Archive for Internet Security

Googlemail’s Tracking of Your Purchase History

CNBC research has highlighted how Googlemail creates a (difficult to delete) page of your purchase history by tracking your purchase receipt emails, and perhaps details stored in locations other than the inbox.

Not Obvious

Back in May, CNBC researchers highlighted how your Googlemail account creates a page of your purchases, which it was believed was created by tracking the purchase receipts that arrive in the email inbox.  According to Google, the feature is included as a way of organising things “to help you get things done”.  In Google’s account help section, Google states that “Your Google Account includes purchases and reservations made using Search, Maps, and the Assistant, as well as your order confirmations from Gmail”.

In the announcements of the results of CNBC’s research back in May, it was noted that this “private destination” purchases page wasn’t mentioned on the Data & Personalization page in a Google Account and as such, it may have been inconvenient for users to have to search for it.  It was also noted by researchers at the time that the only way to ensure that purchase data was deleted from the page was to go to the time and trouble of finding the digital receipt in the Gmail account and deleting it.

Hard To Delete

In the latest CNBC research findings, it has been claimed that, even though researcher Todd Haselton deleted each single purchase email from his Gmail inbox in order to clear the purchases page, on returning three weeks later, he found that all of his purchases (over years) were again listed on the purchases page.  This has led to the assumed conclusion that the listing of our purchases may also be stored in another location other than the inbox.

How To Delete From Your Purchases Page

In Google’s help section here and in the subsection ‘delete your purchases and reservations’, Google provides instructions on how to delete them i.e. sign in to your Google account, go to the Purchases page (for which a link is provided),  view your purchase details and select ‘Remove Purchase’, and follow the on-screen deletion instructions.


Some commentators have expressed the view that automatically collecting and storing online and offline purchase details in this way may appear to be at odds with Google’s public position of being focused on privacy.

This is certainly not the first time that Google has faced criticism over privacy matters.  For example, Google recently faced criticism over its reCaptcha V3 bot-detecting login system apparently requiring a Google cookie to be installed on a user’s browser which could potentially put the user’s browsing history privacy at risk.   Other examples of Google making the news over privacy concerns include a microphone was discovered in Google’s Nest Guard product that was not listed in tech spec (which was put down to an erroneous omission by Google), and in December last year, research by Internet Privacy Company DuckDuckGo reporting evidence that could show that even in Incognito mode, users of Google Chrome can still be tracked, and searches are still personalised accordingly.

Chrome Browser Alternatives

If you’re concerned about having aspects of your online behaviour tracked by Google’s Chrome browser, Wired recently compiled a list of anti-tracking web browsers which you may like to try.  These include new privacy-enhanced browser Brave, Ghostery which available as a standalone browser on mobile, Tor which provides layers of encryption and routing through various locations to protect your identity, DuckDuckGo for mobile devices, and FireFox Focus.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Google’s Chrome may be the most popular browser, but there may be many features about it that users may not be aware of and may be a little surprised about, the purchases page being one of them.  It’s a shame that users seem to have to actively seek out elements such as the purchases page and how to delete things from it rather than it being made more obvious and easily accessible with a Google account.  Even though Google has said that only the user can see it and that the details on the purchases page aren’t used for targeted advertising, it may still be of concern to many that data about their purchases over years is being collected and being stored, and that it may not be a simple task to delete it.  It is not surprising, therefore, that some users may be turning to privacy-enhanced browser alternatives as they feel less sure that tech giants such as Google are demonstrating that a real commitment to the kinds of privacy matters that are important to users.

Criminal Secrets Of The Dark Net Revealed

Recent Surrey University research, ‘Web Of Profit’ commissioned by virtualisation-based security firm Bromium has shown that cyber-criminals are moving to their own invisible Internet on the so-called ‘dark net’ to allow them to communicate and trade beyond the view of the authorities.

What Is The Dark Net?

The dark net describes parts of the Internet which are closed to public view or hidden networks and are associated with the encrypted part of the Internet called the ‘Tor’ network where illicit trading takes place.  The dark net is not accessible to search engines and requires special software installed or network configurations made to access it e.g. Tor, which can be accessed via a customised browser from Vidalia.


Infiltration and closing down of some of the dark net marketplaces by the authorities are now believed to have led to cyber-criminals moving to a more secure, invisible part of the dark net in order to continue communicating and trading.


Much of the communication about possible targets and tactics between cyber-criminals now takes place on secure apps, forums and chatrooms.  For example, cyber-criminals communicate using the encrypted app ‘Telegram’ because it offers security, anonymity, and encrypted channels for the sale of prohibited goods.

Diverse Dark Net Marketplace

Posing as customers and getting first-hand information from hackers about the costs a range of cyber-attacks, the researchers were able to obtain shocking details such as:

  • Access to corporate networks is being sold openly, with 60% of the sellers offering access to more than 10 business networks at a time. Prices for remote logins for corporate networks ranged from only £1.50-£24, and targeted attacks on companies were offered at a price of £3,500.
  • Phishing kits are available for as little as $40, as are fake Amazon receipts and invoices for $52.
  • Targeted attacks on individuals can be purchased for $2,000, and even Espionage and insider trading are up for sale from $1,000 to $15,000.

Corporations Targeted

One thing that was very clear from the research is that cyber-criminals are very much focusing on corporations as targets with listings for attacks on enterprises having grown by 20% since 2016. The kinds of things being sold include credentials for accessing business email accounts.

Specific Industries

The research also showed that cyber-criminals are moving away from commodity malware and now prefer to tailor tools such as bespoke versions of malware as a way of targeting specific industries or organisations.  For example, the researchers found that 40% of their attempts to request dark net hacking services targeting companies in the Fortune 500 or FTSE 100 received positive responses from sellers, and that the services on offer even come with service plans for conducting the hack, and price tags ranging from $150 to $10,000, depending on the company to be targeted.

The industries that are most frequently targeted using malware tools that are being traded on the dark net include banking (34%), e-commerce (20%), healthcare (15%) and even education (12%).

Researchers also uncovered evidence that vendors are now acting on behalf of clients to hack organisations, obtain IP and trade secrets and disrupt operations.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The dark net is not new, but some commentators believe that the heavy-handed nature of some of the police work to catch criminals on the dark net is responsible for pushing criminal communication and trading activity further underground into their own invisible areas.  End-to-end encrypted communications tools such as Telegram mean that cyber-criminals can carry on communicating beyond the reach of the authorities.

The research should show businesses that there is now real cause for concern about the sensitive, informed and finely tuned approach that cyber-criminals are taking in their targeting of organisations, right from the biggest companies down to SME’s.  This should be a reminder that cyber-security should be given priority, especially when it comes to defending against phishing campaigns, which are one of the most successful ways that criminals gain access to company networks.

Law enforcement agencies also need to do more now to infiltrate, gather intelligence, and try to deter and stop the use of different forums, channels and other areas of the dark net in order to at least prevent some of the more open trading of hacking services and tools.

US Visa Applicants Now Asked For Social Media Details and More

New rules from the US State Department will mean that US visa applicants will have to submit social media names and five years’ worth of email addresses and phone numbers.

Extended To All

Under the new rules, first proposed by the Trump administration back in February 2017, whereas previously the only visa applicants who had needed such vetting were those from parts of the world known to be controlled by terrorist groups, all applicants travelling to the US to work or to study will now be required to give those details to the immigration authorities. The only exemptions will be for some diplomatic and official visa applicants.

Delivering on Election Immigration Message

The new stringent rules follow on from the proposed crackdown on immigration that was an important part of now US President Donald Trump’s message during the 2016 election campaign.

Back in July 2016, the Federal Register of the U.S. government published a proposed change to travel and entry forms which indicated that the studying of social media accounts of those travelling to the U.S. would be added to the vetting process for entry to the country. It was suggested that the proposed change would apply to the I-94 travel form, and to the Electronic System for Travel Authorisation (ESTA) visa. The reason(s) given at the time was that the “social identifiers” would be: “used for vetting purposes, as well as applicant contact information. Collecting social media data will enhance the existing investigative process and provide DHS greater clarity and visibility to possible nefarious activity and connections by providing an additional toolset which analysts and investigators may use to better analyse and investigate the case.”

There had already been reports that some U.S. border officials had actually been asking travellers to voluntarily surrender social media information since December 2016.


In February 2017, the Trump administration indicated that it was about to introduce an immigration policy that would require foreign travellers to the U.S. to divulge their social media profiles, contacts and browsing history and that visitors could be denied entry if they refused to comply. At that time, the administration had already barred citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US.


Critics of the idea that social media details should be obtained from entrants to the US include civil rights group the American Civil Liberties Union which pointed out that there is no evidence it would be effective and that it could lead to self-censorship online.  Also, back in 2017, Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group was quoted online media as describing the proposed as “excessive and insulting”.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Although they may sound a little extreme, these rules have now become a reality and need to be considered by those needing a US visa.  Given the opposition to President Trump and his some of his thoughts and policies and the resulting large volume of Trump-related content that is shared and reacted to by many people, these new rules could be a real source of concern for those needing to work or to study in the US.  It is really unknown what content, and what social media activity could cause problems at immigration for travellers, and what the full consequences could be.

People may also be very uncomfortable being asked to give such personal and private details as social media names and a massive five years’ worth of email addresses and phone numbers, and about how those personal details will be stored and safeguarded (and how long for), and by whom they will be scrutinised and even shared.  The measure may, along with other reported policies and announcements from the Trump administration even discourage some people from travelling to, let alone working or studying in the US at this time. This could have a knock-on negative effect on the economy of the US, and for those companies wanting to get into the US marketplace with products or services.

GCHQ Eavesdropping Proposal Soundly Rejected

A group of 47 technology companies, rights groups and security policy experts have released an open letter stating their objections to the idea of eavesdropping on encrypted messages on behalf of GCHQ.

“Ghost” User

The objections are being made to the (as yet) hypothetical idea floated by the UK National Cyber Security Centre’s technical director Ian Levy and GCHQ’s chief codebreaker Crispin Robinson for allowing a “ghost” user / third party i.e. a person at GCHQ, to see the text of an encrypted conversation (call, chat, or group chat) without notifying the participants.

According to Levy and Robinson, they would only seek exceptional access to data where there was a legitimate need, where there that kind of access was the least intrusive way of proceeding, and where there was also appropriate legal authorisation.


The Challenge for government security agencies in recent times has been society’s move away from conventional telecommunications channels which could lawfully and relatively easily be ‘tapped’, to digital and encrypted communications channels e.g. WhatsApp, which are essentially invisible to government eyes.  For example, back in September last year, this led to the ‘Five Eyes’ governments threatening legislative or other measures to be allowed access to end-to-end encrypted apps such as WhatsApp.  In the UK back in 2017, then Home Secretary Amber Rudd had also been pushing for ‘back doors’ to be built into encrypted services and had attracted criticism from tech companies that as well as compromising privacy, this would open secure encrypted services to the threat of hacks.

Investigatory Powers Act

The Investigatory Powers Act which became law in November 2016 in the UK included the option of ‘hacking’ warrants by the government, but the full force of the powers of the law was curtailed somewhat by legal challenges.  For example, back in December 2018, Human rights group Liberty won the right for a judicial review into part 4 of the Investigatory Powers Act.  This is the part that was supposed to give many government agencies powers to collect electronic communications and records of internet use, in bulk, without reason for suspicion.

The Open Letter

The open letter to GCHQ in Cheltenham and Adrian Fulford, the UK’s investigatory powers commissioner was signed by tech companies including Google, Apple, WhatsApp and Microsoft, 23 civil society organisations, including Big Brother Watch, Human Rights Watch, and 17 security and policy experts.  The letter called for the abandonment of the “ghost” proposal on the grounds that it could threaten cyber security and fundamental human rights, including privacy and free expression.  The coalition of signatories also urged GCHQ to avoid alternate approaches that would also threaten digital security and human rights, and said that most Web users “rely on their confidence in reputable providers to perform authentication functions and verify that the participants in a conversation are the people they think they are and only those people”. As such, the letter pointed out that the trust relationship and the authentication process would be undermined by the knowledge that a government “ghost” could be allowed to sit-in and scrutinise what may be perfectly innocent conversations.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

With digital communications in the hands of private companies, and often encrypted, governments realise that (legal) surveillance has been made increasingly difficult for them.  This has resulted in legislation (The Investigatory Powers Act) with built-in elements to force tech companies to co-operate in allowing government access to private conversations and user data. This has, however, been met with frustration in the form of legal challenges, and other attempts by the UK government to stop end-to-end encryption have, so far, also been met with resistance, criticism, and counter-arguments by tech companies and rights groups. This latest “ghost” proposal represents the government’s next step in an ongoing dialogue around the same issue. The tech companies would clearly like to avoid more legislation and other measures (which look increasingly likely) that would undermine the trust between them and their customers, which is why the signatories have stated that they would welcome a continuing dialogue on the issues.  The government is clearly going to persist in its efforts to gain some kind of surveillance access to tech company communications services, albeit for national security (counter-terrorism) reasons for the most part, but is also keen to be seen to do so in a way that is not overtly like ‘big brother’, and in a way that allows them to navigate successfully through the existing rights legislation.

The World Of Ethical Hackers And Bug Bounties

The fact that big tech companies are willing to pay big bucks in ‘bug bounties’ is one of the main reasons why becoming an ethical hacker / ethical security tester is increasingly attractive to many people with a variety of technical skills.

What Is An Ethical Hacker?

An ethical hacker / white hat hacker/ ethical security tester is someone who is employed by an organisation and given permission by that organisation to penetrate their computer system, network or computing resource in order to find (and fix) security vulnerabilities before real hackers have the opportunity use those vulnerabilities as a way in.


In the US, for example, a person can obtain a Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH) qualification by using the same knowledge and tools as a malicious hacker, but in a lawful and legitimate manner to assess the security posture of a system.  CEH exams test a candidate’s skills in applying techniques and using penetration (‘pen’) testing tools to compromise various simulated systems within a virtual environment.


Ethical hackers can find work, for example, with organisations that run bug bounty programmes on behalf of companies e.g. Hacker One, Bug Crowd, Synack, or they can choose to work freelance.

What Are Bug Bounties?

Bug bounties are monetary rewards offered to those who have identified errors or vulnerabilities in a computer program or system. Companies like HackerOne, for example, offer guidance as to the amounts to set as bug bounties e.g. anywhere from $150 to $1000 for low severity vulnerabilities, and anywhere from $2000 to $10,000 for critical severity vulnerabilities.

Examples of bug bounties include:

  • The ‘Hack The Pentagon’ three-year initiative run by HackerOne which has so far (since 2016) paid $75,000 to those who have found software vulnerabilities in the Defence Department’s public facing websites.
  • Google’s ongoing VRB program which offers varying rewards ranging from $100 to $31,337 depending on the type of vulnerabilities found.
  • Facebook’s Whitehat program, running since 2011, and offering a minimum reward of $500 with over $1 million paid out so far. The largest single reward is reported to be $20,000.


Money is often not the only motivation for those involved in ethical hacking.  Many are interested in the challenge of solving the problems, getting into the industry, and getting recognition from their peers.


The UK has a tech skills shortage, but some schemes do exist to help the next generation of cyber-security experts gain their knowledge and skills.  One example is the UK’s Cyber Discovery scheme which had more than 25,000 school children take part in its first year.  The scheme turns finding security loopholes into engaging games while getting children familiar with the tools that many cyber-pros use.  Top performers can then attend residential courses to help them hone their skills further.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Ethical hackers play an important penetration testing role in ensuring that systems and networks are as secure as possible against the known methods employed by real hackers. It is not uncommon, particularly for large companies that are popular hacking targets, to offer ongoing bug bounty programs as a way to keep testing for vulnerabilities and the rewards paid to the ethical hackers are well worth it when you consider the damage that is done to companies and their customers when a breach takes place.

Running government programs such as Cyber Discovery could, therefore, be an important way to encourage, spot, and help develop a home-grown army of cyber-security professionals which is a win/win for companies wanting to improve their security, individuals looking for careers in the cyber-security and tech industries, and filling a skills gap in the UK.

Trust Challenge For Online Sharing Services

The Global Trust Survey from service provider Jumio has revealed that a quarter of adults feel unsafe using online sharing services.

What Are Online Sharing Services?

Online sharing services refers to companies like Uber and Airbnb where multiple users can use technology to book and consume a shared offering (car and room sharing), and where those offering the service can increase the utilisation of an asset – both parties get value from the exchange. The so-called “sharing economy” also includes services such as crowdfunding, personal services, and video and audio streaming.

The Sharing Economy

The sharing economy is expected to grow to a massive $335 billion by 2020. For example, in just 11 years, Airbnb has grown from nothing to becoming a $30bn firm listing more than six million rooms, flats and houses in more than 81,000 cities across the globe. Figures show that, on average, two million people use an Airbnb property each night.

Trust Challenge Revealed

Jumio’s Global Trust Survey showed that even though online sharing services are growing, and have been with us for some time now, in the 30 days prior to the survey taking place, over 80% of UK adults said that they hadn’t used an online sharing service, and 25% of UK adults said that they felt “somewhat unsafe” or “not at all safe” when using online sharing services.

A key element in making shared services successful is trust, and recent global from PwC confirmed this where 89% of consumers agreed that the sharing economy marketplace is based on trust between providers and users.

Identity Verification Vital

One area uncovered by the Global Trust and Safety Survey which appears to be a challenge for shared services is proving and verifying identity.  For example, the survey found that 60% of users believe it is either ‘somewhat important’ or ‘very important’ for new users to undergo an identity check to prove that they are who they claim to be.

This is the reason why companies such as Lyft are rolling out continuous background checks and enhanced identity verification, and why Uber is updating its app to give an alert to riders to check the license plate, make, and model of the vehicle, and to confirm the name and picture of the driver.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Trust is something that takes a long time for a business to build, and it is a vital element in the success of shared services such as those where considerable risk (financial and, critically, personal risk) is involved. Trust is also something that can be very easily lost, sometimes in an instant or through one high profile incident involving that service e.g. the recent murder in the US of a student by a man posing as an Uber driver.

The results of the Global Trust Survey help to remind businesses that offer shared services that consumers need and want a layer of safety to help them feel comfortable in trying and using those services.  Companies can, therefore, help create an ecosystem of trust through the process of identity verification.

Serious Security Flaws Discovered In Popular GPS Tracker

Researchers at UK cyber-security company, Fidus Information Security, say that they have found security flaws in a popular Chinese-manufactured white-label location tracker that could be serious enough to warrant a recall.

Which Tracker?

The GPS tracker which is used as a panic alarm for elderly patients, to monitor children, and to track vehicles is white label manufactured but rebranded and sold by several different companies which reportedly include Pebbell (by HoIP Telecom), OwnFone Footprint and SureSafeGo. The tracker uses a SIM card to connect to the 2G/GPRS network.  According to Fidus at least 10,000+ of these trackers are currently used in the UK

What’s The Problem?

According to the researchers, simply sending the device a text message with a keyword can trick the tracker into revealing its real-time location. Also, other commands tried by the researchers can allow anyone to call the device and remotely listen in to its in-built microphone without the user knowing, and even remotely stop the signal from the tracker, thereby making the device effectively useless.  On its blog, Fidus lists several other things that its researchers were able to do to the device including change or completely remove all emergency contacts, disable the motion alarm, disable fall detection and remove any device PIN which had been set.

All these scenarios could pose significant risks to the (mainly vulnerable) users of the trackers.

According to Fidus, one of the main reasons why the device has so many security flaws is that it doesn’t appear that the manufacturers, nor the companies reselling the devices, have conducted any security testing or penetration testing of the device.

PIN Problem

The research by Fidus also uncovered the fact that even though the manufacturers built in PIN functionality to help lock the devices down, the PIN, by default, is disabled and users need to read the manual to find out about it, and when enabled, the PIN is required as a prefix to any commands to be accepted by the device, except for REBOOT or RESET functionality.  The problem with this is that the RESET functionality is the thing that really could provide any malicious user with the ability to gain remote control of the device.  This is because is the RESET command that wipes all stored contacts and emergency contacts, restores the device to factory defaults and means that a PIN is no longer needed.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

What is particularly disturbing about this story is that the tracking devices are used for some of the most vulnerable members of society.  Even though they have been marketed as a way to make a person safer, the cruel irony is that it appears that if they are taken over by a malicious attacker, they could put a person at greater risk.

This story also illustrates the importance of security penetration testing in discovering and plugging security loopholes in devices before making them widely available.  This is another example of an IoT/smart device that has security loopholes related to default settings, and with an ever-growing number of IoT devices out there, many of them perhaps not tested as well as they could be, many buyers are unknowingly at risk from hackers.

Old Routers Are Targets For Hackers

Internet security experts are warning that old routers are targets for cyber-criminals who find them an easy hacking option.

How Big Is The Threat?

Trend Micros have reported that back in 2016 there were five families of threats for routers, but this grew to 35 families of threats in 2018. Research by the American Consumer Institute in 2018 revealed that 83 per cent of home and office routers have vulnerabilities that could be exploited by attackers.  These include the more popular brands such as Linksys, NETGEAR and D-Link.

Why Are Old Routers Vulnerable?

Older routers are open to attacks that are designed to exploit simple vulnerabilities for several reasons including:

  • Routers are often forgotten about since their initial setup and consequently, 60 per cent of users have never updated their router’s firmware.
  • Routers are essentially small microcomputers.  This means that anything that can infect those can also infect routers.
  • Many home users leave the default passwords for the Wi-fi network, the admin account associated with it, and the router.
  • Even when vulnerabilities are exposed, it can take ISPs months to be able to update the firmware for their customers’ routers.
  • Today’s routers are designed to be easy and fast to work straight out of the box, and the setup doesn’t force customers to set their own passwords – security is sacrificed for convenience.
  • There are online databases where cyber-criminals can instantly access a list of known vulnerabilities by entering the name of a router manufacturer. This means that many cyber-criminals know or can easily find out what the specific holes are in legacy firmware.

What If Your Router Is Compromised?

One big problem is that because users have little real knowledge about their routers anyway and pay little attention to them apart from when their connection goes down.  It is often the case, therefore, that users tend not to know that their router has been compromised as there are no clear outward signals.

Hacking a router is commonly used to carry out other criminal and malicious activity such as Distributed Denial of Service attacks (DDoS) as part of a botnet, credential stuffing, mining bitcoin and accessing other IoT devices that link to that router.


Examples of high-profile router-based attacks include:

  • The Mirai attack that used unsecured routers to spread the Mirai malware that turned networked devices into remotely controlled “bots” that could be used as part of a botnet in large-scale network attacks.
  • The VPNFilter malware (thought to have been sponsored by the Russian state and carried out by the Fancy Bear hacking group) that infected an estimated half a million routers worldwide.
  • The exploit in Brazil spread across D-Link routers and affecting 100,000 devices, aimed at customers of Banco de Brazil.

Also, back in 2017, Virgin Media advised its 800,000 customers to change their passwords to reduce the risk of hacking after finding that many customers were still using risky default network and router passwords.

Concerns were also expressed by some security commentators about TalkTalk’s Super Router regarding the WPS feature in the router always being switched on, even if the WPS pairing button was not used, thereby meaning that attackers within range could have potentially hacked into the router and stolen the router’s Wi-Fi password.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

If you have an old router with old firmware, you could have a weak link in your cyber-security.  If that old router links to IoT devices, these could also be at risk because of the router.

Manufacturers could help reduce the risk to business and home router users by taking steps such as disabling the internet until a user goes through a set up on the device which could include changing the password to a unique one.

Also, vendors and ISPs could help by having an active upgrade policy for out of date, vulnerable firmware, and by making sure that patches and upgrades are sent out quickly.

ISPs could do more to educate and to provide guidance on firmware updates e.g. with email bulletins.  Some tech commentators have also suggested using a tiered system where advanced users who want more control of their set-up can have the option, but everyone else gets updates rolled out automatically.

Could Biometric Regulations Be On The Way Soon?

A written parliamentary question from MP Luciana Berger about the possibility of bringing forward legislation to regulate the use of facial recognition technology has led the Home Office to hint that the legislation (and more) may be on the way soon.

Questions and Answers

The question by the MP about bringing forward ‘biometrics legislation’ related to how facial recognition was being used for immigration purposes at airports. Last month, MP David Davis also asked about possible safeguards to protect the security and privacy of citizens’ data that is held as part of the Home Office’s biometrics programme.

Caroline Nokes has said on behalf of the Home Office, in response to these and other questions about biometrics, that options to simplify and extend governance and oversight of biometrics across the Home Office sector are being looked at, including where law enforcement, border and immigration control use of biometrics is concerned.  Caroline Nokes is also reported to have said that other measures would also be looked at with a view to improving the governance and use of biometrics in advance of “possible legislation”.


There have been several controversial incidents where the Police have used/held trials of facial recognition at events and in public places, for example:

In February this year a deliberately overt trial of live facial recognition technology by the Metropolitan Police in the centre of Romford led to an incident whereby a man who was observed pulling his jumper over part of his face and putting his head down while walking past the police cameras ended up being fined after being challenged by police.  The 8-hour trial only resulted in three arrests as a direct result of facial recognition technology.

In December 2018 ICO head Elizabeth Dunham was reported to have launched a formal investigation into how police forces use facial recognition technology after high failure rates, misidentifications and worries about legality, bias, and privacy.

A trial of facial recognition at the Champions League final at the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff back in 2017 only yielded one arrest, and this was the arrest of a local man for something unconnected to the Champions League. This prompted criticism that the trial was a waste of money.

Biometrics – Approved By The FIDO Alliance

One area where biometrics has got the seal of approval by The FIDO Alliance is in its use in facial recognition, and fingerprint scanning as part the login for millions of Windows 10 devices from next month. The FIDO Alliance is an open industry association whose mission is to develop and promote authentication standards that help reduce the world’s over-reliance on passwords.

In a recent interview with CBNC, Microsoft’s Corporate Vice President and Chief Information Officer Bret Arsenault, signalled the corporation’s move away from passwords on their own as a means of authentication towards biometrics and a “passwordless future”.  Windows Hello (the Windows 10 authenticator) has been built to align with FIDO2 standards so it works with Microsoft cloud services, and this has led to the FIDO Alliance now granting Microsoft official certification for Windows Hello from the forthcoming May 2019 upgrade.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Taking images of our faces as part of a facial recognition system used by the government may seem like an efficient way of identifying and verification e.g. for immigration purposes, but our facial images constitute personal data.  For this reason, we should be concerned about how and where they are gathered (with or without our knowledge) and how they are stored, as well as how and why they are used.  There are security and privacy matters to consider, and it may well make sense to put regulations and perhaps legislation in place now in order to provide some protection for citizens and to ensure that biometrics are used responsibly by all, including the state, and that privacy and security are given proper consideration.

It should be remembered that some of the police facial recognition tests have led to mistaken identity, and this is a reminder that the technology is still in its early stages, and this may provide another reason for regulations and legislation now.

Surveillance Attack on WhatsApp

It has been reported that it was a surveillance attack on Facebook’s WhatsApp messaging app that caused the company to urge all of its 1.5bn users to update their apps as an extra precaution recently.

What Kind of Attack?

Technical commentators have identified the attack on WhatsApp as a ‘zero-day’ exploit that is used to load spyware onto the victim’s phone.  Once the victim’s WhatsApp has been hijacked and the spyware loaded onto the phone, it can, for example, access encrypted chats, access photos, contacts and other information, as well as being able to eavesdrop on calls, and even turn on the microphone and camera.  It has been reported that the exploit can also alter the call logs and hide the method of infection.


The attack is reported to be able to use the WhatsApp’s voice calling function to ring a target’s device. Even if the target person doesn’t pick the call up the surveillance software can be installed, and the call can be wiped from the device’s call log.  The exploit can happen by using a buffer overflow weakness in the WhatsApp VOIP stack which enables an overwriting of other parts of the app’s memory.

It has been reported that the vulnerability is present in the Google Android, Apple iOS, and Microsoft Windows Phone builds of WhatsApp.


According to reports in the Financial Times which broke the story of the WhatsApp attack (which was first discovered earlier this month), Facebook had identified the likely attackers as a private Israeli company, The NSO Group, that is part-owned by the London-based private equity firm Novalpina Capital.  According to reports, The NSO Group are known to work with governments to deliver spyware, and one of their main products called Pegasus can collect intimate data from a targeted device.  This can include capturing data through the microphone and camera and also gathering location data.


The NSO Group have denied responsibility.  NSO has said that their technology is only licensed to authorised government intelligence and law enforcement agencies for the sole purpose of fighting crime and terror, and that NSO wouldn’t or couldn’t use the technology in its own right to target any person or organisation.

Past Problems

WhatsApp has been in the news before for less than positive reasons.  For example, back in November 2017, WhatsApp was used by ‘phishing’ fraudsters to circulate convincing links for supermarket vouchers in order to obtain bank details.


As a result of the attack, as well as urging all of its 1.5bn users to update their apps, engineers at Facebook have created a patch for the vulnerability (CVE-2019-3568).

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Many of us think of WhatsApp as being an encrypted message app, and therefore somehow more secure. This story shows that WhatsApp vulnerabilities are likely to have existed for some time.  Although it is not clear how many users have been affected by this attack, many tech and security commentators think that it may have been a focused attack, perhaps of a select group of people.

It is interesting that we are now hearing about the dangers of many attacks being perhaps linked in some way to states and state-sponsored groups rather than individual actors, and the pressure is now on big tech companies to be able to find ways to guard against these more sophisticated and evolving kinds of attacks and threats that are potentially on a large scale.  It is also interesting how individuals could be targeted by malware loaded in a call that the recipient doesn’t even pick up, and it perhaps opens up the potential for new kinds of industrial espionage and surveillance.