likeVBScriptandJava applets, and vendors aimed to ensure their browsers could handle websites optimized for competitor. This led to increasingly convoluted set of undocumented hacks and fault tolerant architectures that were often hard to standardize due to competing interests.[3]After the end of this period, colloquially known as thefirst browser war, Internet Explorer captured over 80% of the market. However, despite being in this dominant position, Microsoft, the creator of Internet Explorer did not invest significantly into the browser after this period.[4]This led to the proliferation of security issues, browservulnerabilitiesand webwormsleading eventually to the creation of modern browsers likeMozilla Firefox,Safariand eventuallyGoogle Chrome.[3]
Web browsers can be breached in one or more of the following ways:
The browser may not be aware of any of the breaches above and may show the user a safe connection is made.
Whenever a browser communicates with a website, the website, as part of that communication, collects some information about the browser (in order to process the formatting of the page to be delivered, if nothing else).[7]If malicious code has been inserted into the website's content, or in a worst-case scenario, if that website has been specifically designed to host malicious code, then vulnerabilities specific to a particular browser can allow this malicious code to run processes within the browser application in unintended ways (and remember, one of the bits of information that a website collects from a browser communication is the browser's identity- allowing specific vulnerabilities to be exploited).[8]Once an attacker is able to run processes on the visitor's machine, then exploiting known security vulnerabilities can allow the attacker to gain privileged access (if the browser isn't already running with privileged access) to the "infected" system in order to perform an even greater variety of malicious processes and activities on the machine or even the victim's whole network.[9]
Breaches of web browser security are usually for the purpose of bypassing protections to displaypop-up advertising[10]collectingpersonally identifiable information(PII) for eitherInternet marketingoridentity theft,website trackingorweb analyticsabout a user against their will using tools such asweb bugs,Clickjacking,Likejacking(whereFacebook'slike buttonis targeted),[11][12][13][14]HTTP cookies,zombie cookiesorFlash cookies(Local Shared Objects or LSOs);[15]installingadware,viruses,spywaresuch asTrojan horses(to gain access to users'personal computersviacracking) or othermalwareincludingonline bankingtheft usingman-in-the-browserattacks.
In depth study of vulnerabilities in Chromium web-browser indicates that, Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) and Improper Access Control (CWE-284) are the most occurring root causes for security vulnerabilities.[16]Furthermore, among vulnerabilities examined at the time of this study, 106 vulnerabilities occurred in Chromium because of reusing or importing vulnerable versions of third party libraries.
Vulnerabilities in the web browser software itself can be minimized by keeping browser software updated,[17]but will not be sufficient if the underlying operating system is compromised, for example, by a rootkit.[18]Some subcomponents of browsers such as scripting, add-ons, and cookies[19][20][21]are particularly vulnerable ("theconfused deputy problem") and also need to be addressed.
Following the principle ofdefence in depth, a fully patched and correctly configured browser may not be sufficient to ensure that browser-related security issues cannot occur. For example, arootkitcancapture keystrokeswhile someone logs into a banking website, or carry out aman-in-the-middleattack by modifying network traffic to and from a web browser.DNS hijackingorDNS spoofingmay be used to return false positives for mistyped website names, or to subvert search results for popular search engines. Malware such asRSPlugsimply modifies a system's configuration to point at rogue DNS servers.
Browsers can use more secure methods ofnetwork communicationto help prevent some of these attacks:
Perimeter defenses, typically through firewalls and the use offilteringproxy serversthat block malicious websites and perform antivirus scans of any file downloads, are commonly implemented as a best practice in large organizations to block malicious network traffic before it reaches a browser.
The topic of browser security has grown to the point of spawning the creation of entire organizations, such as The Browser Exploitation Framework Project,[22]creating platforms to collect tools to breach browser security, ostensibly in order to test browsers and network systems for vulnerabilities.
Although not part of the browser per se, browserpluginsandextensionsextend theattack surface, exposing vulnerabilities inAdobe Flash Player,Adobe (Acrobat) Reader,Java plugin, andActiveXthat are commonly exploited. Researchers[23]have extensively studied the security architecture of various web-browsers in particular those relying on plug-and-play designs. This study has identified 16 common vulnerability types, and 19 potential mitigations. Malware may also be implemented as a browser extension, such as abrowser helper objectin the case of Internet Explorer.[24]In various other exploits websites which were designed to look authentic and included rogue 'update Adobe Flash' popups designed as visual cues to download malware payloads in their place.[25]Some browsers likeGoogle Chromeand MozillaFirefoxcan block—or warn users of—insecure plugins.
An August 2009 study by theSocial Science Research Networkfound that 50% of websites using Flash were also employing Flash cookies, yet privacy policies rarely disclosed them, and user controls for privacy preferences were lacking.[26]Most browsers'cacheand history delete functions do not affect Flash Player's writing Local Shared Objects to its own cache, and the user community is much less aware of the existence and function of Flash cookies than HTTP cookies.[27]Thus, users having deleted HTTP cookies and purged browser history files and caches may believe that they have purged all tracking data from their computers while in fact Flash browsing history remains. As well as manual removal, the BetterPrivacy add-on for Firefox can remove Flash cookies.[15]Adblock Pluscan be used to filter out specific threats[10]andFlashblockcan be used to give an option before allowing content on otherwise trusted sites.[28]
Charlie Millerrecommended "not to install Flash"[29]at thecomputer security conferenceCanSecWest. Several other security experts also recommend to either not install Adobe Flash Player or to block it.[30]
The contents of a web page are arbitrary and controlled by the entity owning the domain named displayed in the address bar. IfHTTPSis used, then encryption is used to secure against attackers with access to the network from changing the page contents en route. When presented with a password field on a web page, a user is supposed to look at the address bar to determine whether the domain name in the address bar is the correct place to send the password.[31]For example, for Google's single sign-on system (used on e.g. YouTube.com), the user should always check that the address bar says "https://accounts.google.com" before inputting their password.
An un-compromised browser guarantees that the address bar is correct. This guarantee is one reason why browsers will generally display a warning when entering fullscreen mode, on top of where the address bar would normally be, so that a fullscreen website cannot make a fake browser user interface with a fake address bar.[32]
Browsing the Internet as aleast-privilegeuser account (i.e. without administrator privileges) limits the ability of a security exploit in a web browser from compromising the whole operating system.[33]
Internet Explorer 4and later allows the blocklisting[34][35][36]and allowlisting[37][38]ofActiveXcontrols, add-ons and browser extensions in various ways.
Internet Explorer 7added "protected mode", a technology that hardens the browser through the application of a security sandboxing feature ofWindows VistacalledMandatory Integrity Control.[39]Google Chromeprovides asandboxto limit web page access to the operating system.[40]
Suspected malware sites reported to Google,[41]and confirmed by Google, are flagged as hosting malware in certain browsers.[42]
There are third-party extensions and plugins available tohardeneven the latest browsers,[43]and some for older browsers and operating systems.Whitelist-based software such asNoScriptcan blockJavaScriptand Adobe Flash which is used for most attacks on privacy, allowing users to choose only sites they know are safe –AdBlock Plusalso uses whitelistad filteringrules subscriptions, though both the software itself and the filtering list maintainers have come under controversy for by-default allowing some sites to pass the pre-set filters.[44]TheUS-CERTrecommends to blockFlashusingNoScript.[45]
Modern web browsers undergo extensivefuzzingto uncover vulnerabilities. TheChromiumcode ofGoogle Chromeis continuously fuzzed by the Chrome Security Team with 15,000 cores.[46]ForMicrosoft EdgeandInternet Explorer,Microsoftperformed fuzzed testing with 670 machine-years during product development, generating more than 400 billion DOM manipulations from 1 billion HTML files.[47][46]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_security
|
Mobile malwareis malicious software that targetsmobile phonesor wireless-enabledPersonal digital assistants(PDA), by causing the collapse of the system and loss or leakage of confidential information. As wireless phones and PDA networks have become more and more common and have grown in complexity, it has become increasingly difficult to ensure their safety and security against electronic attacks in the form of viruses or othermalware.[1]
The first known virus that affected mobiles, "Timofonica", originated in Spain and was identified by antivirus labs in Russia and Finland in June 2000. "Timofonica" sent SMS messages to GSM-capable mobile phones that read (in Spanish) "Information for you: Telefónica is fooling you." These messages were sent through the Internet SMS gateway of the MoviStar mobile operator. "Timofonica" ran on PCs and did not run on mobile devices so was not a true mobile malware[2]
In June 2004, it was discovered that a company called Ojam had engineered an anti-piracyTrojanhack in older versions of its mobile phone game,Mosquito. This sent SMS texts to the company without the user's knowledge.
In July 2004, computer hobbyists released a proof-of-concept virusCabir,that infects mobile phones running theSymbianoperating system, spreading viaBluetoothwireless.[3][4]This was the first true mobile malware[5]
In March 2005, it was reported that acomputer wormcalledCommwarrior-Ahad been infectingSymbianseries 60 mobile phones.[6]This specific worm replicated itself through the phone'sMultimedia Messaging Service(MMS), sending copies to contacts listed in the phone user's address book.
In August 2010,Kaspersky Labreported the trojan Trojan-SMS.AndroidOS.FakePlayer.a.[7]This was the first SMS malware that affected Google'sAndroidoperating system,[8]and which sent SMS messages to premium rate numbers without the owner's knowledge, accumulating huge bills.[9]
Currently, various antivirus software companies offer mobile antivirus software programs. Meanwhile, operating system developers try to curb the spread of infections with quality control checks on software and content offered through their digitalapplicationdistributionplatforms, such asGoogle Playor Apple'sApp Store. Recent studies however show that mobile antivirus programs are ineffective due to the rapid evolution of mobile malware.[10]
In recent years,deep learningalgorithms have also been adopted for mobile malware detection.[11]
Many types of common malicious programs are known to affect mobile devices:
In fact, with increase in creation of viruses & malwares like Trojan Horse, the camera crashing orcamfectingissues are becoming quite common.[13]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Malware
|
Phone hackingis the practice ofexploringamobile device, often usingcomputer exploitsto analyze everything from the lowestmemoryandCPUlevels up to the highestfile systemandprocesslevels. Modernopen sourcetooling has become fairly sophisticated to be able to "hook" into individual functions within any runningappon an unlocked device and allow deep inspection and modification of its functions.
Phone hacking is a large branch ofcomputer securitythat includes studying various situations exactly how attackers usesecurity exploitsto gain some level of access to amobile devicein a variety of situations and presumed access levels.
The term came to prominence during theNews International phone hacking scandal, in which it was alleged (and in some cases proved in court) that the British tabloid newspaper theNews of the Worldhad been involved in the interception of voicemail messages of theBritish royal family, other public figures, and murdered schoolgirlMilly Dowler.[1]
Although mobile phone users may be targeted, "for those who are famous, rich or powerful or whose prize is important enough (for whatever reason) to devote time and resources to make a concerted attack, it is usually more common, there are real risks to face."[2]
The unauthorized remote access tovoicemailsystems, such as exposed by theNews International phone hacking scandal, is possible because of weaknesses in the implementations of these systems bytelephone companies.[3]
Mobile phone voicemail messages may be accessed on alandlinetelephone with the entry of apersonal identification number(PIN).[4]Reporters for News International would call the number of an individual's mobile phone, wait to be moved to voicemail, and then guess the PIN, which was often set at a simple default such as 0000 or 1234.[5]
Even where the default PIN is not known,social engineeringcan be used to reset the voicemail PIN code to the default by impersonating the owner of the phone with a call to acall centre.[6][7]During the mid-2000s, calls originating from the handset registered to a voicemail account would be put straight through to voicemail without the need of a PIN. A hacker could usecaller ID spoofingto impersonate a target's handset caller ID and thereby gain access to the associated voicemail without a PIN.[8][9][10]
Following controversies over phone hacking and criticism of mobile service providers who allowed access to voicemail without a PIN, many mobile phone companies have strengthened the default security of their systems so that remote access to voicemail messages and other phone settings can no longer be achieved even via a default PIN.[4]For example,AT&Tannounced in August 2011 that all new wireless subscribers would be required to enter a PIN when checking their voicemail, even when checking it from their phones.[11]To encouragepassword strength, some companies now disallow the use of consecutive or repeat digits in voicemail PINs.[12]
An analysis of user-selected PIN codes suggested that ten numbers represent 15% of alliPhonepasscodes, with "1234" and "0000" being the most common, with years of birth and graduation also being common choices.[13]Even if a four-digit PIN is randomly selected, thekey spaceis very small (104{\displaystyle 10^{4}}or 10,000 possibilities), making PINs significantly easier tobrute forcethan most passwords; someone with physical access to a handset secured with a PIN can therefore feasibly determine the PIN in a short time.[14]
Mobile phone microphones can be activated remotely by security agencies or telephone companies without physical access as long as the battery has not been removed.[15][16][17][18][19][20]This "roving bug" feature has been used by law enforcement agencies and intelligence services to listen in on nearby conversations.[21]
Other techniques for phone hacking include tricking a mobile phone user into downloadingmalwarethat monitors activity on the phone.Bluesnarfingis an unauthorized access to a phone viaBluetooth.[7][22]
There are flaws in the implementation of theGSM encryption algorithmthat allow passive interception.[23]The equipment needed is available to government agencies or can be built from freely available parts.[24]
In December 2011, German researcher Karsten Nohl revealed that it was possible to hack into mobile phone voice and text messages on many networks with free decryption software available on the Internet. He blamed the mobile phone companies for relying on outdated encryption techniques in the2Gsystem, and said that the problem could be fixed very easily.[25]
Phone hacking, being a form ofsurveillance, is illegal in many countries unless it is carried out aslawful interceptionby a government agency. In theNews International phone hacking scandal, private investigatorGlenn Mulcairewas found to have violated theRegulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. He was sentenced to six months in prison in January 2007.[26]Renewed controversy over the phone-hacking claims led to the closure of theNews of the Worldin July 2011.[27]
In December 2010, theTruth in Caller ID Actwas signed intoUnited States law, making it illegal "to cause any caller identification service to knowingly transmit misleading or inaccurate caller identification information with the intent to defraud, cause harm, or wrongfully obtain anything of value."[28][29]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phone_hacking
|
Wiretapping, also known aswire tappingortelephone tapping, is themonitoringoftelephoneandInternet-based conversations by a third party, often by covert means. The wire tap received its name because, historically, the monitoring connection was an actual electrical tap on an analog telephone or telegraph line. Legal wiretapping by agovernment agencyis also calledlawful interception.Passive wiretappingmonitors or records the traffic, whileactive wiretappingalters or otherwise affects it.[1][2]
Lawful interceptionis officially strictly controlled in many countries to safeguardprivacy; this is the case in allliberal democracies. In theory, telephone tapping often needs to be authorized by acourt, and is again in theory, normally only approved whenevidenceshows it is not possible to detectcriminalorsubversiveactivity in less intrusive ways. Oftentimes, the law and regulations require that the crime investigated must be at least of a certain severity.[3][4]Illegal or unauthorized telephone tapping is often a criminal offense.[3]In certain jurisdictions, such asGermanyandFrance, courts will accept illegally recorded phone calls without theother party's consentas evidence, but the unauthorized telephone tapping will still be prosecuted.[5][6]
In theUnited States, under theForeign Intelligence Surveillance Act, federal intelligence agencies can get approval for wiretaps from theUnited States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a court with secret proceedings, or in certain circumstances from theAttorney Generalwithout a court order.[7][8]
Thetelephone call recording lawsin most U.S. states require only one party to be aware of the recording, while twelve states require both parties to be aware.[9][10]In Nevada, the state legislature enacted a law making it legal for a party to record a conversation if one party to the conversation consented, but the Nevada Supreme Court issued two judicial opinions changing the law and requiring all parties to consent to the recording of a private conversation for it to be legal.[11]It is considered better practice to announce at the beginning of a call that the conversation is being recorded.[12][13]
TheFourth Amendment to the United States Constitutionprotects privacy rights by requiring awarrantto search a person. However, telephone tapping is the subject of controversy surrounding violations of this right. There are arguments that wiretapping invades a person's personal privacy and therefore violates their Fourth Amendment rights. On the other hand, there are certain rules and regulations, which permit wiretapping. A notable example of this is thePatriot Act, which, in certain circumstances, gives the government permission to wiretap citizens.[14]In addition, wiretapping laws vary perstate, making it even more difficult to determine whether the Fourth Amendment is being violated.[15]
In Canadian law, police are allowed to wiretap without the authorization from a court when there is the risk for imminent harm, such askidnappingor abomb threat.[16]They must believe that the interception is immediately necessary to prevent an unlawful act that could cause serious harm to any person or to property. This was introduced byRob Nicholsonon February 11, 2013, and is also known as Bill C-55.[16]The Supreme Court gave Parliament twelve months to rewrite a new law.Bill C-51(also known as the Anti-Terrorism Act) was then released in 2015, which transformed the Canadian Security Intelligence Service from an intelligence-gathering agency to an agency actively engaged in countering national security threats.
Legal protection extends to 'private communications' where the participants would not expect unintended persons to learn the content of the communication. A single participant can legally, and covertly record a conversation. Otherwise police normally need a judicial warrant based upon probable grounds to record a conversation they are not a part of. In order to be valid wiretap authorization must state: 1) the offense being investigated by the wiretap, 2) the type of communication, 3) the identity of the people or places targeted, 4) the period of validity (60 days from issue).[17]
In India, the lawful interception of communication by authorized law enforcement agencies (LEAs) is carried out in accordance with Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Rule 419A of Indian Telegraph (Amendment) Rules, 2007. Directions for interception of any message or class of messages under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 shall not be issued except by an order made by the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs in the case of Government of India and by the Secretary to the State Government in-charge of the Home Department in the case of a state government.[18]The government has set up theCentralized Monitoring System(CMS) to automate the process of lawful interception and monitoring of telecommunications technology. The government of India on 2015 December 2 in a reply to parliament question no. 595 on scope, objectives and framework of the CMS has struck a balance between national security, online privacy and free speech informed that to take care of the privacy of citizens, lawful interception and monitoring is governed by the Section 5(2) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Rule 419A of Indian Telegraph (Amendment) Rules, 2007 wherein oversight mechanism exists in form of review committee under chairmanship of the Cabinet Secretary at Central Government level and Chief Secretary of the State at the state government level.[19][20]Section 5(2) also allows the government to intercept messages that are public emergencies or for public safety.[21]
In Pakistan,Inter-Services Intelligence(ISI) is authorised by the Ministry of Information Technology and Telecommunication to intercept and trace telecommunications, as stipulated under Section 54 of the relevant Act, in July 2024.[22]Under the authorization, ISI officers of at least grade 18, subject to periodic designation, are empowered to surveil calls and messages.[22]
The contracts or licenses by which the state controlstelephone companiesoften require that the companies must provide access to tapping lines to law enforcement. In the U.S., telecommunications carriers are required by law to cooperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes under the terms ofCommunications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act(CALEA).[23]
Whentelephone exchangeswere mechanical, a tap had to be installed by technicians, linking circuits together to route the audio signal from the call. Now that many exchanges have been converted to digital technology, tapping is far simpler and can be ordered remotely by computer. This central office switch wiretapping technology using the Advanced Intelligent Network (AIN) was invented by Wayne Howe and Dale Malik at BellSouth's Advanced Technology R&D group in 1995 and was issued as US Patent #5,590,171.[24]Telephone servicesprovided bycable TVcompanies also use digital switching technology. If the tap is implemented at adigital switch, the switching computer simply copies the digitized bits that represent the phone conversation to a second line and it is impossible to tell whether a line is being tapped. A well-designed tap installed on a phone wire can be difficult to detect. In some places, some law enforcement may be able to even access a mobile phone's internal microphone even while it isn't actively being used on a phone call (unless the battery is removed or drained).[25]The noises that some people believe to be telephone taps are simplycrosstalkcreated by thecouplingof signals from other phone lines.[26]
Data on the calling and called number, time of call and duration, will generally be collected automatically on all calls and stored for later use by thebillingdepartment of the phone company. These data can be accessed by security services, often with fewer legal restrictions than for a tap. This information used to be collected using special equipment known aspen registersandtrap and trace devicesand U.S. law still refers to it under those names. Today, a list of all calls to a specific number can be obtained by sorting billing records. A telephone tap during which only the call information is recorded but not the contents of the phone calls themselves, is called apen registertap.
For telephone services via digital exchanges, the information collected may additionally include a log of the type of communications media being used (some services treat data and voice communications differently, in order to conserve bandwidth).
Conversations can be recorded or monitored unofficially, either by tapping by a third party without the knowledge of the parties to the conversation or recorded by one of the parties. This may or may not be illegal, according to the circumstances and the jurisdiction.
There are a number of ways to monitor telephone conversations. One of the parties may record the conversation, either on a tape or solid-state recording device, or they may use a computer runningcall recording software. The recording, whether overt or covert, may be started manually, automatically when it detects sound on the line (VOX), or automatically whenever the phone is off the hook.
The conversation may be monitored (listened to or recorded) covertly by a third party by using aninduction coilor a direct electrical connection to the line using abeige box. An induction coil is usually placed underneath the base of a telephone or on the back of a telephone handset to pick up the signal inductively. An electrical connection can be made anywhere in the telephone system, and need not be in the same premises as the telephone. Some apparatus may require occasional access to replace batteries or tapes. Poorly designed tapping or transmitting equipment can cause interference audible to users of the telephone.[citation needed]
The tapped signal may either be recorded at the site of the tap or transmitted by radio or over the telephone wires. As of 2007[update]state-of-the-art equipment operates in the 30–300 GHz range to keep up with telephone technology compared to the 772 kHz systems used in the past.[29][30]The transmitter may be powered from the line to be maintenance-free, and only transmits when a call is in progress. These devices are low-powered as not much power can be drawn from the line, but a state-of-the-art receiver could be located as far away as ten kilometers under ideal conditions, though usually located much closer. Research has shown that asatellitecan be used to receive terrestrialtransmissionswith a power of a few milliwatts.[31]Any sort of radio transmitter whose presence is suspected is detectable with suitable equipment.
Conversation on many earlycordless telephonescould be picked up with a simpleradio scanneror sometimes even a domestic radio. Widespread digitalspread spectrumtechnology andencryptionhas made eavesdropping increasingly difficult.
A problem with recording a telephone conversation is that the recorded volume of the two speakers may be very different. A simple tap will have this problem. An in-ear microphone, while involving an additional distorting step by converting the electrical signal to sound and back again, in practice gives better-matched volume. Dedicated, and relatively expensive, telephone recording equipment equalizes the sound at both ends from a direct tap much better.
Mobile phonesare, insurveillanceterms, a major liability.
For mobile phones the major threat is the collection of communications data.[32][33]This data does not only include information about the time, duration, originator and recipient of the call, but also the identification of the base station where the call was made from, which equals its approximate geographical location. This data is stored with the details of the call and has utmost importance fortraffic analysis.
It is also possible to get greater resolution of a phone's location by combining information from a number of cells surrounding the location, which cells routinely communicate (to agree on the next handoff—for a moving phone) and measuring thetiming advance, a correction for the speed of light in theGSMstandard. This additional precision must be specifically enabled by the telephone company—it is not part of the network's ordinary operation.
In 1995,Peter Garza, a Special Agent with theNaval Criminal Investigative Service, conducted the first court-ordered Internet wiretap in the United States while investigating Julio Cesar "Griton" Ardita.[34][35]
As technologies emerge, includingVoIP, new questions are raised about law enforcement access to communications (seeVoIP recording). In 2004, theFederal Communications Commissionwas asked to clarify how theCommunications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act(CALEA) related to Internet service providers. The FCC stated that “providers of broadband Internet access and voice over Internet protocol (“VoIP”) services are regulable as “telecommunications carriers” under the Act.”[36]Those affected by the Act will have to provide access to law enforcement officers who need to monitor or intercept communications transmitted through their networks. As of 2009, warrantless surveillance of internet activity has consistently been upheld inFISA court.[37]
TheInternet Engineering Task Forcehas decided not to consider requirements for wiretapping as part of the process for creating and maintaining IETF standards.[38]
Typically, illegal Internet wiretapping is conducted viaWi-Ficonnection to someone's Internet by cracking theWEPorWPAkey, using a tool such asAircrack-ngorKismet.[39][40]Once in, the intruder relies on a number of potential tactics, for example anARP spoofingattack, allowing the intruder to viewpacketsin a tool such asWiresharkorEttercap.
The first generation mobile phones (c.1978through 1990) could be easily monitored by anyone with a'scanning all-band receiver'because the system used an analog transmission system-like an ordinary radio transmitter. Instead, digital phones are harder to monitor because they use digitally encoded and compressed transmission. However the government can tap mobile phones with the cooperation of the phone company.[41]It is also possible for organizations with the correct technical equipment to monitor mobile phone communications and decrypt the audio.[citation needed]
To the mobile phones in its vicinity, a device called an "IMSI-catcher" pretends to be a legitimate base station of the mobile phone network, thus subjecting the communication between the phone and the network to aman-in-the-middle attack. This is possible because, while the mobile phone has to authenticate itself to the mobile telephone network, the network does not authenticate itself to the phone.[42][failed verification]There is no defense against IMSI-catcher based eavesdropping, except using end-to-end call encryption; products offering this feature,secure telephones, are already beginning to appear on the market, though they tend to be expensive and incompatible with each other, which limits their proliferation.[43]
Logging theIP addressesof users that access certain websites is commonly called "webtapping".[44]
Webtapping is used to monitor websites that presumably contain dangerous or sensitive materials, and the people that access them. It is allowed in the US by thePatriot Act, but is considered a questionable practice by many.[45]
In Canada, anyone is legally allowed to record a conversation as long as they are involved in the conversation. The police must apply for a warrant beforehand to legally eavesdrop on a conversation, which requires that it is expected to reveal evidence to a crime. State agents may record conversations, but must obtain a warrant to use them as evidence in court.
The history of voice communication technology began in 1876 with the invention ofAlexander Graham Bell's telephone. In the 1890s, "law enforcement agencies begin tapping wires on early telephone networks".[46]Remote voice communications "were carried almost exclusively by circuit-switched systems," where telephone switches would connect wires to form a continuous circuit and disconnect the wires when the call ended. All other telephone services, such as call forwarding and message taking, were handled by human operators.[47]
The earliest wiretaps were extra wires — physically inserted to the line between the switchboard and the subscriber — that carried the signal to a pair of earphones and a recorder. Later, wiretaps were installed at the central office on the frames that held the incoming wires.[47]In late 1940, the Nazis tried to secure some telephone lines between their forward headquarters in Paris and a variety ofFuhrerbunkersin Germany. They did this by constantly monitoring the voltage on the lines, looking for any sudden drops or increases in voltage indicating that other wiring had been attached. However, the French telephone engineer Robert Keller succeeded in attaching taps without alerting the Nazis. This was done through an isolated rental property just outside ofParis. Keller's group became known toSOE(and later Allied military intelligence generally) as "Source K". They were later betrayed by a mole within the French resistance, and Keller was murdered in theBergen-Belsenconcentration campin April 1945. The first computerized telephone switch was developed by Bell Labs in 1965; it did not support standard wiretapping techniques.[46]
In theGreek telephone tapping case 2004–2005more than 100 mobile phone numbers belonging mostly to members of the Greek government, including thePrime Minister of Greece, and top-ranking civil servants were found to have been illegally tapped for a period of at least one year. The Greek government concluded this had been done by a foreign intelligence agency, for security reasons related to the2004 Olympic Games, by unlawfully activating the lawful interception subsystem of theVodafone Greecemobile network. An Italian tapping case which surfaced in November 2007 revealed significant manipulation of the news at the national television companyRAI.[48]
Many state legislatures in the United States enacted statutes that prohibited anyone from listening in on telegraph communication. Telephone wiretapping began in the 1890s,[3]and itsconstitutionalitywas established in theProhibition-Era conviction ofbootleggerRoy Olmstead. Wiretapping has also been carried out in the US under most presidents, sometimes with a lawful warrant since theSupreme Courtruled it constitutional in 1928.
Before theattack on Pearl Harborand the subsequent entry of the United States intoWorld War II, the U.S. House of Representatives held hearings on the legality of wiretapping for national defense. Significant legislation and judicial decisions on the legality and constitutionality of wiretapping had taken place years before World War II.[49]However, it took on new urgency at that time of national crisis. The actions of the government regarding wiretapping for the purpose of national defense in the current war on terror have drawn considerable attention and criticism. In the World War II era, the public was also aware of the controversy over the question of the constitutionality and legality of wiretapping. Furthermore, the public was concerned with the decisions that the legislative and judicial branches of the government were making regarding wiretapping.[50]
On October 19, 1963, U.S. Attorney GeneralRobert F. Kennedy, who served underJohn F. KennedyandLyndon B. Johnson, authorized theFBIto begin wiretapping the communications of Rev.Martin Luther King Jr.The wiretaps remained in place until April 1965 at his home and June 1966 at his office.[51]In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that wiretapping (or “intercepting communications”) requires a warrant inKatz v. United States.[52]In 1968 Congress passed a law that provided warrants for wiretapping in criminal investigations.[53]
In the 1970s,optical fibersbecome a medium for telecommunications. These fiber lines, "long, thin strands of glass that carry signals via laser light," are more secure than radio and have become very cheap. From the 1990s to the present, the majority of communications between fixed locations has been achieved by fiber. Because these fiber communications are wired, they are protected under U.S. law.[46][47]
In 1978, the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) created a "secret federal court" for issuing wiretap warrants in national security cases. This was in response to findings from the Watergate break-in, which allegedly uncovered a history of presidential operations that had used surveillance on domestic and foreign political organizations.[54]
A difference between US wiretapping in the US and elsewhere is that, when operating in other countries, "American intelligence services could not place wiretaps on phone lines as easily as they could in the U.S." Also, in the US, wiretapping is regarded as an extreme investigative technique, while communications are often intercepted in some other countries. The National Security Agency (NSA) "spends billions of dollars every year intercepting foreign communications from ground bases, ships, airplanes and satellites".[47]
FISA distinguishes between U.S. persons and foreigners, between communications inside and outside the U.S., and between wired and wireless communications. Wired communications within the United States are protected, since intercepting them requires a warrant,[47]but there is no regulation of US wiretapping elsewhere.
In 1994, Congress approved the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), which “requires telephone companies to be able to install more effective wiretaps. In 2004, theFederal Bureau of Investigation(FBI),United States Department of Justice(DOJ),Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives(ATF), andDrug Enforcement Administration(DEA) wanted to expand CALEA requirements to VoIP service.”[46][47]
TheFederal Communications Commission(FCC) ruled in August 2005 that “broadband-service providers and interconnectedVoIPproviders fall within CALEA's scope. Currently, instant messaging, web boards and site visits are not included in CALEA's jurisdiction.[55]In 2007 Congress amended FISA to "allow the government to monitor more communications without a warrant". In 2008 PresidentGeorge W. Bushexpanded the surveillance of internet traffic to and from the U.S. government by signing a national security directive.[46]
TheNSA warrantless surveillance (2001–2007)controversy was discovered in December 2005. It aroused much controversy after then PresidentGeorge W. Bushadmitted to violating a specific federal statute (FISA) and the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment to theUnited States Constitution. The President claimed his authorization was consistent with other federal statutes (AUMF) and other provisions of the Constitution, also stating that it was necessary to keep America safe fromterrorismand could lead to the capture of notorious terrorists responsible for theSeptember 11 attacksin 2001.[citation needed][56]
In 2008,Wiredand other media reported alamplighterdisclosed a "Quantico Circuit", a 45-megabit/second DS-3 line linking a carrier's most sensitive network in an affidavit that was the basis for a lawsuit against Verizon Wireless. The circuit provides direct access to all content and all information concerning the origin and termination of telephone calls placed on the Verizon Wireless network as well as the actual content of calls, according to the filing.[57]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_tapping
|
Wireless Public Key Infrastructure (WPKI)is a technology that providespublic key infrastructurefunctionality using a mobile Secure Element such as aSIM card.[1][2]It can be used for example fortwo-factor authentication.
This cryptography-related article is astub. You can help Wikipedia byexpanding it.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Public_Key_Infrastructure
|
Abotnetis a group ofInternet-connected devices, each of which runs one or morebots. Botnets can be used to performdistributed denial-of-service(DDoS) attacks, steal data,[1]sendspam, and allow the attacker to access the device and its connection. The owner can control the botnet using command and control (C&C) software.[2]The word "botnet" is aportmanteauof the words "robot" and "network". The term is usually used with a negative or malicious connotation.
A botnet is a logical collection ofInternet-connected devices, such as computers,smartphonesorInternet of things(IoT) devices whosesecurityhave been breached and control ceded to a third party. Each compromised device, known as a "bot," is created when a device is penetrated by software from amalware(malicious software) distribution. The controller of a botnet is able to direct the activities of these compromised computers through communication channels formed by standards-basednetwork protocols, such asIRCandHypertext Transfer Protocol(HTTP).[3][4]
Botnets are increasinglyrented outbycyber criminalsas commodities for a variety of purposes,[5]including asbooter/stresserservices.
Botnet architecture has evolved over time in an effort to evade detection and disruption. Traditionally, bot programs are constructed asclientswhich communicate via existing servers. This allows thebot herder(the controller of the botnet) to perform all control from a remote location, which obfuscates the traffic.[6]Many recent botnets now rely on existingpeer-to-peer networksto communicate. These P2P bot programs perform the same actions as the client–server model, but they do not require a central server to communicate.
The first botnets on the Internet used a client–server model to accomplish their tasks.[7]Typically, these botnets operate throughInternet Relay Chatnetworks,domains, orwebsites. Infected clients access a predetermined location and await incoming commands from the server. The bot herder sends commands to the server, which relays them to the clients. Clients execute the commands and report their results back to the bot herder.
In the case ofIRC botnets, infected clients connect to an infected IRCserverand join a channel pre-designated for C&C by the bot herder. The bot herder sends commands to the channel via the IRC server. Each client retrieves the commands and executes them. Clients send messages back to the IRC channel with the results of their actions.[6]
In response to efforts to detect and decapitate IRC botnets, bot herders have begun deploying malware onpeer-to-peernetworks. These bots may usedigital signaturesso that only someone with access to the private key can control the botnet,[8]such as inGameover ZeuSand theZeroAccess botnet.
Newer botnets fully operate over P2P networks. Rather than communicate with a centralized server, P2P bots perform as both a command distribution server and a client which receives commands.[9]This avoids having any single point of failure, which is an issue for centralized botnets.
In order to find other infected machines, P2P bots discreetly probe randomIP addressesuntil they identify another infected machine. The contacted bot replies with information such as its software version and list of known bots. If one of the bots' version is lower than the other, they will initiate a file transfer to update.[8]This way, each bot grows its list of infected machines and updates itself by periodically communicating to all known bots.
A botnet's originator (known as a "bot herder" or "bot master") controls the botnet remotely. This is known as the command-and-control (C&C). The program for the operation must communicate via acovert channelto the client on the victim's machine (zombie computer).
IRC is a historically favored means of C&C because of itscommunication protocol. A bot herder creates an IRC channel for infected clients to join. Messages sent to the channel are broadcast to all channel members. The bot herder may set the channel's topic to command the botnet. For example, the message:herder!herder@example.com TOPIC #channel DDoS www.victim.comfrom the bot herder alerts all infected clients belonging to #channel to begin a DDoS attack on the website www.victim.com. An example response:bot1!bot1@compromised.net PRIVMSG #channel I am DDoSing www.victim.comby a bot client alerts the bot herder that it has begun the attack.[8]
Some botnets implement custom versions of well-known protocols. The implementation differences can be used for detection of botnets. For example,Mega-Dfeatures a slightly modifiedSimple Mail Transfer Protocol(SMTP) implementation for testing spam capability. Bringing down theMega-D's SMTP server disables the entire pool of bots that rely upon the same SMTP server.[10]
Incomputer science, azombie computeris a computer connected to the Internet that has been compromised by ahacker,computer virusortrojan horseand can be used to perform malicious tasks under remote direction. Botnets of zombie computers are often used to spreade-mail spamand launchdenial-of-service attacks(DDoS). Most owners of zombie computers are unaware that their system is being used in this way. Because the owner tends to be unaware, these computers are metaphorically compared tozombies. A coordinated DDoS attack by multiple botnet machines also resembles a zombie horde attack.[11]
The process of stealing computing resources as a result of a system being joined to a "botnet" is sometimes referred to as "scrumping".[12]
Botnet command and control (C&C) protocols have been implemented in a number of ways, from traditional IRC approaches to more sophisticated versions.
Telnetbotnets use a simple C&C botnet protocol in which bots connect to the main command server to host the botnet. Bots are added to the botnet by using a scanningscript, which runs on an external server and scansIP rangesfor telnet andSSHserver default logins. Once a login is found, the scanning server can infect it through SSH with malware, which pings the control server.
IRC networks use simple, low bandwidth communication methods, making them widely used to host botnets. They tend to be relatively simple in construction and have been used with moderate success for coordinating DDoS attacks and spam campaigns while being able to continually switch channels to avoid being taken down. However, in some cases, merely blocking of certain keywords has proven effective in stopping IRC-based botnets. The RFC 1459 (IRC) standard is popular with botnets. The first known popular botnet controller script, "MaXiTE Bot" was using IRC XDCC protocol for private control commands.
One problem with using IRC is that each bot client must know the IRC server, port, and channel to be of any use to the botnet. Anti-malware organizations can detect and shut down these servers and channels, effectively halting the botnet attack. If this happens, clients are still infected, but they typically lie dormant since they have no way of receiving instructions.[8]To mitigate this problem, a botnet can consist of several servers or channels. If one of the servers or channels becomes disabled, the botnet simply switches to another. It is still possible to detect and disrupt additional botnet servers or channels by sniffing IRC traffic. A botnet adversary can even potentially gain knowledge of the control scheme and imitate the bot herder by issuing commands correctly.[13]
Since most botnets using IRC networks and domains can be taken down with time, hackers have moved to P2P botnets with C&C to make the botnet more resilient and resistant to termination.
Some have also usedencryptionas a way to secure or lock down the botnet from others, most of the time when they use encryption it ispublic-key cryptographyand has presented challenges in both implementing it and breaking it.
Many large botnets tend to use domains rather than IRC in their construction (seeRustock botnetandSrizbi botnet). They are usually hosted withbulletproof hostingservices. This is one of the earliest types of C&C. A zombie computer accesses a specially-designed webpage or domain(s) which serves the list of controlling commands. The advantages of usingweb pagesor domains as C&C is that a large botnet can be effectively controlled and maintained with very simple code that can be readily updated.
Disadvantages of using this method are that it uses a considerable amount of bandwidth at large scale, and domains can be quickly seized by government agencies with little effort. If the domains controlling the botnets are not seized, they are also easy targets to compromise withdenial-of-service attacks.
Fast-flux DNScan be used to make it difficult to track down the control servers, which may change from day to day. Control servers may also hop from DNS domain to DNS domain, withdomain generation algorithmsbeing used to create new DNS names for controller servers.
Some botnets use freeDNShosting services such asDynDns.org,No-IP.com, and Afraid.org to point asubdomaintowards an IRC server that harbors the bots. While these free DNS services do not themselves host attacks, they provide reference points (often hard-coded into the botnet executable). Removing such services can cripple an entire botnet.
Calling back to popular sites[14]such asGitHub,[15]Twitter,[16][17]Reddit,[18]Instagram,[19]theXMPPopen source instant message protocol[20]andTorhidden services[21]are popular ways of avoidingegress filteringto communicate with a C&C server.[22]
This example illustrates how a botnet is created and used for malicious gain.
Newer bots can automatically scan their environment and propagate themselves using vulnerabilities and weak passwords. Generally, the more vulnerabilities a bot can scan and propagate through, the more valuable it becomes to a botnet controller community.[23]
Computers can be co-opted into a botnet when they execute malicious software. This can be accomplished by luring users into making adrive-by download, exploitingweb browser vulnerabilities, or by tricking the user into running aTrojan horseprogram, which may come from an email attachment. This malware will typically install modules that allow the computer to be commanded and controlled by the botnet's operator. After the software is downloaded, it will call home (send a reconnectionpacket) to the host computer. When the re-connection is made, depending on how it is written, a Trojan may then delete itself or may remain present to update and maintain the modules.
In some cases, a botnet may be temporarily created by volunteerhacktivists, such as with implementations of theLow Orbit Ion Cannonas used by4chanmembers duringProject Chanologyin 2010.[24]
China'sGreat Cannon of Chinaallows the modification of legitimate web browsing traffic atinternet backbonesinto China to create a large ephemeral botnet to attack large targets such asGitHubin 2015.[25]
The botnet controller community constantly competes over who has the most bots, the highest overall bandwidth, and the most "high-quality" infected machines, like university, corporate, and even government machines.[33]
While botnets are often named after the malware that created them, multiple botnets typically use the same malware but are operated by different entities.[34]
Botnets can be used for many electronic scams. These botnets can be used to distribute malware such as viruses to take control of a regular users computer/software[35]By taking control of someone's personal computer they have unlimited access to their personal information, including passwords and login information to accounts. This is calledphishing. Phishing is the acquiring of login information to the "victim's" accounts with a link the "victim" clicks on that is sent through an email or text.[36]A survey byVerizonfound that around two-thirds of electronic "espionage" cases come from phishing.[37]
The geographic dispersal of botnets means that each recruit must be individually identified/corralled/repaired and limits the benefits offiltering.
Computer security experts have succeeded in destroying or subverting malware command and control networks, by, among other means, seizing servers or getting them cut off from the Internet, denying access to domains that were due to be used by malware to contact its C&C infrastructure, and, in some cases, breaking into the C&C network itself.[38][39][40]In response to this, C&C operators have resorted to using techniques such as overlaying their C&C networks on other existing benign infrastructure such asIRCorTor, usingpeer-to-peer networkingsystems that are not dependent on any fixed servers, and usingpublic key encryptionto defeat attempts to break into or spoof the network.[41]
Norton AntiBotwas aimed at consumers, but most target enterprises and/or ISPs. Host-based techniques use heuristics to identify bot behavior that has bypassed conventionalanti-virus software. Network-based approaches tend to use the techniques described above; shutting down C&C servers, null-routing DNS entries, or completely shutting down IRC servers.BotHunteris software, developed with support from theU.S. Army Research Office, that detects botnet activity within a network by analyzing network traffic and comparing it to patterns characteristic of malicious processes.
Researchers atSandia National Laboratoriesare analyzing botnets' behavior by simultaneously running one million Linux kernels—a similar scale to a botnet—asvirtual machineson a 4,480-node high-performancecomputer clusterto emulate a very large network, allowing them to watch how botnets work and experiment with ways to stop them.[42]
Detecting automated bot becomes more difficult as newer and more sophisticated generations of bots get launched by attackers. For example, an automated attack can deploy a large bot army and apply brute-force methods with highly accurate username and password lists to hack into accounts. The idea is to overwhelm sites with tens of thousands of requests from different IPs all over the world, but with each bot only submitting a single request every 10 minutes or so, which can result in more than 5 million attempts per day.[43]In these cases, many tools try to leverage volumetric detection, but automated bot attacks now have ways of circumventing triggers of volumetric detection.
One of the techniques for detecting these bot attacks is what's known as "signature-based systems" in which the software will attempt to detect patterns in the request packet. However, attacks are constantly evolving, so this may not be a viable option when patterns cannot be discerned from thousands of requests. There is also the behavioral approach to thwarting bots, which ultimately tries to distinguish bots from humans. By identifying non-human behavior and recognizing known bot behavior, this process can be applied at the user, browser, and network levels.
The most capable method of using software to combat against a virus has been to utilizehoneypotsoftware in order to convince the malware that a system is vulnerable. The malicious files are then analyzed using forensic software.
On 15 July 2014, the Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism of the Committee[44]on the Judiciary,United States Senate, held a hearing on the threats posed by botnets and the public and private efforts to disrupt and dismantle them.[45]
The rise in vulnerable IoT devices has led to an increase in IoT-based botnet attacks. To address this, a novel network-based anomaly detection method for IoT called N-BaIoT was introduced. It captures network behavior snapshots and employs deep autoencoders to identify abnormal traffic from compromised IoT devices. The method was tested by infecting nine IoT devices with Mirai and BASHLITE botnets, showing its ability to accurately and promptly detect attacks originating from compromised IoT devices within a botnet.[46]
Additionally, comparing different ways of detecting botnets is really useful for researchers. It helps them see how well each method works compared to others. This kind of comparison is good because it lets researchers evaluate the methods fairly and find ways to make them better.[47]
The first botnet was first acknowledged and exposed byEarthLinkduring a lawsuit with notorious spammer Khan C. Smith[48]in 2001. The botnet was constructed for the purpose of bulk spam, and accounted for nearly 25% of all spam at the time.[49]
Around 2006, to thwart detection, some botnets were scaling back in size.[50]
The following is a non-exhaustive list of some historical botnets.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botnet
|
Browser hijackingis a form of unwanted software that modifies a web browser's settings without a user's permission, to inject unwanted advertising into the user's browser. A browser hijacker may replace the existinghome page, error page, orsearch enginewith its own.[1]These are generally used to forcehitsto a particularwebsite, increasing itsadvertisingrevenue.
Some browser hijackers also containspyware, for example, some install asoftware keyloggerto gather information such as banking and e-mail authentication details. Some browser hijackers can also damage theregistryonWindows systems, often permanently.
While some browser hijacking can be easily reversed, other instances may be difficult to reverse. Various software packages exist to prevent such modification.
Many browser hijacking programs are included in software bundles that the user did not choose and are included as "offers" in the installer for another program, often included with no uninstall instructions, or documentation on what they do, and are presented in a way that is designed to be confusing for the average user, to trick them into installing unwanted extra software.[2][3][4][5]
There are several methods that browser hijackers use to gain entry to an operating system.Email attachmentsand files downloaded through suspicious websites andtorrentsare common tactics that browser hijackers use.[citation needed]
Somerogue security softwarewill also hijack the start page, generally displaying a message such as "WARNING! Your computer is infected with spyware!" to lead to an antispyware vendor's page. The start page will return to normal settings once the user buys their software. Programs such asWinFixerare known to hijack the user's start page and redirect it to another website.
TheDomain Name Systemis queried when a user types in the name of a website (e.g., wikipedia.org) and the DNS returns the IP address of the website if it exists. If a user mistypes the name of a website then the DNS will return a Non-Existent Domain (NXDOMAIN) response.
In 2006,EarthLinkstarted redirecting mistyped domain names over to a search page. This was done by interpreting the error code NXDOMAIN at the server level. The announcement led to much negative feedback, and EarthLink offered services without this feature.[6]
Unwanted programs often include no sign that they are installed, and no uninstall or opt-out instructions.[2]
Most hijacking programs constantly change the settings of browsers, meaning that user choices in their own browser are overwritten. Someantivirus softwareidentifies browser hijacking software as malicious software and can remove it. Some spyware scanning programs have a browser restore function to set the user's browser settings back to normal or alert them when their browser page has been changed.
As ofMicrosoft Windows 10, web browsers can no longer set themselves as a user's default without further intervention; changing the default web browser must be performed manually by the user from Settings' "Default apps" page, ostensibly to prevent browser hijacking.[7]
A number of hijackers change the browser homepage, display adverts, and/or set the default search engine; these includeAstromenda(www.astromenda.com);[8][9][10]Ask Toolbar(ask.com);ESurf(esurf.biz)Binkiland(binkiland.com);DeltaandClaro;Dregol;[11]Jamenize;Mindspark;Groovorio;Sweet Page;Mazy Search;Pensirot;Search Protect by Conduitalong withsearch.conduit.comand variants;Tuvaro;Spigot;en.4yendex.com;Yahoo; etc.
Babylon Toolbar is a browser hijacker that will change the browser homepage and set the default search engine to isearch.babylon.com. It is also a form ofadware. It displays advertisements, sponsored links, and spurious paid search results. The program will collect search terms from your search queries.
Babylon's translation softwareprompts to add theBabylon Toolbaron installation. The toolbar also comes bundled as an add-on with other software downloads.[12]
In 2011, theCNetsiteDownload.comstarted bundling the Babylon Toolbar with open-source packages such asNmap.Gordon Lyon, the developer of Nmap, was upset over the way users of his software were tricked into using the toolbar.[13]The vice-president of Download.com, Sean Murphy, released an apology:The bundling of this software was a mistake on our part and we apologize to the user and developer communities for the unrest it caused.[14]
Similar variants of the Babylon toolbar and search homepage exist including: Bueno Search, Delta Search, Claro Search, and Search GOL. All of these variants state to be owned by Babylon in the terms of service.
All of the toolbars were created by Montiera.[15]
Conduitis a PUP / hijacker. It steals personal and confidential information from the user and transfers it to a third party. This toolbar has been identified asPotentially Unwanted Programs (PUPs)byMalwarebytes[16]and is typically bundled with free downloads.[17][18]These toolbars modify the browser's default search engine, homepage, new tab page, and several other browser settings. There are similar variants of conduit search such as trovi.com, trovigo.com, better-search.net, seekforsearch.com, searchitdown.com, need4search.com, clearsearches.com, search-armor.com, searchthatup.com, premiumsearchweb.com, along with other variants which were created in a customized way for the toolbar creation service Conduit Ltd used to offer.[citation needed]
A program called "Conduit Search Protect", better known as "Search Protect by conduit", can cause severe system errors upon uninstallation. It claims to protect browser settings but actually blocks all attempts to manipulate a browser through the settings page; in other words, it makes sure the malicious settings remain unchanged. Search Protect has an option to change the search homepage from the "recommended" search home page Trovi, however, users have reported it changing back to Trovi after a period of time.[citation needed]The uninstall program for Search Protect can cause Windows to be unbootable because the uninstall file not only removes its own files, but also all the boot files in the root of the C: drive.[citation needed]and leaves a BackGroundContainer.dll file in the start-up registry.[19]Conduit is associated withmalware,spyware, andadware, as victims of this hijacker have reported unwanted pop-ups and embedded in-text advertisements, on sites without ads.
Perion Network Ltd. acquired Conduit's ClientConnect business in early January 2014,[20]and later partnered withLenovoto create Lenovo Browser Guard,[21]which uses components of Search Protect.
Victims of unwanted redirections to conduit.com have also reported that they have been attacked by phishing attempts and have received unwanted email spam, junk mail, other messages, and telephone calls from telemarketers. Some victims claim that the callers claimed to be Apple, Microsoft, or theirISP, and are told that personal information was used in some phone calls, and that some of the calls concerned their browsing habits and recent browsing history. Personal information used in phishing attempts may be associated with spyware.[22]
The browser hijacker istartsurf.com may replace the preferred search tools. This infection travels bundled with third-party applications and its installation may be silent. Due to this, affected users are not aware that the hijacker has infected theirInternet Explorer,Google ChromeorMozilla Firefoxbrowsers.[23]
Search-daily.comis a hijacker that may be downloaded by theZlob trojan. It redirects the user's searches topornographysites. It is also known to slow down computer performance.[24]
Snap.do (Smartbar developed by Resoft) is potential malware, categorized as a browser hijacker and spyware, that causes web browsers to redirect to the snap.do search engine. Snap.Do can be manually downloaded from the Resoft website, though many users are entrapped by their unethical terms. It affects Windows and can be removed through the Add/Remove program menu. Snap.Do also can download many malicious toolbars, add-ons, and plug-ins like DVDVideoSoftTB, General Crawler, and Save Valet.
General Crawler, installed by Snap.do, has been known to use a backdoor process because it re-installs and re-enables itself every time an affected user removes it through their browser(s).
Snap.do will disable the option to change your homepage and default search engine.
Resoft will track the following information:
By using the Resoft Products, the user consents to have their personal data transferred to and processed both within and outside of the United States of America.
By using the Resoft website, the user agrees to the preceding uses of their information in this way by Resoft.[25]
A previous installer ofSourceForgeincluded adware and PUP installers.[26]
One particular one changes the browser settings of Firefox, Chrome and Internet Explorer to show the website "istartsurf.com" as the homepage. It does so by changing registry settings and installing software which resets the settings if the user tries to change them.
On June 1, 2015, SourceForge claimed that they stopped coupling "third party offers" with unmaintained SourceForge projects.[27]
ATrojan.WinLNK.Agent(alsoTrojan:Win32/Startpage.OS) is the definition fromKaspersky Labsof aTrojan downloader,Trojan dropper, orTrojan spy. Its first known detection goes back to May 31, 2011, according toMicrosoft Malware Protection Center. ThisTrojanwareopens up anInternet Explorerbrowserto a predefined page (like toi.163vv.com/?96). Trojan Files with theLNKextension (expression) is aWindowsshortcut to a malicious file, program, or folder. ALNKfile of this family launches a maliciousexecutableor may be dropped by othermalware. These files are mostly used bywormsto spread viaUSB drives(i.e.).[28][29]In 2016,Indiahad the most incidents relating to this Trojan with 18,36 % worldwide.[28]
Other aliases:
Other variants:
Vosteran is a browser hijacker that changes a browser's home page and default search provider to vosteran.com. This infection is essentially bundled with other third-party applications. The identity of Vosteran is protected by privacyprotect.org from Australia. Vosteran is registered through Whiteknight.[32]
It can be found when installing "Cheat Engine" or a different version of "VLC Player" on www.oldapps.com, or when downloading applications from certain freeware sites, such as Softonic.com or Download.com.
Trovi uses Bing (a legitimate search engine) to provide results to the user. Although the address bar changes to Bing.com when showing search results, search keywords are executed through Trovi regardless. Trovi formerly used its own website to show search results with the logo at the top left hand corner of the page but later switched to Bing in attempt to fool users more easily. Trovi is not as deadly as before with taking the ads out of the search results depending on what browser is being used, but is still considered a browser hijacker.
It also controls the homepage and new tab page settings to prohibit the ability to change them back to the original settings. Depending on whatever browser is being used, ads may appear on the page.
When it infects, it makes a browser redirect from Google and some other search engines to trovi.com.[33]
Trovi was created using theConduit toolbar creation serviceand has known to infect in similar ways to the Conduit toolbar.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browser_hijacking
|
Cryptojackingis the act of exploiting acomputerto minecryptocurrencies, often throughwebsites,[1][2][3]against the user's will or while the user is unaware.[4]One notable piece of software used for cryptojacking wasCoinhive, which was used in over two-thirds of cryptojacks before its March 2019 shutdown.[5]The cryptocurrencies mined the most often are privacy coins—coins with hidden transaction histories—such asMoneroandZcash.[2][6]
Like most malicious attacks on the computing public, the motive is profit, but unlike other threats, it is designed to remain completely hidden from the user. Cryptojackingmalwarecan lead to slowdowns and crashes due to straining of computational resources.[7]
Bitcoin mining by personal computers infected with malware is being challenged by dedicated hardware, such asFPGAandASICplatforms, which are more efficient in terms of power consumption and thus may have lower costs than theft of computing resources.[8]
In June 2011,Symantecwarned about the possibility thatbotnetscould mine covertly for bitcoins.[9]Malware used theparallel processingcapabilities ofGPUsbuilt into many modernvideo cards.[10]Although the average PC with an integrated graphics processor is virtually useless for bitcoin mining, tens of thousands of PCs laden with mining malware could produce some results.[11]
In mid-August 2011, bitcoin mining botnets were detected,[12][13][14]and less than three months later, bitcoin miningtrojanshad infected Mac OS X.[15]
In April 2013,electronic sportsorganizationE-Sports Entertainmentwas accused of hijacking 14,000 computers to mine bitcoins; the company later settled the case with the State of New Jersey.[16]
German police arrested two people in December 2013 who customized existing botnet software to perform bitcoin mining, which police said had been used to mine at least $950,000 worth of bitcoins.[17]
For four days in December 2013 and January 2014,Yahoo!Europe hosted an ad containing bitcoin mining malware that infected an estimated two million computers using aJavavulnerability.[18][19]
Another software, calledSefnit, was first detected in mid-2013 and has been bundled with many software packages. Microsoft has been removing the malware through itsMicrosoft Security Essentialsand other security software.[20]
Several reports of employees or students using university or research computers to mine bitcoins have been published.[21]On February 20, 2014, a member of theHarvardcommunity was stripped of his or her access to the university's research computing facilities after setting up aDogecoinmining operation using a Harvard research network, according to an internal email circulated by Faculty of Arts and Sciences Research Computing officials.[22]
Ars Technicareported in January 2018 thatYouTubeadvertisements containedJavaScriptcode that mined the cryptocurrencyMonero.[23]
In 2021,multiple zero-day vulnerabilities were found on Microsoft Exchange servers, allowingremote code execution. These vulnerabilities were exploited to mine cryptocurrency.[24]
Traditional countermeasures of cryptojacking are host-based and not suitable for corporate networks. A potential solution is a network-based approach calledCrypto-Aegis, which uses machine learning to detect cryptocurrency activities in network traffic, even when encrypted or mixed with non-malicious data.[25]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptojacking
|
Acuckoo's eggis ametaphorforbrood parasitism, where a parasitic bird deposits its egg into a host's nest, which then incubates and feeds the chick that hatches, even at the expense of its own offspring. That original biological meaning has been extended to other uses, including one which referencesspywareand other pieces ofmalware.
The concept has been in use in the study ofbrood parasitismin birds since the 19th century. It first evolved ametaphoricmeaning of "misplaced trust",[1]wherein the chick hatched of acuckoo's egg, having been surreptitiously laid among the eggs of another bird of a different, smaller species, and thereupon incubated by the unwitting host parents, will consume any food brought by them to feed their own chicks, which then starve and eventually die.
The first well known application totradecraftwas in the 1989 bookThe Cuckoo's Egg: Tracking a Spy Through the Maze of Computer EspionagebyClifford Stoll,[2]in which Stoll deployed ahoneypotto catch a cyberhackerthat had accessed the secure computer system of the classified U.S. governmentLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.[3]
Stoll chronicles the so-called 'Cuckoo's Egg Investigation', "a term coined by American press to describe (at the time) the farthest reaching computer-mediated espionage penetration by foreign agents”, which was also known as Operation Equalizer initiated and executed by theKGBthrough a small cadre of German hackers.[4]
In his book Stoll describes the hacker employing aTrojan horsestrategy to penetrate the secure Livermore Laboratory computer system:
I watched the cuckoo lay its egg: once again, he manipulated the files in my computer to make himself super-user. His same old trick: use the Gnu-Emacs move-mail to substitute his tainted program for the system's atrun file. Five minutes later, shazam! He was system manager.[5]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuckoo%27s_egg_(metaphor)
|
Cyber espionage,cyber spying, orcyber-collectionis the act or practice of obtaining secrets and information without the permission andknowledgeof the holder of the information using methods on the Internet, networks or individual computers through the use ofproxy servers,[1]crackingtechniques andmalicious softwareincludingTrojan horsesandspyware.[2][3]Cyber espionage can be used to target various actors – individuals, competitors, rivals, groups, governments, and others – in order to obtain personal, economic, political or military advantages. It may wholly be perpetrated online from computer desks of professionals on bases in far away countries or may involve infiltration at home by computer trained conventionalspiesandmolesor in other cases may be thecriminalhandiwork ofamateurmalicious hackers andsoftware programmers.[2]
Cyber spying started as far back as 1996, when widespread deployment ofInternet connectivityto government and corporate systems gained momentum. Since that time, there have been numerous cases of such activities.[4][5][6]
Cyber spying typically involves the use of such access to secrets and classified information or control of individual computers or whole networks for astrategicadvantage and forpsychological,politicaland physical subversion activities andsabotage.[7]More recently, cyber spying involves analysis of public activity onsocial networking siteslikeFacebookandTwitter.[8]
Such operations, like non-cyber espionage, are typically illegal in the victim country while fully supported by the highest level of government in the aggressor country. The ethical situation likewise depends on one's viewpoint, particularly one's opinion of the governments involved.[7]
Cyber-collection tools have been developed by governments and private interests for nearly every computer and smart-phone operating system. Tools are known to exist for Microsoft, Apple, and Linux computers and iPhone, Android, Blackberry, and Windows phones.[9]Major manufacturers ofCommercial off-the-shelf(COTS) cyber collection technology include Gamma Group from the UK[10]andHacking Teamfrom Italy.[11]Bespoke cyber-collection tool companies, many offering COTS packages ofzero-dayexploits, includeEndgame, Inc.and Netragard of the United States and Vupen from France.[12]State intelligence agencies often have their own teams to develop cyber-collection tools, such asStuxnet, but require a constant source ofzero-day exploitsin order to insert their tools into newly targeted systems. Specific technical details of these attack methods often sell for six-figure sums.[13]
Common functionality of cyber-collection systems include:
There are several common ways to infect or access the target:
Cyber-collection agents are usually installed by payload delivery software constructed usingzero-dayattacks and delivered via infected USB drives, e-mail attachments or malicious web sites.[20][21]State sponsored cyber-collections efforts have used official operating system certificates in place of relying on security vulnerabilities. In the Flame operation,Microsoftstates that the Microsoft certificate used to impersonate aWindows Updatewas forged;[22]however, some experts believe that it may have been acquired throughHUMINTefforts.[23]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_spying
|
Domain generation algorithms(DGA) are algorithms seen in various families ofmalwarethat are used to periodically generate a large number ofdomain namesthat can be used as rendezvous points with theircommand and control servers. The large number of potential rendezvous points makes it difficult for law enforcement to effectively shut downbotnets, since infected computers will attempt to contact some of these domain names every day to receive updates or commands. The use ofpublic-key cryptographyin malware code makes it unfeasible for law enforcement and other actors to mimic commands from the malware controllers as some worms will automatically reject any updates notsignedby the malware controllers.
For example, an infected computer could create thousands of domain names such as:www.<gibberish>.comand would attempt to contact a portion of these with the purpose of receiving an update or commands.
Embedding the DGA instead of a list of previously-generated (by the command and control servers) domains in the unobfuscated binary of the malware protects against a strings dump that could be fed into a network blacklisting appliance preemptively to attempt to restrict outbound communication from infected hosts within an enterprise.
The technique was popularized by the family of wormsConficker.a and .b which, at first generated 250 domain names per day. Starting with Conficker.C, the malware would generate 50,000 domain names every day of which it would attempt to contact 500, giving an infected machine a 1% possibility of being updated every day if the malware controllers registered only one domain per day. To prevent infected computers from updating their malware, law enforcement would have needed to pre-register 50,000 new domain names every day. From the point of view of botnet owner, they only have to register one or a few domains out of the several domains that each bot would query every day.
Recently, the technique has been adopted by other malware authors. According to network security firmDamballa, the top-5 most prevalent DGA-basedcrimewarefamilies are Conficker, Murofet, BankPatch, Bonnana and Bobax as of 2011.[1]
DGA can also combine words from adictionaryto generate domains. These dictionaries can be hard-coded in malware or taken from a publicly accessible source.[2]Domains generated by dictionary DGA tend to be more difficult to detect due to their similarity to legitimate domains.
For example, on January 7, 2014, this method would generate the domain nameintgmxdeadnxuyla.com, while the following day, it would returnaxwscwsslmiagfah.com. This simple example was in fact used by malware likeCryptoLocker, before it switched to a more sophisticated variant.
DGA domain[3]names can be blocked using blacklists, but the coverage of these blacklists is either poor (public blacklists) or wildly inconsistent (commercial vendor blacklists).[4]Detection techniques belong in two main classes: reactionary and real-time. Reactionary detection relies on non-supervisedclustering techniquesand contextual information like network NXDOMAIN responses,[5]WHOISinformation,[6]and passive DNS[7]to make an assessment of domain name legitimacy. Recent attempts at detecting DGA domain names withdeep learningtechniques have been extremely successful, withF1 scoresof over 99%.[8]These deep learning methods typically utilizeLSTMandCNNarchitectures,[9]though deepword embeddingshave shown great promise for detecting dictionary DGA.[10]However, these deep learning approaches can be vulnerable toadversarial techniques.[11][12]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_generation_algorithm
|
Thesocial media platformandsocial networking serviceFacebookhas been affected multiple times over its history by intentionally harmful software. Known asmalware, these pose particular challenges both to users of the platform as well as to the personnel of thetech-companyitself. Fighting the entities that create these is a topic of ongoingmalware analysis.
Attacks known asphishing, in which an attacker pretends to be some trustworthy entity in order to solicit private information, have increased exponentially in the2010sand posed frustrating challenges. For Facebook in particular, tricks involvingURLsare common; attackers will maliciously use a similar website such ashttp://faceb0ok.com/instead of the correcthttp://facebook.com/, for example. The 11th International Conference on Detection of Intrusions and Malware, and Vulnerability Assessment (DIMVA), held in July 2014, issued a report condemning this as one of the "common tricks" thatmobile computingusers are especially vulnerable to.[1]
In terms of applications, Facebook has also been visually copied by phishing attackers, who aim to confuse individuals into thinking that something else is the legitimate Facebooklog-in screen.[1]
In 2013, a variant of the"Dorkbot" malwarecaused alarm after spreading through Facebook's internal chat service.[2]With suspected efforts by cybercriminals to harvest users' passwords affecting individuals from nations such asGermany,India,Portugal, and theUnited Kingdom. TheantivirusorganizationBitdefenderdiscovered several thousand malicious links taking place in a twenty-four hour period, and contacted the Facebook administration about the problem. While the infection was contained, its unusual nature sparked interest given that the attackers exploited a flaw in the file-sharing site MediaFire to proliferate phony applications among victims'Facebook friends.[3]
The realcomputer worm"Koobface", which surfaced in 2008 via messages sent through both Facebook andMySpace, later became subject to inflated, grandiose claims about its effects and spread to the point of being aninternet hoax. Later commentary claimed a link between the malware andmessagesabout theBarack Obama administrationthat never actually existed. David Mikkelson ofSnopes.comdiscussed the matter in afact-checkingarticle.[4]
On 26 July 2022, researchers atWithSecurediscovered a cybercriminal operation that was targeting digital marketing and human resources professionals in an effort to hijack Facebook Business accounts using data-stealing malware.They dubbed the campaign as 'Ducktail' and found evidence to suggest that a Vietnamese threat actor has been developing and distributing the malware with motives appeared to be purely financially driven.[5]
In the same vein as actions byGoogleandMicrosoft, the company's administration has been willing to hire "grey hat" hackers, who have acted legally ambiguously in the past, to assist them in various functions. Programmer and social activistGeorge Hotz(also known by thenickname"GeoHot") is an example.[6][7]
On July 29, 2011, Facebook announced an effort called the "Bug Bounty Program" in which certain security researchers will be paid a minimum of$500 for reporting security holes on Facebook's website itself. The company'sofficial pagefor security researchers stated, "If you give us a reasonable time to respond to your report before making any information public and make a good faith effort to avoid privacy violations, destruction of data, and interruption or degradation of our service during your research, we will not bring any lawsuit against you or ask law enforcement to investigate you."[8]The effort attracted notice from publications such asPC Magazine, which noted that individuals must not just be the first to report the security glitch but must also find the problem native to Facebook (rather than an entity merely associated with it such asFarmVille).[6]
In late 2017, Facebook systematically disabled accounts operated byNorth Koreansin response tothat government'suse of state-sponsored malware attacks.Microsoftdid similar actions. The North Korean government had attracted widespread condemnation in the U.S. and elsewhere for its alleged proliferation of the"WannaCry" malware. Said computer worm affected over 230,000 computers in over 150 countries throughout 2017.[9]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_malware
|
File bindersareutility softwarethat allow a user to "bind" multiple files together, resulting in a single executable. They are commonly used byhackersto insert other programs such asTrojan horsesinto otherwise harmless files, making them more difficult to detect.Malwarebuilders (such askeyloggersor stealers) often include a binder by default.[1]
Apolymorphic packeris a file binder with apolymorphic engine. It thus has the ability to make itspayloadmutate over time, so it is more difficult to detect and remove.[citation needed]
This article related to a type ofsoftwareis astub. You can help Wikipedia byexpanding it.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_binder
|
Identity theft,identity piracyoridentity infringementoccurs when someone uses another's personal identifying information, like their name, identifying number, orcredit card number, without their permission, to commit fraud or other crimes. The termidentity theftwas coined in 1964.[1]Since that time, the definition of identity theft has been legally defined throughout both the UK and theU.S.as the theft of personally identifiable information. Identity theft deliberately uses someone else'sidentityas a method to gain financial advantages or obtain credit and other benefits.[2][3]The person whose identity has been stolen may suffer adverse consequences,[4]especially if they are falsely held responsible for the perpetrator's actions. Personally identifiable information generally includes a person's name, date of birth, social security number, driver's license number, bank account or credit card numbers,PINs,electronic signatures, fingerprints,passwords, or any other information that can be used to access a person's financial resources.[5]
Determining the link betweendata breachesand identity theft is challenging, primarily because identity theft victims often do not know how their personal information was obtained. According to a report done for the FTC, identity theft is not always detectable by the individual victims.[6]Identity fraudis often but not necessarily the consequence of identity theft. Someone can steal or misappropriate personal information without then committing identity theft using the information about every person, such as when a major data breach occurs. AU.S. Government Accountability Officestudy determined that "most breaches have not resulted in detected incidents of identity theft".[7]The report also warned that "the full extent is unknown". A later unpublished study byCarnegie Mellon Universitynoted that "Most often, the causes of identity theft is not known", but reported that someone else concluded that "the probability of becoming a victim to identity theft as a result of a data breach is ... around only 2%".[8]For example, in one of the largest data breaches which affected over four million records, it resulted in only about 1,800 instances of identity theft, according to the company whose systems were breached.[citation needed]
An October 2010 article entitled "Cyber Crime Made Easy" explained the level to which hackers are usingmalicious software.[9]As Gunter Ollmann,
Chief Technology Officer of security atMicrosoft, said, "Interested in credit card theft? There's an app for that."[10]This statement summed up the ease with which these hackers are accessing all kinds of information online. The new program for infecting users' computers was calledZeus, and the program is so hacker-friendly that even an inexperienced hacker can operate it. Although the hacking program is easy to use, that fact does not diminish the devastating effects that Zeus (or other software like Zeus) can do on a computer and the user. For example, programs like Zeus can steal credit card information, important documents, and even documents necessary forhomeland security. If a hacker were to gain this information, it would mean nationwide identity theft or even a possible terrorist attack. TheITACsaid that about 15 million Americans had their identity stolen in 2012.[11]
Sources such as theNon-profitIdentity Theft Resource Center[12]sub-divide identity theft into five categories:
Identity theft may be used to facilitate or fund other crimes includingillegal immigration,terrorism,phishingandespionage. There are cases of identity cloning to attackpayment systems, including online credit card processing andmedical insurance.[13]
In this situation, the identity thief impersonates someone else to conceal their own true identity. Examples areillegal immigrantshiding their illegal status, people hiding fromcreditorsor other individuals and those who simply want to become "anonymous" for personal reasons. Another example isposers, a label given to people who use someone else's photos and information on social networking sites. Posers mostly create believable stories involving friends of the real person they are imitating. Unlike identity theft used to obtain credit which usually comes to light when the debts mount, concealment may continue indefinitely without being detected, particularly if the identity thief can obtain false credentials to pass various authentication tests in everyday life.
When a criminal fraudulently identifies themselves to police as another individual at the point of arrest, it is sometimes referred to as "Criminal Identity Theft." In some cases, criminals have previously obtained state-issued identity documents using credentials stolen from others, or have simply presented afake ID. Provided the subterfuge works, charges may be placed under the victim's name, letting the criminal off the hook. Victims might only learn of such incidents by chance, for example by receiving a court summons, discovering their driver's licenses are suspended when stopped for minor traffic violations, or throughbackground checksperformed for employment purposes.
It can be difficult for the victim of criminal identity theft to clear their record. The steps required to clear the victim's incorrectcriminal recorddepend on which jurisdiction the crime occurred and whether the true identity of the criminal can be determined. The victim might need to locate the original arresting officers and prove their own identity by some reliable means such as fingerprinting or DNA testing and may need to go to a court hearing to be cleared of the charges. Obtaining anexpungementof court records may also be required. Authorities might permanently maintain the victim's name as an alias for the criminal's true identity in their criminal records databases. One problem that victims of criminal identity theft may encounter is that variousdata aggregatorsmight still have incorrect criminal records in their databases even after court and police records are corrected. Thus a future background check may return the incorrect criminal records.[14]This is just one example of the kinds of impact that may continue to affect the victims of identity theft for some months or even years after the crime, aside from the psychological trauma that being 'cloned' typically engenders.
A variation of identity theft that has recently become more common issynthetic identity theft, in which identities are completely or partially fabricated.[15]The most common technique involves combining a realsocial security numberwith a name and birthdate other than the ones that are simply associated with the number. Synthetic identity theft is more difficult to track as it doesn't show on either person's credit report directly but may appear as an entirely new file in thecredit bureauor as a subfile on one of the victim's credit reports. Synthetic identity theft primarily harms the creditors who unwittingly grant the fraudsters credit. Individual victims can be affected if their names become confused with the synthetic identities, or if negative information in their subfiles impacts their credit ratings.[16]
Privacy researcher Pam Dixon, the founder of the World Privacy Forum,[17]coined the term medical identity theft and released the first major report about this issue in 2006. In the report, she defined the crime for the first time and made the plight of victims public. The report's definition of the crime is that medical identity theft occurs when someone seeks medical care under the identity of another person. Insurance theft is also very common, if a thief has your insurance information and or your insurance card, they can seek medical attention posing as yourself.[18]In addition to risks of financial harm common to all forms of identity theft, the thief's medical history may be added to the victim'smedical records. Inaccurate information in the victim's records is difficult to correct and may affect future insurability or cause doctors to rely on misinformation to deliver inappropriate care. After the publication of the report, which contained a recommendation that consumers receive notifications of medical data breach incidents, California passed a law requiring this, and then finallyHIPAAwas expanded to also require medical breach notification when breaches affect 500 or more people.[19][20]Data collected and stored by hospitals and other organizations such as medical aid schemes is up to 10 times more valuable to cybercriminals than credit card information.
Child identity theft occurs when a minor's identity is used by another person for the impostor's personal gain. The impostor can be a family member, a friend, or even a stranger who targets children. The Social Security numbers of children are valued because they do not have any information associated with them. Thieves can establish lines of credit, obtain driver's licenses, or even buy a house using a child's identity. This fraud can go undetected for years, as most children do not discover the problem until years later. Child identity theft is fairly common, and studies have shown that the problem is growing. The largest study on child identity theft, as reported by Richard Power of the Carnegie Mellon Cylab with data supplied byAllClear ID, found that of 40,000 children, 10.2% were victims of identity theft.[21]
TheFederal Trade Commission(FTC) estimates that about nine million people will be victims of identity theft in the United States per year. It was also estimated that in 2008; 630,000 people under the age of 19 were victims of theft. This then gave the victims a debt of about $12,799.[22]
Not only are children in general big targets of identity theft but children who are in foster care are even bigger targets. This is because they are most likely moved around quite frequently and their SSN is being shared with multiple people and agencies. Foster children are even more victims of identity theft within their own families and other relatives. Young people in foster care who are victims of this crime are usually left alone to struggle and figure out how to fix their newly formed bad credit.[22]
The emergence of children's identities on social media has also contributed to a rise in incidents of digital kidnapping and identity theft.Digital kidnappinginvolves individuals stealing online images of children and misrepresenting them as their own.[23]
The most common type of identity theft is related to finance. Financial identity theft includes obtaining credit, loans, goods, and services while claiming to be someone else.[24]
One of the major identity theft categories istax-related identity theft. The most common method is to use a person's authentic name, address, andSocial Security Numberto file a tax return with false information, and have the resulting refund direct-deposited into a bank account controlled by the thief. The thief in this case can also try to get a job and then their employer will report the income of the real taxpayer, this then results in the taxpayer getting in trouble with the IRS.[25]
The 14039 Form to theIRSis a form that will help one fight against a theft like tax theft. This form will put the IRS on alert and someone who believed they have been a victim of tax-related theft will be given an Identity Protection Personal Identification Number (IP PIN), which is a 6 digit code used in replacing an SSN for filing tax returns.[25]
Identity thieves typically obtain and exploitpersonally identifiable informationabout individuals, or various credentials they use to authenticate themselves, to impersonate them. Examples include:
The acquisition of personal identifiers is made possible through serious breaches ofprivacy. For consumers, this is usually a result of them naively providing their personal information or login credentials to the identity thieves (e.g., in aphishing attack) but identity-related documents such as credit cards, bank statements, utility bills, checkbooks, etc. may also be physically stolen from vehicles, homes, offices, and not the leastletterboxes, or directly from victims by pickpockets and bag snatchers. Guardianship of personal identifiers by consumers is the most common intervention strategy recommended by theUS Federal Trade Commission,Canadian Phone Bustersand most sites that address identity theft. Such organizations offer recommendations on how individuals can prevent their information from falling into the wrong hands.
Identity theft can be partially mitigated bynotidentifying oneself unnecessarily (a form of information security control known as risk avoidance). This implies that organizations, IT systems, and procedures should not demand excessive amounts of personal information or credentials for identification and authentication. Requiring, storing, and processing personal identifiers (such asSocial Security number,national identification number, driver's license number, credit card number, etc.) increases the risks of identity theft unless this valuable personal information is adequately secured at all times. Committing personal identifiers to memory is a sound practice that can reduce the risks of a would-be identity thief from obtaining these records. To help in remembering numbers such as social security numbers and credit card numbers, it is helpful to consider using mnemonic techniques or memory aids such as themnemonic Major System.
Identity thieves sometimes impersonate dead people, using personal information obtained from death notices, gravestones, and other sources to exploit delays between the death and the closure of the person's accounts, the inattentiveness of grieving families, and weaknesses in the processes for credit-checking. Such crimes may continue for some time until the deceased's families or the authorities notice and react to anomalies.[29]
In recent years[when?], commercial identity theft protection/insurance services have become available in many countries. These services purport to help protect the individual from identity theft or help detect that identity theft has occurred in exchange for a monthly or annual membership fee or premium.[30]The services typically work either by setting fraud alerts on the individual's credit files with the three major credit bureaus or by setting upcredit report monitoringwith the credit bureau. While identity theft protection/insurance services have been heavily marketed, their value has been called into question.[31]
Identity theft is a serious problem in the United States. In a 2018 study, it was reported that 60 million Americans' identities had been wrongfully acquired.[32]In response, under advisement from theIdentity Theft Resource Center, some new bills have been implemented to improve security such as requiring electronic signatures and social security verification.[32]
Several types of identity theft are used to gather information, one of the most common types occurs when consumers make online purchases.[33]A study was conducted with 190 people to determine the relationship between the constructs of fear of financial losses and reputational damages.[33]The conclusions of this study revealed that identity theft was a positive correlation with reputable damages.[33]The relationship between perceived risk and online purchase intention were negative.[33]The significance of this study reveals that online companies are more aware of the potential harm that can be done to their consumers, therefore they are searching for ways to reduce the perceived risk of consumers and not lose out on business.
Victims of identity theft may face years of effort proving to the legal system that they are the true person,[34]leading to emotional strain and financial losses. Most identity theft is perpetrated by a family member of the victim, and some may not be able to obtain new credit cards or open new bank accounts or loans.[34]
In their May 1998 testimony before the United States Senate, theFederal Trade Commission(FTC) discussed the sale of Social Security numbers and other personal identifiers by credit-raters and data miners. The FTC agreed to the industry's self-regulating principles restricting access to information on credit reports.[35]According to the industry, the restrictions vary according to the category of customer. Credit reporting agencies gather and disclose personal and credit information to a wide business client base.
Poor stewardship of personal data by organizations, resulting in unauthorized access to sensitive data, can expose individuals to the risk of identity theft. The Privacy Rights Clearinghouse has documented over 900 individual data breaches by US companies and government agencies since January 2005, which together have involved over 200 million total records containing sensitive personal information, many containing social security numbers.[36]Poor corporate diligence standards which can result in data breaches include:
The failure of corporate or government organizations to protectconsumer privacy,client confidentialityandpolitical privacyhas been criticized for facilitating the acquisition of personal identifiers by criminals.[37]
Using various types ofbiometricinformation, such asfingerprints, for identification and authentication has been cited as a way to thwart identity thieves, however, there are technological limitations and privacy concerns associated with these methods as well.
There is an active market for buying and selling stolen personal information, which occurs mostly indarknet marketsbut also in otherblack markets.[38]People increase the value of the stolen data by aggregating it with publicly available data, and sell it again for a profit, increasing the damage that can be done to the people whose data was stolen.[39]
In March 2014, after it was learned two passengers with stolen passports were on boardMalaysia Airlines Flight 370, which went missing on 8 March 2014. It came to light thatInterpolmaintains a database of 40 million lost and stolen travel documents from 157 countries, which Interpol makes available to governments and the public, including airlines and hotels. The Stolen and Lost Travel Documents (SLTD) database, however, is rarely used.Big News Network(which is based in theUAE) reported that Interpol Secretary-GeneralRonald K. Nobletold a forum inAbu Dhabiin the previous month, "The bad news is that, despite being incredibly cost-effective and deployable to virtually anywhere in the world, only a handful of countries are systematically using SLTD to screen travelers. The result is a major gap in our global security apparatus that is left vulnerable to exploitation by criminals and terrorists."[40]
InAustralia, each state has enacted laws that deal with different aspects of identity or fraud issues. Some states have now amended relevant criminal laws to reflect crimes of identity theft, such as the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), Crimes Amendment (Fraud, Identity and Forgery Offences) Act 2009, and also in Queensland under the Criminal Code 1899 (QLD). Other states and territories are in states of development in respect of regulatory frameworks relating to identity theft such as Western Australia in respect of the Criminal Code Amendment (Identity Crime) Bill 2009.
At the Commonwealth level, under theCriminal Code Amendment (Theft, Fraud, Bribery & Related Offences) Act 2000which amended certain provisions within theCriminal Code Act 1995,
135.1 General dishonesty
(3) A person is guilty of an offense if
a) the person does anything with the intention of dishonestlycausing a loss to another person; and
b) the other person is a Commonwealth entity.
Penalty:Imprisonment for 5 years.
Between 2014 and 2015 in Australia, there were 133,921 fraud and deception offences, an increase of 6% from previous year. The total cost reported by the Attorney General Department was:[41]
$27,981 per recorded incident
There are also high indirect costs associated as a direct result of an incident. For example, the total indirect costs for police recorded fraud is $5,774,081.[41]
Likewise, each state has enacted its own privacy laws to prevent the misuse of personal information and data. The CommonwealthPrivacy Actapplies only to Commonwealth and territory agencies and to certain private-sector bodies (where, for example, they deal with sensitive records, such as medical records, or they have more than $3 million in turnover PA).
Under section 402.2 of theCriminal Code,
Everyone commits an offense who knowingly obtains or possesses another person's identity information in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable inference that the information is intended to be used to commit an indictable offense that includes fraud, deceit, or falsehood as an element of the offense.
is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or is guilty of an offense punishable on summary conviction.
Under section 403 of theCriminal Code,
(1) Everyone commits an offense who fraudulently personates another person, living or dead,
(a) with intent to gain advantage for themselves or another person;
(b) with intent to obtain any property or an interest in any property;
(c) with intent to cause disadvantage to the person being personated or another person; or
(d) with intent to avoid arrest or prosecution or to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice.
is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or guilty of an offense punishable on summary conviction.
In Canada,Privacy Act(federal legislation) covers only federal government, agencies andcrown corporations. Each province and territory has its own privacy law and privacy commissioners to limit the storage and use of personal data.
For the private sector, the purpose of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (2000, c. 5) (known as PIPEDA) is to establish rules to govern the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information; except for the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia where provincial laws have been deemed substantially similar.
In France, a person convicted of identity theft can be sentenced up to five years in prison and fined up to€75,000.[42]
Under HK Laws. Chap 210Theft Ordinance, sec. 16A Fraud:
(1) If any person by any deceit (whether or not the deceit is the sole or main inducement) and withintent to defraudinduces another person to commit an act or make an omission, which results either-
(a) inbenefit to any personother than the second-mentioned person; or
(b) in prejudice or a substantial risk of prejudice to any person other than the first-mentioned person,
the first-mentioned person commits the offense of fraud and is liable on conviction upon indictment toimprisonment for 14 years.
ThePersonal Data (Privacy) Ordinance(PDPO) regulates the collection, use and retention of personal information in Hong Kong. It also provides citizens the right to request information held by businesses and the government to the extent provided by this law. The PDPO establishes theOffice of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Datawhich enforces the law and advises on the use of personal data.
Under the Information Technology Act 2000 Chapter IX Sec 66C:
SECTION 66C
PUNISHMENT FOR IDENTITY THEFT
Whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly makes use of the electronic signature, password, or any other unique identification feature of any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to rupees onelakh.[43]
Social networking sites are one of the most famous spreaders ofposersin the online community, giving the users the freedom to post any information they want without any verification that the account is being used by the real person.[clarification needed]
The Philippines, which ranks eighth in the numbers of users ofFacebookand other social networking sites (such asTwitter,MultiplyandTumblr), has been known as a source of various identity theft problems.[44]Identities of people who carelessly put personal information on their profiles can easily be stolen just by simple browsing. Some people meet online, get to know each other through Facebook chat, and exchange messages that share private information. Others get romantically involved with online friends and end up sharing too much information (such as their social security number, bank account, home address, and company address).
This phenomenon leads to the creation of theCybercrime Prevention Act of 2012(Republic Act No. 10175). Section 2 of this act states that it recognizes the importance ofcommunicationandmultimediafor the development, exploitation, and dissemination of information[clarification needed], but violators will be punished by the law through imprisonment or a fine upwards of ₱200,000, but not exceeding ₱1,000,000, or (depending on the damage caused) both.
Sweden has had relatively few problems with identity theft because only Swedishidentity documentswere accepted for identity verification. Stolen documents are traceable by banks and certain other institutions[which?]. Banks are required to check the identity of anyone withdrawing money or getting loans. If a bank gives money to someone using an identity document that has been reported as stolen, the bank must take this loss. Since 2008, any EU passport is valid in Sweden for identity verification, and Swedish passports are valid all over the EU. This makes it harder to detect stolen documents, but banks in Sweden still must ensure that stolen documents are not accepted.
Other types of identity theft have become more common in Sweden. One common example is ordering a credit card to someone who has an unlocked letterbox and is not home during the daytime. The thief steals the letter with the credit card and the letter with the code, which typically arrives a few days later. Usage of a stolen credit card is difficult in Sweden since an identity document or a PIN code is normally demanded. If a shop does not demand either, it must take the loss from accepting a stolen credit card. The practice of observing someone using their credit card's PIN code, stealing the credit card, orskimmingit, and then using the credit card has become more common.
Legally, Sweden is an open society.The Principle of Public Accessstates that all information (e.g. addresses, incomes, taxes) kept by public authorities must be available for anyone, except in certain cases (for example, the addresses of people who need to hide are restricted). This makes fraud easier.
Until 2016, there were no laws that specifically prohibited using someone's identity. Instead, there were only laws regarding any indirect damages caused. Impersonating anyone else for financial gain is atype of fraudin theCriminal Code(Swedish:brottsbalken). Impersonating anyone else to discredit them by hacking into their social media accounts and provoke[clarification needed]is consideredlibel. However, it is difficult to convict someone of committing this crime. In late 2016, a new law was introduced which partially banned undetermined[clarification needed]identity usage.[45]
In the United Kingdom, personal data is protected by theData Protection Act 1998. The Act covers all personal data which an organization may hold, including names, birthday and anniversary dates, addresses, and telephone numbers.
UnderEnglish law(which extends toWalesbut not toNorthern IrelandorScotland), thedeceptionoffences under theTheft Act 1968increasingly contend with identity theft situations. InR v Seward(2005) EWCA Crim 1941,[46]the defendant was acting as the "frontman" in the use of stolen credit cards and other documents to obtain goods. He obtained goods to the value of £10,000 for others who are unlikely ever to be identified. The Court of Appeal considered a sentencing policy for deception offenses involving "identity theft" and concluded that a prison sentence was required. Henriques J. said at para 14: "Identity fraud is a particularly pernicious and prevalent form of dishonesty calling for, in our judgment, deterrent sentences."
Statistics released byCIFAS(UK's Fraud Prevention Service) show that there were 89,000 victims of identity theft in the UK in 2010 and 85,000 victims in 2009.[47][48][unreliable source?]Men in their 30s and 40s are the most common victims.[49][unreliable source?]Identity fraud now accounts for nearly half of all frauds recorded.[50]
The increase in crimes of identity theft led to the drafting of the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act.[51]In 1998, The Federal Trade Commission appeared before the United States Senate.[52]The FTC discussed crimes which exploit consumer credit to commit loan fraud,mortgage fraud, lines-of-credit fraud,credit card fraud, commodities and services frauds. The Identity Theft Deterrence Act (2003)[ITADA] amendedU.S. Code Title 18, § 1028("Fraud related to activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information"). The statute now makes the possession of any "means of identification" to "knowingly transfer, possess, or use without lawful authority" a federal crime, alongside unlawful possession of identification documents. However, for federal jurisdiction to prosecute, the crime must include an "identification document" that either: (a) is purportedly issued by the United States, (b) is used or intended to defraud the United States, (c) is sent through the mail, or (d) is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce.See18 U.S.C.§ 1028(c). Punishment can be up to 5, 15, 20, or 30 years in federalprison, plus fines, depending on the underlying crime per18 U.S.C.§ 1028(b). In addition, punishments for the unlawful use of a "means of identification" were strengthened in § 1028A ("Aggravated Identity Theft"), allowing for a consecutive sentence under specific enumerated felony violations as defined in § 1028A(c)(1) through (11).[53]
The Act also provides theFederal Trade Commissionwith authority to track the number of incidents and the dollar value of losses. Their figures relate mainly to consumer financial crimes and not the broader range of all identification-based crimes.[54]
If charges are brought by state or local law enforcement agencies, different penalties apply to depend on the state.
Six Federal agencies conducted a joint task force to increase the ability to detect identity theft. Their joint recommendation on "red flag" guidelines is a set of requirements on financial institutions and other entities which furnish credit data to credit reporting services to develop written plans for detecting identity theft. The FTC has determined that most medical practices are considered creditors and are subject to requirements to develop a plan to prevent and respond to patient identity theft.[55]These plans must be adopted by each organization's board of directors and monitored by senior executives.[56]
Identity theft complaints as a percentage of all fraud complaints decreased from 2004 to 2006.[57]The Federal Trade Commission reported that fraud complaints in general were growing faster than ID theft complaints.[57]The findings were similar in two other FTC studies done in 2003 and 2005. In 2003, 4.6 percent of the US population said they were a victim of ID theft. In 2005, that number had dropped to 3.7 percent of the population.[58][59]The commission's 2003 estimate was that identity theft accounted for some $52.6 billion of losses in the preceding year alone and affected more than 9.91 million Americans;[60]the figure comprises $47.6 billion lost by businesses and $5 billion lost by consumers.
According to theU.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2010, 7% of US households experienced identity theft - up from 5.5% in 2005 when the figures were first assembled, but broadly flat since 2007.[61]In 2012, approximately 16.6 million persons, or 7% of all U.S. residents age 16 or older, reported being victims of one or more incidents of identity theft.[62]
At least two states,California[63]andWisconsin[64]have created an Office of Privacy Protection to assist their citizens in avoiding and recovering from identity theft.
In 2009, Indiana created an Identity Theft Unit within their Office of Attorney General to educate and assist consumers in avoiding and recovering from identity theft as well as assist law enforcement in investigating and prosecuting identity theft crimes.[65][66]
In Massachusetts in 2009–2010, GovernorDeval Patrickcommitted to balancing consumer protection with the needs of small business owners. His Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation announced certain adjustments to Massachusetts' identity theft regulations that maintain protections and also allow flexibility in compliance. These updated regulations went into effect on 1 March 2010. The regulations are clear that their approach to data security is a risk-based approach important to small businesses and might not handle a lot of personal information about customers.[67][68]
TheIRShas created[when?]the IRS Identity Protection Specialized Unit to help taxpayers' who are victims of federal tax-related identity theft.[69]Generally, the identity thief will use a stolen SSN to file a forged tax return and attempt to get a fraudulent refund early in the filing season. A taxpayer will need to fill out Form 14039,Identity Theft Affidavit.[70][71]
As for the future of medical care and Medicaid, people are mostly concerned aboutcloud computing. The addition of using cloud information within the United States medicare system would institute easily accessible health information for individuals, but that also makes it easier for identity theft. Currently, new technology is being produced to help encrypt and protect files, which will create a smooth transition to cloud technology in the healthcare system.[72]
Many states followed California's lead and enacted mandatorydata breach notification laws. As a result, companies that report a data breach typically report it to all their customers.[73]
Surveys in the US from 2003 to 2006 showed a decrease in the total number of identity fraud victims and a decrease in the total value of identity fraud from US$47.6 billion in 2003 to $15.6 billion in 2006.[citation needed]The average fraud per person decreased from $4,789 in 2003 to $1,882 in 2006. A Microsoft report shows that this drop is due to statistical problems with the methodology, that such survey-based estimates are "hopelessly flawed" and exaggerate the true losses by orders of magnitude.[74]
The 2003 survey from the Identity Theft Resource Center[75]found that:
In a widely publicized account,[76]Michelle Brown, a victim of identity fraud, testified before a U.S. Senate Committee Hearing on Identity Theft. Ms. Brown testified that: "over a year and a half from January 1998 through July 1999, one individual impersonated me to procure over $50,000 in goods and services. Not only did she damage my credit, but she escalated her crimes to a level that I never truly expected: she engaged in drug trafficking. The crime resulted in my erroneous arrest record, a warrant out for my arrest, and eventually, a prison record when she was booked under my name as an inmate in the Chicago Federal Prison."
InAustralia, identity theft was estimated to be worth between A$1billion and A$4 billion per annum in 2001.[77]
In the United Kingdom, the Home Office reported that identity fraud costs the UK economy £1.2 billion annually[78](experts believe that the real figure could be much higher)[79]although privacy groups object to the validity of these numbers, arguing that they are being used by the government to push for introduction ofnational ID cards. Confusion over exactly what constitutes identity theft has led to claims that statistics may be exaggerated.[80]An extensively reported[81][82]study from Microsoft Research[83]in 2011 finds that estimates of identity theft losses contain enormous exaggerations, writing that surveys "are so compromised and biased that no faith whatever can be placed in their findings."
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_theft
|
Industrial espionage, also known aseconomic espionage,corporate spying, orcorporate espionage, is a form ofespionageconducted forcommercialpurposes instead of purelynational security.[1]
While political espionage is conducted or orchestrated bygovernmentsand is international in scope, industrial or corporate espionage is more often national and occurs between companies orcorporations.[2]
In short, the purpose of espionage is to gather knowledge about one or more organizations. Economic or industrial espionage takes place in two main forms. It may include the acquisition ofintellectual property, such as information on industrial manufacture, ideas, techniques and processes, recipes and formulas. Or it could includesequestrationofproprietaryor operationalinformation, such as that on customerdatasets,pricing,sales,marketing,research and development, policies, prospectivebids, planning ormarketing strategiesor the changing compositions and locations of production.[3]It may describe activities such as theft oftrade secrets,bribery,blackmailand technologicalsurveillance. As well as orchestrating espionage oncommercial organizations, governments can also be targets – for example, to determine the terms of a tender for agovernment contract.
Economic and industrial espionage is most commonly associated withtechnology-heavy industries, includingcomputer softwareandhardware,biotechnology,aerospace,telecommunications,transportationandengine technology,automobiles,machine tools,energy,materialsandcoatingsand so on.Silicon Valleyis known to be one of the world's most targeted areas for espionage, though any industry with information of use to competitors may be a target.[4]
Information can make the difference between success and failure; if atrade secretis stolen, the competitive playing field is leveled or even tipped in favor of a competitor. Although a lot ofinformation-gatheringis accomplished legally throughcompetitive intelligence, at times corporations feel the best way to get information is to take it.[5]Economic or industrial espionage is a threat to any business whoselivelihooddepends on information.
In recent years, economic or industrial espionage has taken on an expanded definition. For instance, attempts tosabotagea corporation may be considered industrial espionage; in this sense, the term takes on the wider connotations of its parent word. That espionage andsabotage(corporate or otherwise) have become more clearly associated with each other is also demonstrated by a number of profiling studies, some government, some corporate. TheUnited States governmentcurrently has apolygraph examinationentitled the "Test of Espionage and Sabotage" (TES), contributing to the notion of the interrelationship between espionage and sabotage countermeasures.[6]In practice, particularly by "trusted insiders", they are generally considered functionally identical for the purpose of informingcountermeasures.
Economic or industrial espionage commonly occurs in one of two ways. Firstly, adissatisfiedemployeeappropriates information to advance interests or to damage the company. Secondly, a competitor or foreign government seeks information to advance its own technological or financial interest.[7]"Moles", or trustedinsiders, are generally considered the best sources for economic or industrial espionage.[8]Historically known as a "patsy", an insider can be induced, willingly or underduress, to provide information. A patsy may be initially asked to hand over inconsequential information and, once compromised by committing acrime,blackmailedinto handing over moresensitive material.[9]Individuals may leave one company to take up employment with another and takesensitive informationwith them.[10]Such apparent behavior has been the focus of numerous industrial espionage cases that have resulted in legal battles.[10]Some countries hire individuals to do spying rather than the use of their ownintelligence agencies.[11]Academics, business delegates, andstudentsare often thought to be used by governments in gathering information.[12]Some countries, such asJapan, have been reported to expect students to bedebriefedon returning home.[12]A spy may follow aguided tourof afactoryand then get "lost".[9]A spy could be anengineer, amaintenance man, acleaner, aninsurance salesman, or aninspector: anyone who has legitimate access to the premises.[9]
A spy maybreak intothe premises tostealdataand may search throughwaste paperandrefuse, known as "dumpster diving".[13]Information may be compromised via unsolicited requests for information,marketing surveys, or use of technical support or research or software facilities.Outsourcedindustrial producers may ask for information outside the agreed-uponcontract.[14]
Computershave facilitated the process of collecting information because of the ease of access to large amounts of information through physical contact or theInternet.[15]
Economic and industrial espionage has a long history. FatherFrancois Xavier d'Entrecolles, who visitedJingdezhen,Chinain 1712 and later used this visit to reveal the manufacturing methods ofChinese porcelainto Europe, is sometimes considered to have conducted an early case of industrial espionage.[16]
Historical accounts have been written of industrial espionage betweenBritainandFrance.[17]Attributed toBritain'semergence as an "industrial creditor", the second decade of the18th centurysaw the emergence of a large-scale state-sponsored effort to surreptitiously take Britishindustrial technologyto France.[17]Witnessesconfirmed both theinveiglingoftradespersonsabroad and the placing ofapprenticesin England.[18]Protests by those such asironworkersinSheffieldandsteelworkersinNewcastle,[clarification needed]about skilledindustrial workersbeing enticed abroad, led to the firstEnglishlegislationaimed at preventing this method of economic and industrial espionage.[19][18]This did not preventSamuel Slaterfrom bringing British textile technology to theUnited Statesin 1789. In order to catch up with technological advances of European powers, the US government in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries actively encouraged intellectual piracy.[20][21]
American founding father and firstU.S. Treasury SecretaryAlexander Hamiltonadvocated rewarding those bringing "improvements and secrets of extraordinary value"[22]into the United States. This was instrumental in making the United States a haven for industrial spies.
East-West commercial development opportunities afterWorld War Isaw a rise inSovietinterest inAmericanandEuropeanmanufacturingknow-how, exploited byAmtorg Corporation.[23]Later, with Western restrictions on theexportof items thought likely to increase military capabilities to theUSSR, Soviet industrial espionage was a well known adjunct to other spying activities up until the 1980s.[24]BYTEreported in April 1984, for example, that although the Soviets sought to develop their ownmicroelectronics, their technology appeared to be several years behind theWest's. SovietCPUsrequired multiplechipsand appeared to be close or exact copies of American products such as theIntel 3000andDEC LSI-11/2.[25][a]
Some of these activities were directed via theEast GermanStasi(Ministry for State Security). One such operation, "Operation Brunnhilde," operated from the mid-1950s until early 1966 and made use of spies from manyCommunist Bloccountries. Through at least 20 forays, many western European industrial secrets were compromised.[26]One member of the "Brunnhilde" ring was aSwisschemical engineer, Dr. Jean Paul Soupert (also known as "Air Bubble"), living inBrussels. He was described byPeter WrightinSpycatcheras having been "doubled" by theBelgianSûreté de l'État.[26][27]He revealed information about industrial espionage conducted by the ring, including the fact thatRussianagents had obtained details ofConcorde's advanced electronics system.[28]He testified against twoKodakemployees, living and working in Britain, during a trial in which they were accused of passing information on industrial processes to him, though they were eventually acquitted.[26]
According to a 2020American Economic Reviewstudy, East German industrial espionage in West Germany significantly reduced the gap intotal factor productivitybetween the two countries.[29]
A secret report from theMilitary-Industrial Commission of the USSR(VPK), from 1979–80, detailed howspetsinformatsiya(Russian:специнформация, "special records") could be utilised in twelve different military industrial areas. Writing in theBulletin of the Atomic Scientists,Philip Hansondetailed aspetsinformatsiyasystem in which 12 industrial branch ministries formulated requests for information to aid technological development in their military programs. Acquisition plans were described as operating on 2-year and 5-year cycles with about 3000 tasks underway each year. Efforts were aimed at civilian and military industrial targets, such as in thepetrochemical industries. Some information was gathered to compare Soviet technological advancement with that of their competitors. Much unclassified information was also gathered, blurring the boundary with "competitive intelligence".[24]
TheSoviet militarywas recognised as making much better use of acquired information than civilian industries, where their record in replicating and developing industrial technology was poor.[b][24]
Following the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of theCold War, commentators, including theUS CongressionalIntelligence Committee, noted a redirection amongst the espionage community from military to industrial targets, with Western and former communist countries making use of "underemployed" spies and expanding programs directed at stealing information.[30][31]
The legacy of Cold War spying included not just the redirection of personnel but the use of spying apparatus such as computer databases,scanners for eavesdropping,spy satellites,bugsandwires.[32]
Former CIA DirectorStansfield Turnerstated in 1991, "as we increase emphasis on securing economic intelligence, we will have to spy on the more developed countries-our allies and friends with whom we compete economically-but to whom we turn first forpoliticalandmilitary assistancein a crisis. This means that rather than instinctively reaching for human, on-site spying, the United States will want to look to those impersonal technical systems, primarilysatellite photographyand intercepts".[33]
FormerCIA DirectorJames Woolseyacknowledged in 2000 that the United States steals economic secrets from foreign firms and their governments "with espionage, withcommunications, withreconnaissance satellites". He listed the three reasons as understanding whether sanctions are functioning for countries under sanction, monitoring dual-use technology that could be used to produce or develop weapons, and to spy on bribery.[34]
In 2013 The United States was accused of spying onBrazilianoil companyPetrobras. Brazil's PresidentDilma Rousseffstated that it was tantamount to industrial espionage and had no security justification.[35]
In 2014 former US intelligence officerEdward Snowdenstated that theNational Security Agency(NSA) was engaged in industrial espionage and that they spied onGermancompanies that compete with US firms. He also highlighted the fact the NSA usesmobile phone appssuch asAngry Birdsto gatherpersonal data.[36]
According to a 2014Glenn Greenwaldarticle, "potentially sabotaging another country's hi-tech industries and their top companies has long been a sanctioned American strategy." The article was based on a leaked report issued from former U.S.Director of National IntelligenceJames R. Clapper's office that evaluated how intelligence could be used to overcome a loss of the United States' technological and innovative edge. When contacted, theDirector of National Intelligenceoffice responded, "the United States—unlike our adversaries—does not steal proprietary corporate information", and insisted that "the Intelligence Community regularly engages in analytic exercises". The report, he said, "is not intended to be, and is not, a reflection of current policy or operations".[37]
In September 2019, security firmQi An Xinpublished report linking the CIA to a series of attacks targeting Chinese aviation agencies between 2012 and 2017.[38][39]
Israelhas an active program to gather proprietary information within the United States. These collection activities are primarily directed at obtaining information on military systems and advanced computing applications that can be used in Israel's sizablearmaments industry.[40][41]
Israel was accused by the US government of selling USmilitary technologyand secrets to China in 1993.[42]
In 2014 American counter-intelligence officials told members of theHouse JudiciaryandForeign Affairscommittees that Israel's current espionage activities in America are "unrivaled".[43]
Computers have become key in exercising industrial espionage due to the enormous amount of information they contain and the ease at which it can be copied and transmitted. The use of computers for espionage increased rapidly in the 1990s. Information has commonly been stolen by individuals posing as subsidiary workers, such as cleaners or repairmen, gaining access to unattended computers and copying information from them.Laptopswere, and still are, a prime target, with thosetravelingabroad on business being warned not to leave them for any period of time. Perpetrators of espionage have been known to find many ways of conning unsuspecting individuals into parting, often only temporarily, from their possessions, enabling others to access and steal information.[44]A "bag-op" refers to the use ofhotel staffto access data, such as throughlaptops, in hotel rooms. Information may be stolen in transit, intaxis, atairportbaggage counters,baggage carousels, ontrainsand so on.[13]
The rise of the Internet andcomputer networkshas expanded the range and detail of information available and the ease of access for the purpose of industrial espionage.[45]This type of operation is generally identified as state backed or sponsored, because the "access to personal, financial or analytic resources" identified exceed that which could be accessed bycyber criminalsor individualhackers. Sensitive military or defense engineering or other industrial information may not have immediatemonetary valueto criminals, compared with, say,bankdetails. Analysis of cyberattacks suggests deep knowledge of networks, with targeted attacks, obtained by numerous individuals operating in a sustained organized way.[45]
The rising use of the internet has also extended opportunities for industrial espionage with the aim of sabotage. In the early 2000s, energy companies were increasingly coming under attack from hackers. Energy power systems, doing jobs like monitoringpower gridsorwater flow, once isolated from the other computer networks, were now being connected to the internet, leaving them more vulnerable, having historically few built-in security features.[46]The use of these methods of industrial espionage have increasingly become a concern for governments, due to potential attacks by hostile foreign governments or terrorist groups.
One of the means of perpetrators conducting industrial espionage is by exploiting vulnerabilities in computer software.Malwareandspywareare "tool[s] for industrial espionage", in "transmitting digital copies of trade secrets, customer plans, future plans and contacts". Newer forms of malware include devices which surreptitiously switch on mobile phonescameraandrecording devices. In attempts to tackle such attacks on their intellectual property, companies are increasingly keeping important information "off network," leaving an "air gap", with some companies buildingFaraday cagesto shield fromelectromagneticorcellphonetransmissions.[47]
Thedistributed denial of service(DDoS) attack uses compromised computer systems to orchestrate a flood of requests on the target system, causing it to shut down and deny service to other users.[48]It could potentially be used for economic or industrial espionage with the purpose of sabotage. This method was allegedly utilized byRussian secret services, over a period of two weeks on acyberattackonEstoniain May 2007, in response to the removal of aSoviet era war memorial.[49]
In 1848, theBritish East India CompanybrokeQing China's global near-monopolyon tea production by smuggling Chinese tea out of the nation and copying Chinese tea-making processes.[50]TheBritish Empirehad previously run a considerable trade deficit with China by importing the nation'steaand other goods. The British attempted to rectify thedeficitby tradingopiumto the Chinese, but encountered difficulties after theDaoguang Emperorbanned the opium trade and theFirst Opium Warbroke out. To avoid further issues in trading tea with China, the East India Company hiredScottishbotanistRobert Fortuneto travel to China under the guise of a Chinese nobleman and obtain Chinese trade secrets and tea plants for replanting. Infiltrating Chinese tea-making facilities, Fortune recorded the Chinese process for creating tea and smuggled tealeavesandseedsback to the East India Company.[51]The East India Company later introduced these methods tocompany-ruled India, using India to compete and surpass China in tea production.[52]
Between 1987 and 1989,IBMandTexas Instrumentswere thought to have been targeted by FrenchDGSEwith the intention of helping France'sGroupe Bull.[53]In 1993, U.S. aerospace companies were also thought to have been targeted by French interests.[54]During the early 1990s, France was described as one of the most aggressive pursuers of espionage to garner foreign industrial and technological secrets.[53]France accused the U.S. of attempting to sabotage itshigh techindustrial base.[53]The government of France allegedly continues to conduct ongoing industrial espionage against Americanaerodynamicsandsatellitecompanies.[55]
In 1993, car manufacturerOpel, the German division ofGeneral Motors, accusedVolkswagenof industrial espionage after Opel's chief of production,Jose Ignacio Lopez, and seven other executives moved to Volkswagen.[10]Volkswagen subsequently threatened to sue for defamation, resulting in a four-year legal battle.[10]The case, which was finally settled in 1997, resulted in one of the largest settlements in the history of industrial espionage, with Volkswagen agreeing to pay General Motors $100 million and to buy at least $1 billion of car parts from the company over 7 years, although it did not explicitly apologize for Lopez's behavior.[56]
In April 2009,Starwoodaccused its rivalHilton Worldwideof a "massive" case of industrial espionage. After being acquired byThe Blackstone Group, Hilton employed 10 managers and executives from Starwood. Starwood accused Hilton of stealing corporate information relating to its luxury brand concepts, used in setting up its Denizen hotels. Specifically, former head of itsluxury brandsgroup, Ron Klein, was accused of downloading "truckloads of documents" from a laptop to his personal email account.[57]
On 13 January 2010,Googleannounced that operators, from within China, had hacked into their Google China operation, stealing intellectual property and, in particular, accessing the email accounts of human rights activists.[58][59]The attack was thought to have been part of a more widespread cyber attack on companies within China which has become known asOperation Aurora.[59]Intruders were thought to have launched azero-day attack, exploiting a weakness in theMicrosoftInternet Explorerbrowser, the malware used being a modification of thetrojan"Hydraq".[47]Concerned about the possibility of hackers taking advantage of this previously unknownweaknessin Internet Explorer, the governments of Germany and, subsequently France, issued warnings not to use thebrowser.[60]
There was speculation that "insiders" had been involved in the attack, with someGoogle Chinaemployees being denied access to the company's internal networks after the company's announcement.[61][62]In February 2010, computer experts from the U.S.National Security Agencyclaimed that the attacks on Google probably originated from two Chinese universities associated with expertise incomputer science,Shanghai Jiao Tong Universityand theShandong Lanxiang Vocational School, the latter having close links to theChinese military.[63]
Google claimed at least 20 other companies had also been targeted in the cyber attack, said by theLondonTimes, to have been part of an "ambitious and sophisticated attempt to steal secrets from unwitting corporate victims" including "defence contractors, finance and technology companies".[59][58][60]Rather than being the work of individuals or organised criminals, the level of sophistication of the attack was thought to have been "more typical of anation state".[58]Some commentators speculated as to whether the attack was part of what is thought to be a concerted Chinese industrial espionage operation aimed at getting "high-tech information to jump-startChina's economy".[64]Critics pointed to what was alleged to be a lax attitude to the intellectual property of foreign businesses in China, letting them operate but then seeking to copy orreverse engineertheir technology for the benefit of Chinese "national champions".[65]In Google's case, they may have (also) been concerned about the possible misappropriation of source code or other technology for the benefit of Chinese rivalBaidu. In March 2010 Google subsequently decided to cease offeringcensored results in China, leading to the closing of its Chinese operation.
The United States charged two formerNetLogicInc. engineers,Lan LeeandYuefei Ge, of committing economic espionage against TSMC and NetLogic, Inc. A jury acquitted the defendants of the charges with regard to TSMC and deadlocked on the charges with regard to NetLogic. In May 2010, a federal judge dismissed all the espionage charges against the twodefendants. The judge ruled that the U.S. government presented no evidence of espionage.[66]
In May 2010, the federal jury convictedChordiantSoftware, Inc., a U.S. corporation, of stealingDongxiao Yue'sJRPC technologies and used them in a product called Chordiant Marketing Director. Yue previously filed lawsuits againstSymantec Corporationfor a similar theft.[67]
Revelations from the Snowden documents have provided information to the effect that the United States, notably vis-à-vis the NSA, has been conducting aggressive economic espionage againstBrazil.[68]Canadian intelligence has apparently supported U.S. economic espionage efforts.[69]
The Chinese cybersecurity company Qihoo 360 accused the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States of an 11-year-long hacking campaign[70]that targeted several industries including aviation organizations, scientific research institutions, petroleum firms, internet companies, and government agencies.[71]
A 2009 report to the US government, by aerospace and defense companyNorthrop Grumman, describesChinese economic espionageas comprising "the single greatest threat to U.S. technology".[45]Blogging onthe 2009 cyber attack on Google, Joe Stewart ofSecureWorksreferred to a "persistent campaign of 'espionage-by-malware' emanating from the People's Republic of China (PRC)" with both corporate and state secrets being "Shanghaied".[72]The Northrop Grumman report states that the collection of US defense engineering data stolen through cyberattacks is regarded as having "saved the recipient of the information years of R&D and significant amounts of funding".[45]Concerns about the extent of cyberattacks has led to the situation being described as the dawn of a "new cold cyberwar".[73]
According toEdward Snowden, theNational Security Agencyspies on foreign companies.[74]In June 2015 Wikileaks published documents about the National Security Agency spying on French companies.[75]
During December 2007, this was suddenly revealed thatJonathan Evans, head of theUnited Kingdom'sMI5, had sent out confidential letters to 300 chief executives and security chiefs at the country's banks, accountants and legal firms warning of attacks from Chinese 'state organisations'.[76]A summary was also posted on the secure website of theCentre for the Protection of the National Infrastructure, accessed by some of the nation's 'critical infrastructure' companies, including 'telecoms firms, banks and water and electricity companies'.[77]One security expert warned about the use of 'customtrojans,' software specifically designed to hack into a particular firm and feed back data.[77]Whilst China was identified as the country most active in the use of internet spying, up to 120 other countries were said to be using similar techniques.[77]The Chinese government responded to UK accusations of economic espionage by saying that the report of such activities was 'slanderous' and that the government opposed hacking which is prohibited bylaw.[78]
German counter-intelligence experts have maintained the German economy is losing around €53 billion or the equivalent of 30,000 jobs to economic espionage yearly.[79]
InOperation Eikonal, GermanBNDagents received "selector lists" from theNSA– search terms for their dragnet surveillance. They contain IP addresses, mobile phone numbers and email accounts with the BND surveillance system containing hundreds of thousands and possibly more than a million such targets.[80]These lists have been subject of controversy as in 2008 it was revealed that they contained some terms targeting theEuropean Aeronautic Defence and Space Company(EADS), theEurocopterproject[81]as well as French administration,[82][80]which were first noticed by BND employees in 2005.[81]After the revelations made by whistleblower Edward Snowden, the BND decided to investigate the issue whose October 2013 conclusion was that at least 2,000 of these selectors were aimed at Western European or even German interests which has been a violation of the Memorandum of Agreement that the US and Germany signed in 2002 in the wake of the9/11 terror attacks.[80]After reports emerged in 2014 that EADS and Eurocopter had been surveillance targets theLeft Partyand theGreensfiled an official request to obtain evidence of the violations.[80][83]
The BND's project group charged with supporting theNSA investigative committee in German parliamentset up in spring 2014, reviewed the selectors and discovered 40,000 suspicious search parameters, including espionage targets in Western European governments and numerous companies. The group also confirmed suspicions that the NSA had systematically violated German interests and concluded that the Americans could have perpetratedeconomic espionagedirectly under the Germans' noses.[80][84]The investigative parliamentary committee was not granted access to the NSA's selectors list as an appeal led by opposition politicians failed at Germany's top court. Instead the ruling coalition appointed an administrative judge,Kurt Graulich[de], as a "person of trust" who was granted access to the list and briefed the investigative commission on its contents after analyzing the 40,000 parameters.[85][86]In his almost 300-paged report[87]Graulich concluded that European government agencies were targeted massively and that Americans hence broke contractual agreements. He also found that German targets which received special protection from surveillance of domestic intelligence agencies byGermany's Basic Law (Grundgesetz)− including numerous enterprises based in Germany – were featured in the NSA's wishlist in a surprising plenitude.[88]
"Competitive intelligence" involves the legal and ethical activity of systematically gathering, analyzing and managing information on industrial competitors.[89]It may include activities such as examining newspaper articles, corporate publications, websites, patent filings, specialised databases, information at trade shows and the like to determine information on a corporation.[90]The compilation of these crucial elements is sometimes termed[by whom?]CIS or CRS, aCompetitive Intelligence SolutionorCompetitive Response Solution, with its roots inmarket research. Douglas Bernhardt has characterised "competitive intelligence" as involving "the application of principles and practices from military and national intelligence to the domain of global business";[91]it is the commercial equivalent ofopen-source intelligence.
The difference between competitive intelligence and economic or industrial espionage is not clear; one needs to understand the legal basics to recognize how to draw the line between the two.[92][93]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_espionage
|
Linux malwareincludesviruses,Trojans,wormsand other types ofmalwarethat affect theLinuxfamily ofoperating systems. Linux,Unixand otherUnix-likecomputer operating systems are generally regarded as very well-protected against, but not immune to,computer viruses.[1][2]
Like Unix systems, Linux implements amulti-userenvironment where users are granted specificprivilegesand there is some form of access control implemented. To gain control over a Linux system or to cause any serious consequences to the system itself, the malware would have to gain root access to the system.[2]
In the past, it has been suggested that Linux had so little malware because its low market share made it a less profitable target. Rick Moen, an experienced Linux system administrator, counters that:
[That argument] ignores Unix's dominance in a number of non-desktop specialties, including Web servers and scientific workstations. A virus/trojan/worm author who successfully targeted specifically Apache httpd Linux/x86 Web servers would both have an extremely target-rich environment and instantly earn lasting fame, and yet it doesn't happen.[3]
In 2008 the quantity of malware targeting Linux was noted as increasing. Shane Coursen, a senior technical consultant withKaspersky Lab, said at the time, "The growth in Linux malware is simply due to its increasing popularity, particularly as a desktop operating system ... The use of an operating system is directly correlated to the interest by the malware writers to develop malware for that OS."[4]
Tom Ferris, a researcher with Security Protocols, commented on one of Kaspersky's reports, stating, "In people's minds, if it's non-Windows, it's secure, and that's not the case. They think nobody writes malware for Linux or Mac OS X. But that's not necessarily true."[4]
Some Linux users do run Linux-based anti-virus software to scan insecure documents and email which comes from or is going to Windows users. SecurityFocus's Scott Granneman stated:
...some Linux machines definitely need anti-virus software. Samba or NFS servers, for instance, may store documents in undocumented, vulnerable Microsoft formats, such as Word and Excel, that contain and propagate viruses. Linux mail servers should run AV software in order to neutralize viruses before they show up in the mailboxes of Outlook and Outlook Express users.[1]
Because they are predominantly used on mail servers which may send mail to computers running other operating systems, Linux virus scanners generally use definitions for, and scan for, all known viruses for all computer platforms. For example, the open sourceClamAV"Detects ... viruses, worms and trojans, including Microsoft Office macro viruses,mobile malware, and other threats."[5]
Cases of malware intended for Microsoft Windows systems posing a danger to Linux systems when run through compatibility layers such asWine, while uncommon, have been recorded.[6]
The viruses listed below pose a potential, although minimal, threat to Linux systems. If an infected binary containing one of the viruses were run, the system would be temporarily infected, as the Linux kernel is memory resident and read-only. Any infection level would depend on which user with what privileges ran the binary. A binary run under the root account would be able to infect the entire system.Privilege escalationvulnerabilities may permit malware running under a limited account to infect the entire system.
It is worth noting that this is true for any malicious program that is run without special steps taken to limit its privileges. It is trivial to add a code snippet to any program that a user may download and let this additional code download a modified login server, anopen mail relay, or similar program, and make this additional component run any time the user logs in. No special malware writing skills are needed for this. Special skill may be needed for tricking the user to run the (trojan) program in the first place.
The use ofsoftware repositoriessignificantly reduces any threat of installation of malware, as the software repositories are checked by maintainers, who try to ensure that their repository is malware-free. Subsequently, to ensure safe distribution of the software,checksumsare made available. These make it possible to reveal modified versions that may have been introduced by e.g. hijacking of communications using aman-in-the-middle attackor via a redirection attack such asARPorDNS poisoning. Careful use of thesedigital signaturesprovides an additional line of defense, which limits the scope of attacks to include only the original authors, package and release maintainers and possibly others with suitable administrative access, depending on how the keys and checksums are handled.Reproducible buildscan ensure that digitally signed source code has been reliably transformed into a binary application.
The classical threat to Unix-like systems are vulnerabilities in networkdaemons, such as SSH and web servers. These can be used bywormsor for attacks against specific targets. As servers are patched quite quickly when a vulnerability is found, there have been only a few widespread worms of this kind. As specific targets can be attacked through a vulnerability that isnot publicly knownthere is no guarantee that a certain installation is secure. Also servers without such vulnerabilities can be successfully attacked throughweak passwords.
Linux servers may also be used by malware without any attack against the system itself, where e.g. web content and scripts are insufficiently restricted or checked and used by malware to attack visitors. Some attacks use complicated malware to attack Linux servers, but when most get full root access then hackers are able to attack by[7]modifying anything like replacing binaries or injecting modules. This may allow the redirection of users to different content on the web.[8]Typically, aCGIscript meant for leaving comments, could, by mistake, allow inclusion of code exploiting vulnerabilities in the web browser.
Older Linux distributions were relatively sensitive tobuffer overflowattacks: if the program did not care about the size of the buffer itself, the kernel provided only limited protection, allowing an attacker to execute arbitrary code under the rights of the vulnerable application under attack. Programs that gain root access even when launched by a non-root user (via thesetuidbit) were particularly attractive to attack. However, as of 2009 most of the kernels includeaddress space layout randomization(ASLR), enhanced memory protection and other extensions making such attacks much more difficult to arrange.
An area of concern identified in 2007 is that ofcross-platformviruses, driven by the popularity of cross-platform applications. This was brought to the forefront of malware awareness by the distribution of anOpenOffice.orgvirus calledBadbunny.
Stuart Smith ofSymantecwrote the following:
What makes this virus worth mentioning is that it illustrates how easily scripting platforms, extensibility, plug-ins, ActiveX, etc, can be abused. All too often, this is forgotten in the pursuit to match features with another vendor... The ability for malware to survive in a cross-platform, cross-application environment has particular relevance as more and more malware is pushed out via Web sites. How long until someone uses something like this to drop a JavaScript infecter on a Web server, regardless of platform?[9]
As is the case with any operating system, Linux is vulnerable to malware that tricks the user into installing it throughsocial engineering. In December 2009 a malicious waterfall screensaver that contained a script that used the infected Linux PC indenial-of-service attackswas discovered.[10]
TheIBM Security Report: Attacks on Industries Supporting COVID-19 Response Efforts Doublehad as a key point that "Cybercriminals Accelerate Use of Linux Malware – With a 40% increase in Linux-related malware families in the past year, and a 500% increase in Go-written malware in the first six months of 2020, attackers are accelerating a migration to Linux malware, that can more easily run on various platforms, including cloud environments." That these cybercriminals are increasingly using Linux and Unix to target hospitals and allied industries (that rely on these systems and cloud networks) that they are increasingly vulnerable during the COVID-19 crisis, such as theRed Cross cyberattack.[11]
There are a number of anti-virus applications available which will run under the Linux operating system. Most of these applications are looking for exploits which could affect users of Microsoft Windows.
These applications are useful for computers (typically, servers) which will pass on files toMicrosoft Windowsusers. They do not look for Linux-specific threats.
These applications look for actual threats to the Linux computers on which they are running.
Linux malware can also be detected (and analyzed) using memory forensics tools, such as:
The following is a partial list of known Linux malware. However, few if any are in the wild, and most have been rendered obsolete by Linux updates or were never a threat. Known malware is not the only or even the most important threat: new malware or attacks directed to specific sites can usevulnerabilitiespreviously unknown to the community or unused by malware.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_malware
|
Malvertising(aportmanteauof "malicious software (malware) advertising") is the use ofonline advertisingto spreadmalware.[1]It typically involves injecting malicious or malware-laden advertisements into legitimateonline advertising networksandwebpages.[2]Because advertising content can be inserted into high-profile and reputable websites, malvertising provides malefactors an opportunity to push their attacks to web users who might not otherwise see the ads, due to firewalls, more safety precautions, or the like.[3][4]Malvertising is "attractive to attackers because they 'can be easily spread across a large number of legitimate websites without directly compromising those websites'."[5]
Malvertising can be extremely hard to combat because it can quietly work its way into a webpage or webpage advertisement and spread unknowingly: "The interesting thing about infections delivered through malvertising is that it does not require any user action (like clicking) to compromise the system and it does not exploit any vulnerabilities on the website or the server it is hosted from... infections delivered through malvertising silently travel through Web page advertisements."[6]It is able to expose millions of users to malware, even the most cautious, and is growing rapidly: "In 2012, it was estimated nearly 10 billion ad impressions were compromised by malvertising."[2]Attackers have a very wide reach and are able to deliver these attacks easily through advertisement networks. Companies and websites have had difficulty diminishing the number of malvertising attacks, which "suggests that this attack vector isn’t likely to disappear soon."[5]
When websites or web publishers unknowingly incorporate corrupted or malicious advertisements into their page, computers can become infected pre-click and post-click. It is a misconception that infection only happens when visitors begin clicking on a malvertisement. "Examples of pre-click malware include being embedded in main scripts of the page ordrive-by-downloads. Malware can also auto-run, as in the case of auto redirects, where the user is automatically taken to a different site (without user interaction, such as clicking on them), which could be malicious. Malware can also be found in the delivery of an ad – where a clean ad that has no malware pre- or post-click (in its build and design) can still be infected whilst being called.[7]Malicious code can hide undetected and the user has no idea what's coming their way. A post-click malvertisement example: "the user clicks on the ad to visit the advertised site, and instead is directly infected or redirected to a malicious site. These sites trick users into copying viruses or spyware usually disguised as Flash files, which are very popular on the web."[8]Redirectionis often built into online advertising, and this spread of malware is often successful because users expect a redirection to happen when clicking on an advertisement. A redirection that is taking place only needs to be co-opted in order to infect a user's computer.[1]
Malvertising affects every part of the digital advertising chain differently. From platforms to publishers, and all the way down to the end-user who may have been the victim of a malvertising attack, everyone is affected.[9]Malvertising often involves the exploitation of trustworthy companies. Those attempting to spread malware place "clean" advertisements on trustworthy sites first in order to gain a good reputation, then they later "insert a virus or spyware in the code behind the ad, and after a mass virus infection is produced, they remove the virus", thus infecting all visitors of the site during that time period. The identities of those responsible are often hard to trace, making it hard to prevent the attacks or stop them altogether, because the "ad network infrastructure is very complex with many linked connections between ads and click-through destinations."[8]
Some malvertisements can infect a vulnerable computer even if the user never clicks on the (normal-appearing) advertisement.[10]
The first recorded sightings of malvertising were in late 2007 and early 2008. The threat was based on a vulnerability in Adobe Flash (something that has continued into the late 2010s[11]) and affected a number of platforms includingMySpace, Excite and Rhapsody. In 2009, the online edition ofThe New York Times Magazinewas found to be serving an ad that was part of a largerclick fraudscam that created a botnet network of malware-infected computers, nicknamed the Bahama botnet, that then went on to be used to carry out click fraud on pay per click ads all over the web. The banner feed ofThe New York Timeswas hacked for the weekend of September 11 to 14, causing some readers to see advertisements telling them their systems were infected and trying to trick them into installingrogue security softwareon their computers. According to spokeswoman Diane McNulty, "The culprit approached the newspaper as a national advertiser and had provided apparently legitimate ads for a week", and the ads were switched to the virus alert malvertisement afterwards.The New York Timesthen suspended third-party advertisements to address the problem, and even posted advice for readers regarding this issue on its technology blog.[12]
In 2010, malvertising took off. Marketing analysts ClickZ[13]noted that the Online Trust Alliance (OTA) identified billions of display ads, across 3500 sites carrying malware. In the same year the Online Trust Alliance[14]formed a cross industry Anti-Malvertising Task Force. In 2011, Spotify had a malvertising attack which used theBlackhole exploit kit– this was one of the first instances of adrive-by download, where a user does not even have to click on an ad to become infected with malware. Symantec added malvertising as a section in their Internet Security Threat Report 2013 in 2012.[15]Symantec used scanning software across a series of websites and detected that half of them were infected with malvertising. In 2012, theLos Angeles Timeswas hit by a massive malvertising attack which used the Blackhole exploit kit to infect users. It was seen as part of a general campaign of malvertising to hit large news portals – this strategy carried on into subsequent years with attacks on huffingtonpost.com andThe New York Times. The growing intensity of malvertising continued in 2013, when a major malvertising campaign was waged againstYahoo.com, one of the largest ad platforms with monthly visits of 6.9 billion. The malware exploit was based on the commonly used web attack,Cross-site scripting(XSS), number three in the top ten web attacks types identified by the Open Web Application Security Project[16](OWASP). The attack infected users' machines with the ransomware Cryptowall, a type of malware that extorts money from users by encrypting their data and placing a ransom of up to $1000 in bitcoins, to be paid in seven days, to decrypt the data. In 2014, there were major malvertising campaigns on theDoubleClickandZedoad networks. Various news portals, includingThe Times of Israeland theHindustan Times, were affected. As in previous attacks the cybercrime involved Cryptowall as the malware infection. This spate of malvertising was believed to have brought over $1 million of ransom money in by infecting over 600,000 computers.[17]
According toMcAfee's February 2015 Threat Report, malvertising was beginning to grow quickly on mobile platforms in late 2014 and early 2015.[18]Additionally, in 2015, there were malvertising campaigns oneBay,Answers.com, talktalk.co.uk, and wowhead.com, among others. The campaigns involved breaches of ad networks, including DoubleClick and engage:BDR. There was also a report of possibly the first "political malvertising" campaign by pro-Russian activists, which was based on a botnet, which then forced users' machines to visit bogus sites that generated ad revenue for the activists. The users also ended up at several pro-Russian propaganda videos.[19]
In 2021,ransomwaregang REvil was spotted using paid positioning in Google search results to deliver malicious files to victims.[20]Malvertising cash orcryptocurrencygiveaway campaigns with actors masquerading as popular figures including YouTuberMrBeast,Elon Musk, and others have been seen across many advertising platforms and social media sites.[21][22]In 2022, reports surfaced ofNative advertisingon google search masquerading to be various software download pages (oftentimesopen source), leading users to instead downloadransomware, info stealer, or redirect them totech support scams[23][24][25]
Several popular websites and news sources have been victims to malvertising and have had malicious advertisements placed on their webpages or widgets unknowingly, including Horoscope.com,The New York Times,[26]theLondon Stock Exchange,Spotify, andThe Onion.[5]
By visiting websites that are affected by malvertising, users are at risk of infection. There are many different methods used for injecting malicious advertisements or programs into webpages:
There are several precautions that people can take to reduce their chances of getting tricked by these advertisements. Commonly used programs such asAdobe Flash PlayerandAdobe Readercan and have had their flaws exploited, and become vulnerable to attacks, so it should no longer be used. Users can also download anti-virus software that protects against threats and removes malicious software from their systems. Users can also push companies and websites to scan advertisements before making them active on their webpages.[2]Users can also usead blockingsoftware to avoid downloading the malware contained in advertisements[32]or a specific browser extension alerting malvertising campaigns.[33]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvertising
|
Point-of-sale malware(POS malware) is usually a type of malicious software (malware) that is used by cybercriminals to targetpoint of sale(POS) andpayment terminalswith the intent to obtaincredit cardanddebit cardinformation, a card'strack 1 or track 2 dataand even theCVV code, by variousman-in-the-middle attacks, that is the interception of the processing at the retail checkout point of sale system.[1]The simplest, or most evasive, approach is RAM-scraping, accessing the system's memory and exporting the copied information via aremote access trojan(RAT) as this minimizes any software or hardware tampering, potentially leaving no footprints.[2]POS attacks may also include the use of various bits of hardware: dongles, trojan card readers, (wireless) data transmitters and receivers.[3]Being at the gateway of transactions, POS malware enables hackers to process and steal thousands, even millions, of transaction payment data, depending upon the target, the number of devices affected, and how long the attack goes undetected.[4]This is done before or outside of the card information being (usually) encrypted and sent to the payment processor for authorization.
It was discovered in 2011, and installs itself into the Windows computer as a service called rdasrv.exe.[5]It scans for track 1 and track 2credit carddata using Perl compatible regular expressions which includes the customer card holder's name, account number, expiry date, CVV code and other discretionary information. Once the information gets scraped it is stored into data.txt or currentblock.txt and sent to the hacker.
It was discovered in October 2012 and gets installed into the PC automatically. It gets embedded into the Auto It script and loads the malware into the memory. Then it scrapes credit card (CC) data from POS software.[6]
Vskimmer scrapes the information from the Windows system by detecting the card readers attached to the reader and then sends the captured data to thecyber criminalor control server.[7]
It was discovered in December 2012 to steal system information along with the track 1 and track 2 card details with the help ofkeyloggerinstalled onto the computer.
It is aspyware, created to steal credit anddebit cardinformation from the POS system. BlackPOS gets into the PC with stealth-based methods and steals information to send it to some external server.[8]
Thismemory-scraping malwaretracks Track 2 data to access the card magnetic stripe with the help ofmagnetic stripe readersand sends data to hacker to clone fake credit cards.
FastPOS Malware is a POS malware that was discovered byTrend Microresearchers. This strikes the point of sale system very fast and snatches the credit and debit card information and sends the data to the cyber criminal instantly. The malware has the capability to exfiltrate the track data using two techniques such as key logger and memory scraper.[9][10][11]
PandaLabs discovered this malware and it infects the point of sale system to breach credit and debit card details.[12]PunkeyPOS Malware uses two functions such as keylogger and RAM Scraper to steal information at Point of Sale Terminal.[13]Once the information is stolen, it is encrypted and sent to cybercriminal's Control and Command Server (C&C).[14]
This new variant of pos malware or point of sale malware was discovered by FireEye.[15]It follows new advanced technique to steal retail customer's card information with the help of Lunh Algorithm.[16]To exfiltrate the stolen information it first block http and ftp traffic that monitors the data exfiltration. It belongs to the family of NewPosThings malware.[17]
CenterPOS is a POS (Point of Sale) Malware that been found in the year 2015 of September along with the other malicious malware such as BlackPOS, NewPOSThings and Alina Malware by FireEye Experts.[18]It scrapes the stolen credit and debit card and sends the data HTTP POST request with the help ofTriple DESencryption.
MalumPOS is a point of sale malware that records point of sale's data which is running in anOracleMICROS payment system and has breached 333,000 data's all over the world. It usesDelphi programming languagefor stealing the credit and debit card details. The stolen data is then sent to the cyber criminal or sold in the black market.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-of-sale_malware
|
Hacktivism(orhactivism; aportmanteauofhackandactivism), is the use of computer-based techniques such ashackingas a form ofcivil disobedienceto promote a political agenda or social change.[1][2]A form ofInternet activismwith roots inhacker cultureandhacker ethics, its ends are often related tofree speech,human rights, orfreedom of informationmovements.[3]
Hacktivist activities span many political ideals and issues.Hyphanet, apeer-to-peerplatform forcensorship-resistant communication, is a prime example of translating political thought andfreedom of speechinto code. Hacking as a form ofactivismcan be carried out by a singular activist or through a network of activists, such asAnonymousandWikiLeaks, working in collaboration toward common goals without an overarching authority figure.[4][5]For context, according to a statement by theU.S. Justice Department,Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, plotted with hackers connected to the "Anonymous" and "LulzSec" groups, who have been linked to multiple cyberattacks worldwide. In 2012, Assange, who was being held in the United Kingdom on a request for extradition from the United States, gave the head of LulzSec a list of targets to hack and informed him that the most significant leaks of compromised material would come from theNational Security Agency, theCentral Intelligence Agency, or theNew York Times.[6]
"Hacktivism" is a controversial term with several meanings. The word was coined to characterize electronicdirect actionas working towardsocial changeby combiningprogrammingskills withcritical thinking. But just ashackcan sometimes mean cyber crime,hacktivismcan be used to mean activism that is malicious, destructive, and undermining thesecurityof theInternetas atechnical,economic, andpolitical platform.[7]In comparison to previous forms of social activism, hacktivism has had unprecedented success, bringing in more participants, using more tools, and having more influence in that it has the ability to alterelections, begin conflicts, and take down businesses.[8]
According to theUnited States2020–2022 Counterintelligence Strategy, in addition to state adversaries and transnational criminal organizations, "ideologically motivated entities such as hacktivists,leaktivists, and public disclosure organizations, also pose significant threats".[9][10]
Writer Jason Sack first used the term hacktivism in a 1995 article in conceptualizingNew MediaartistShu Lea Cheang's filmFresh Kill.[11][12]However, the term is frequently attributed to theCult of the Dead Cow(cDc) member "Omega," who used it in a 1996 e-mail to the group.[13][14]Due to the variety of meanings of its root words, the definition of hacktivism is nebulous and there exists significant disagreement over the kinds of activities and purposes it encompasses. Some definitions include acts ofcyberterrorismwhile others simply reaffirm the use of technological hacking to effect social change.[15][16]
Self-proclaimed "hacktivists" often work anonymously, sometimes operating in groups while other times operating as a lone wolf with several cyber-personas all corresponding to one activist[17]within thecyberactivismumbrella that has been gaining public interest and power in pop-culture. Hacktivists generally operate under apolitical ideals and express uninhibited ideas or abuse without being scrutinized by society while representing or defending themselves publicly under an anonymous identity giving them a sense of power in thecyberactivismcommunity.[18]
In order to carry out their operations, hacktivists might create new tools; or integrate or use a variety of software tools readily available on the Internet. One class of hacktivist activities includes increasing the accessibility of others to take politically motivated action online.[19]
Repertoire of contentionof hacktivism includes among others:
Depending on who is using the term, hacktivism can be a politically motivated technologyhack, a constructive form ofanarchiccivil disobedience, or an undefined anti-systemic gesture.[32]It can signalanticapitalistor political protest; it can denote anti-spamactivists, security experts, oropen sourceadvocates.[33]
Some people[who?]describing themselves as hacktivists have taken todefacingwebsites for political reasons, such as attacking and defacing websites of governments and those who oppose theirideology.[34]Others, such asOxblood Ruffin(the "foreign affairs minister" of Cult of the Dead Cow and Hacktivismo), have argued forcefully against definitions of hacktivism that include web defacements ordenial-of-service attacks.[35]
Hacktivism is often seen as shadowy due to its anonymity, commonly attributed to the work of fringe groups and outlying members of society.[17]The lack of responsible parties to be held accountable for the social-media attacks performed by hactivists has created implications in corporate and federal security measures both on and offline.[26]
While some self-described hacktivists[who?]have engaged in DoS attacks, critics suggest[who?]that DoS attacks are an attack on free speech and that they haveunintended consequences. DoS attacks waste resources and they can lead to a "DoS war" that nobody will win[citation needed]. In 2006,Blue Securityattempted to automate a DoS attack against spammers; this led to a massive DoS attack against Blue Security which knocked them, their old ISP and their DNS provider off the Internet, destroying their business.[36]
Followingdenial-of-serviceattacks byAnonymouson multiple sites, in reprisal for the apparent suppression ofWikiLeaks,John Perry Barlow, a founding member of theEFF, said "I support freedom of expression, no matter whose, so I oppose DDoS attacks regardless of their target... they're the poison gas of cyberspace...".[37]On the other hand,Jay Leiderman, an attorney for many hacktivists, argues that DDoS can be a legitimate form of protest speech in situations that are reasonably limited in time, place and manner.[38]
WikiLeaks is amediaorganisation andpublisherfounded in 2006. It operates as a non-profit and is funded by donations[80]and media partnerships. It has published classified documents and other media provided by anonymoussources.[81]It was founded byJulian Assange, anAustralianeditor, publisher, andactivist, who is currentlychallenging extradition to the United Statesover his work with WikiLeaks.[82]Since September 2018,Kristinn Hrafnssonhas served as itseditor-in-chief.[83][84]Its website states that it has released more than ten million documents and associated analyses.[85]WikiLeaks' most recent publication was in 2021, and its most recent publication of original documents was in 2019.[86]Beginning in November 2022, many of the documents on the organisation's website could not be accessed.[86][87][88][89]
WikiLeaks has releaseddocument cachesand media that exposed serious violations ofhuman rightsandcivil libertiesby various governments. It released footage, which it titledCollateral Murder, of the12July 2007 Baghdad airstrike, in which IraqiReutersjournalists and several civilians were killed by a U.S. helicopter crew.[90]WikiLeaks has also published leaks such asdiplomatic cables from the United StatesandSaudi Arabia,[91][92]emails from the governments of Syria[93][94]andTurkey,[95][96][97]corruption inKenya[98][99]and atSamherji.[100]WikiLeaks has also published documents exposingcyber warfare and surveillance toolscreated by theCIA,[101][102]and surveillance of the French president by theNational Security Agency.[103][104]During the2016 U.S. presidential election campaign, WikiLeaksreleased emailsfrom theDemocratic National Committee(DNC) and fromHillary Clinton's campaign manager, showing that the party's national committee had effectively acted as an arm of the Clinton campaign during theprimaries, seeking to undercut the campaign ofBernie Sanders. These releases resulted in the resignation of the chairwoman of the DNC and caused significant harm to theClinton campaign.[105]During the campaign, WikiLeaks promoted false conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton, theDemocratic Partyand themurder of Seth Rich.[106][107][108]
WikiLeaks has won a number of awards and has been commended for exposing state and corporate secrets, increasing transparency, assistingfreedom of the press, and enhancing democratic discourse while challenging powerful institutions. WikiLeaks and some of its supporters say the organisation's publications have a perfect record of publishing authentic documents. The organisation has been the target of campaigns to discredit it, including aborted ones byPalantirandHBGary. WikiLeaks has also had its donation systems disrupted by problems with itspayment processors. As a result, theWau Holland Foundationhelps process WikiLeaks' donations.
The organisation has been criticised for inadequately curating some of its content and violating the personal privacy of individuals. WikiLeaks has, for instance, revealedSocial Security numbers,medical information,credit card numbersand details ofsuicide attempts.[109][110][111]News organisations, activists, journalists and former members have also criticised the organisation over allegations of anti-Clinton and pro-Trump bias, various associations with the Russian government, buying and selling of leaks, and a lack of internal transparency. Journalists have also criticised the organisation for promotion of false flag conspiracy theories, and what they describe as exaggerated and misleading descriptions of the contents of leaks. TheCIAdefined the organisation as a "non-statehostileintelligence service" after the release ofVault 7.[112]
Perhaps the most prolific and well known hacktivist group,Anonymoushas been prominent and prevalent in many major online hacks over the past decade. Anonymous is a decentralized group that originated on the forums of4chanduring 2003, but didn't rise to prominence until 2008 when they directly attacked theChurch of Scientologyin a massiveDoSattack.[113]Since then, Anonymous has participated in a great number of online projects such asOperation: Paybackand Operation: Safe Winter.[114][115]However, while a great number of their projects have been for a charitable cause,[114]they have still gained notoriety from the media due to the nature of their work mostly consisting of illegal hacking.[116]
Following theParis terror attacksin 2015, Anonymous posted a video declaring war onISIS,[117]the terror group that claimed responsibility for the attacks. Since declaring war on ISIS, Anonymous since identified several Twitter accounts associated with the movement in order to stop the distribution of ISIS propaganda. However, Anonymous fell under heavy criticism when Twitter issued a statement calling the lists Anonymous had compiled "wildly inaccurate," as it contained accounts of journalists and academics rather than members of ISIS.[118]
Anonymous has also been involved with theBlack Lives Mattermovement. Early in July 2015, there was a rumor circulating that Anonymous was calling for a Day of Rage protests in retaliation for the shootings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile, which would entail violent protests and riots. This rumor was based on a video that was not posted with the official Anonymous YouTube account.[citation needed]None of the Twitter accounts associated with Anonymous had tweeted anything in relation to a Day of Rage, and the rumors were identical to past rumors that had circulated in 2014 following the death of Mike Brown.[119]Instead, on July 15, a Twitter account associated with Anonymous posted a series of tweets calling for a day of solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement. The Twitter account used the hashtag "#FridayofSolidarity" to coordinate protests across the nation, and emphasized the fact that the Friday of Solidarity was intended for peaceful protests. The account also stated that the group was unaware of any Day of Rage plans.[120]
In February 2017 the group took down more than 10,000 sites on theDark webrelated to child porn.[3]
DkD[||, a French cyberhacktivist, was arrested by the OCLCTIC (office central de lutte contre la criminalité liée aux technologies de l’information et de la communication), in March 2003. DkD[|| defaced more than 2000 pages, many were governments and US military sites. Eric Voulleminot of the Regional Service of Judicial Police in Lille classified the young hacker as "the most wanted hacktivist in France"[121]
DkD[|| was a very known defacer in the underground for his political view, doing his defacements for various political reasons. In response to his arrest, The Ghost Boys defaced manynavy.milsites using the “Free DkD[||!!” slogan.[122][123]
In May 2011, five members of Anonymous formed the hacktivist groupLulz Security, otherwise known as LulzSec. LulzSec's name originated from the conjunction of the internet slang term "lulz", meaning laughs, and "sec", meaning security.[51]The group members used specific handles to identify themselves on Internet Relay Channels, the most notable being: "Sabu," "Kayla," "T-Flow," "Topiary," "AVUnit," and "Pwnsauce." Though the members of LulzSec would spend up to 20 hours a day in communication, they did not know one another personally, nor did they share personal information. For example, once the members' identities were revealed, "T-Flow" was revealed to be 15 years old. Other members, on the basis of his advanced coding ability, thought he was around 30 years old.[124]
One of the first notable targets that LulzSec pursued wasHBGary, which was performed in response to a claim made by the technology security company that it had identified members of Anonymous. Following this, the members of LulzSec targeted an array of companies and entities, including but not limited to:Fox Television,Tribune Company,PBS,Sony,Nintendo, and theSenate.govwebsite. The targeting of these entities typically involved gaining access to and downloading confidential user information, or defacing the website at hand.[125]LulzSec while not as strongly political as those typical of WikiLeaks or Anonymous, they shared similar sentiments for the freedom of information. One of their distinctly politically driven attacks involved targeting the Arizona State Police in response to new immigration laws.[126]
The group's first attack that garnered significant government attention was in 2011, when they collectively took down a website of the FBI. Following the incident, the leader of LulzSec, "Sabu," was identified asHector Xavier Monsegurby the FBI, and he was the first of the group to be arrested. Immediately following his arrest, Monsegur admitted to criminal activity. He then began his cooperation with the US government, helping FBI authorities to arrest 8 of his co-conspirators, prevent 300 potential cyber attacks, and helped to identify vulnerabilities in existing computer systems. In August 2011, Monsegur pleaded guilty to "computer hacking conspiracy, computer hacking, computer hacking in furtherance of fraud, conspiracy to commit access device fraud, conspiracy to commit bank fraud, and aggravatedidentity theftpursuant to a cooperation agreement with the government." He served a total of one year and seven months and was charged a $1,200 fine.[127]
SiegedSec, short forSieged Securityand commonly self-referred to as the "GayFurryHackers",[128][129]is ablack-hatcriminal hacktivistgroupthat was formed in early 2022, that has committed a number of high-profilecyber attacks, including attacks onNATO,[130][131][132]TheIdaho National Laboratory,[128][129]andReal America's Voice.[133][134]On July 10, 2024, the group announced that they would be disbanding after attackingThe Heritage Foundation.[135]
SiegedSec is led by an individual under the alias "vio".[136]Short for "Sieged Security",[137][138][139]SiegedSec'sTelegramchannel was first created in April 2022,[140]and they commonly refer to themselves as "gay furry hackers".[141][142]On multiple occasions, the group has targetedright-wingmovements throughbreaching data, includingThe Heritage Foundation,[143][144]Real America's Voice,[145]as well as variousU.S. statesthat have pursued legislative decisions againstgender-affirming care.[146]
Hacking has been sometime described as a form ofculture jamming.[147]: 88This term refers to the practice of subverting and criticizing political messages as well as media culture with the aim of challenging the status quo. It is often targeted toward subliminal thought processes taking place in the viewers with the goal of raising awareness as well as causing a paradigm shift. Culture jamming takes many forms includingbillboard hacking,broadcast signal intrusion, ad hoc art performances, simulated legal transgressions,[148]memes, andartivism.[citation needed][149]
The term "culture jamming" was first coined in 1984 by American musicianDonald Joyceof the bandNegativland.[150]However, some speculation remains as to when the practice of culture jamming first began. Social researcherVince Carduccibelieves culture jamming can be traced back to the 1950s with European social activist groupSituationist International. Author and cultural criticMark Derybelieves medieval carnival is the earliest form of culture jamming as a way to subvert the social hierarchy at the time.[citation needed]
Culture jamming is sometimes confused with acts of vandalism. However, unlike culture jamming, the main goal of vandalism is to cause destruction with any political themes being of lesser importance. Artivism usually has the most questionable nature as a form of culture jamming because defacement of property is usually involved.[citation needed]
Media hackingrefers to the usage of variouselectronic mediain an innovative or otherwise abnormal fashion for the purpose of conveying a message to as large a number of people as possible, primarily achieved via theWorld Wide Web.[151][152]A popular and effective means of media hacking is posting on ablog, as one is usually controlled by one or more independent individuals, uninfluenced by outside parties. The concept ofsocial bookmarking, as well as Web-basedInternet forums, may cause such a message to be seen by users of other sites as well, increasing its total reach.
Media hacking is commonly employed for political purposes, by both political parties andpolitical dissidents. A good example of this is the 2008 US Election, in which both theDemocraticandRepublicanparties used a wide variety of different media in order to convey relevant messages to an increasingly Internet-oriented audience.[153]At the same time, political dissidents usedblogsand other social media likeTwitterin order to reply on an individual basis to the presidential candidates. In particular, sites like Twitter are proving important means in gauging popular support for the candidates, though the site is often used for dissident purposes rather than a show of positive support.[154]
Mobile technology has also become subject to media hacking for political purposes.SMShas been widely used by political dissidents as a means of quickly and effectively organisingsmart mobsfor political action. This has been most effective in the Philippines, where SMS media hacking has twice had a significant impact on whether or not the country's Presidents are elected or removed from office.[155]
Reality hackingis any phenomenon that emerges from the nonviolent use of illegal or legally ambiguousdigitaltools in pursuit of politically, socially, orculturally subversiveends. These tools includewebsite defacements,URL redirections,denial-of-service attacks, information theft, web-site parodies,virtual sit-ins, and virtualsabotage.[citation needed]
Art movements such asFluxusandHappeningsin the 1970s created a climate of receptibility in regard to loose-knit organizations and group activities where spontaneity, areturn to primitivist behavior, and an ethics where activities andsocially engaged artpractices became tantamount toaestheticconcerns.[clarification needed]
The conflation of these two histories in the mid-to-late 1990s[citation needed]resulted in cross-overs between virtual sit-ins,electronic civil disobedience, denial-of-service attacks, as well as mass protests in relation to groups like theInternational Monetary Fundand theWorld Bank. The rise of collectives,net.artgroups, and those concerned with the fluid interchange of technology andreal life(often from an environmental concern) gave birth to the practice of "reality hacking".
Reality hacking relies ontweakingthe everyday communications most easily available to individuals with the purpose of awakening the political andcommunity conscienceof the larger population. The term first came into use among New York and San Francisco artists, but has since been adopted by aschoolof political activists centered aroundculture jamming.
The 1999 science fiction-action filmThe Matrix, among others, popularized thesimulation hypothesis— the suggestion thatrealityis in fact asimulationof which those affected by the simulants are generally unaware. In this context, "reality hacking" is reading and understanding the code which represents the activity of the simulated reality environment (such asMatrix digital rain) and also modifying it in order to bend thelaws of physicsor otherwise modify thesimulated reality.
Reality hacking as a mystical practice is explored in theGothic-Punkaesthetics-inspiredWhite Wolfurban fantasyrole-playing gameMage: The Ascension. In this game, the Reality Coders (also known as Reality Hackers or Reality Crackers) are a faction within theVirtual Adepts, a secret society of mages whosemagickrevolves arounddigitaltechnology. They are dedicated to bringing the benefits ofcyberspacetoreal space. To do this, they had to identify, for lack of a better term, the "source code" that allows ourUniverseto function. And that is what they have been doing ever since. Coders infiltrated a number of levels of society in order to gather the greatest compilation of knowledge ever seen. One of the Coders' more overt agendas is to acclimate the masses to the world that is to come. They spread Virtual Adept ideas throughvideo gamesand a whole spate of "reality shows" that mimicvirtual realityfar more than "real" reality. The Reality Coders consider themselves the future of the Virtual Adepts, creating a world in the image of visionaries likeGrant MorrisonorTerence McKenna.[citation needed]
In alocation-based game(also known as a pervasive game), reality hacking refers to tapping into phenomena that exist in the real world, and tying them into the game story universe.[156]
There have been various academic approaches to deal with hacktivism and urban hacking. In 2010, Günther Friesinger,Johannes Grenzfurthnerand Thomas Ballhausen published an entire reader dedicated to the subject. They state:
Urban spaces became battlefields, signifiers have been invaded, new structures have been established: Netculture replaced counterculture in most parts and also focused on the everchanging environments of the modern city. Important questions have been brought up to date and reasked, taking current positions and discourses into account. The major question still remains, namely how to create culturally based resistance under the influence of capitalistic pressure and conservative politics.[157]
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacktivism
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.