• demesisx@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    198
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I have a solution:

    governments should heavily fine companies that are subject to data breaches.

    If it cost them real money (proportional to their market cap, the amount of customers affected, and/or the severity of the breach) to allow a data breach, I’m betting they’d shore up those holes REALLLLLLLLLL QUICK.

    • Sanctus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      103
      ·
      11 months ago

      This is always the answer. “How do we solve x in y industry?” Make the fucking corpos responsible for their own asses and it will get fixed. If it costs them more money to be breached they will do everything they can to not allow that.

      • sundray@lemmus.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        That, or threaten to nationalize their industry. Corporations *hate * that.

      • Dave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        11 months ago

        “Externalities” are just expenses that corporations incur that have to be paid by the public.

        Make externalities losses again.

      • eltimablo@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        It’ll also screw over anyone trying to break into the market, ensuring that the big tech companies remain unchallenged indefinitely.

        • demesisx@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          11 months ago

          Disagree if you add the three different factors that I added to account for this in my original comment:

          As I wrote in my edit, I think the size of fine should be dependent on:

          • size of company

          • the reasonable expectation of security (which would partially attempt to decrease fines for unfixable breaches)

          • the number of unique users affected

          • theneverfox@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            I think that’s a great starting point for effective legislation.

            I also think this could easily be twisted to become yet another artificial barrier to entry.

            I don’t know what to do with that knowledge…I think you’re correct, but I also think there’s no way to pass such a law with its spirit intact today

            • demesisx@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              I’ll put the ball in your court.

              I’ve completely and irreparably broken up with electoral politics in the United States ever since my tax money started being spent solely on austerity and genocide. It’s about as likely for this to be introduced as a bill as it is for a third party to win a presidential election…ie IMPOSSIBLE.

    • Altima NEO@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      They’re too busy proposing legislation to create back doors that completely circumvent security in the first place.

      • WHYAREWEALLCAPS@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yeah, people shouldn’t look to their government to protect them from this. Hell, I’d be willing to bet no small amount of taxes go to purchasing the leaked info at places like the CIA, NSA, and FBI.

    • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Nah, throw the board members in prison. If the punishment for crime is a fine then it’s legal for rich people/corps. Put 'em in solitary and feed them nutraloaf for one day for each person’s data they allowed to be leaked.

      If they get all the money because they’re ultimately responsible, we should make them ultimately responsible.

      • KptnAutismus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        if it means prison time for a middle/lower class person, it should mean prison time for everyone who is responsible for basically publishing logins and personal data.

        no more geeting off scott free because you run a company. you’re a prisoner like everyone else now.

      • wikibot@lemmy.worldB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Here’s the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:

        Nutraloaf (also known as meal loaf, prison loaf, disciplinary loaf, food loaf, lockup loaf, confinement loaf, seg loaf, grue or special management meal) is food served in prisons in the United States (and formerly in Canada) to inmates who have misbehaved, abused food, or have inflicted harm upon themselves or others. It is similar to meatloaf in texture, but has a wider variety of ingredients. Prison loaf is usually bland, even unpleasant, but prison wardens argue that nutraloaf provides enough nutrition to keep prisoners healthy without requiring eating utensils.

        to opt out, pm me ‘optout’. article | about

      • demesisx@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        HELL YEAH, comrade! 🌹

        I was just working inside of the confines of shitliberalism because it’s seemingly all we have in the United Corporations that run America.

    • neidu2@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      As much as I agree that something needs to be done to these companies, and that they deserve punishment, I think this approach would only result in leaks (even more) underreported, which makes it even worse.

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        Are these leaks even being reported by companies? Every article I have seen so far has just been compiling information off the new leaked data set someone picked up off the dark web or something.

        • Kiernian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          They weren’t, which is why the SEC updated 17 CFR Parts 229, 232, 239, 240, and 249.

          https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/final/2023/33-11216.pdf

          As of December 18th of last year, publicly traded companies are now required to disclose breaches. (soz, material cybersecurity incidents).

          Prior to that, they could …basically… just effectively sweep everything under the rug “like it never happened” minus a little handwaving and paper shuffling and nobody would find out about it until the information got sold and went public.

          I’ll have to go looking but I would be SERIOUSLY surprised if the disclosures apply to credit card companies (the MOST breached, historically) because I’m not sure what exactly qualifies someone as an asset-backed issuer, but it’s at least a really good step for the REST of things.

    • bleistift2@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Article 82, paragraph 1 of the GDPR:

      Any person who has suffered material or non-material damage as a result of an infringement of this Regulation shall have the right to receive compensation from the controller or processor for the damage suffered.

      Paragraph 2:

      Any controller involved in processing shall be liable for the damage caused by processing which infringes this Regulation

      Article 24, paragraph 1:

      **[T]he controller shall **implement appropriate technical and organisational measures to ensure and to be able to demonstrate that processing is performed in accordance with this Regulation.

      Article 5, paragraph 1f:

      Personal data shall be: […] processed in a manner that ensures appropriate security of the personal data, including protection against unauthorised or unlawful processing and against accidental loss,

      Article 83, paragraphs 2 and 5:

      Each supervisory authority shall ensure that the imposition of administrative fines pursuant to this Article in respect of infringements of this Regulation referred to in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 shall in each individual case be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

      Infringements of the following provisions shall, in accordance with paragraph 2, be subject to administrative fines up to 20 000 000 EUR, or in the case of an undertaking, up to 4 % of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher:

      (a) the basic principles for processing, including conditions for consent, pursuant to Articles 5, 6, 7 and 9;

      Article 4, paragraph 7:

      ‘controller’ means the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or other body which, alone or jointly with others, determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data

      (All quotes are excepts, emphasis mine

      https://gdpr-info.eu/

      • demesisx@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        I think we can both guess why these companies never really face penalties that hurt them materially despite this being codified into law in the EU…

      • bartolomeo@suppo.fi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I got lost in the comments… why did you paste that here? To show that it is possible to make the data controller liable for breaches?

        • bleistift2@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          Exactly. This is supposed to show that what @demesisx@infosec.pub demands is already law in the EU.

    • Nommer@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      They won’t because fines are just a fee to allow them to run unethically. That way businesses get more profit than they would otherwise and government gets their cut to allow it. It’s broken by design.

    • eltimablo@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      11 months ago

      This is the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard. You don’t fine a bank for getting robbed. This reeks of frontend engineer idiocy, which is ironically the exact type of idiocy that tends to cause breaches like this.

      • demesisx@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Every time some corporatist replies to me, they’re always kbin.

        Your analogy falls apart with even a cursory thought about the differences between banks (which are required to be insured against loss which would make a customer whole again without any negative effects) and corporations that just throw all of their customers’ data onto a portal that lacks basic protection. Once that personal data is compromised, there’s no way to repay the customer and no amount of fines will EVER right that wrong. In a properly-regulated, just society, a bank would ABSOLUTELY be fined back to the Stone Age if they left their customers’ cash in the middle of a town square, for example.

        Be better, you corporate cuck.

        • eltimablo@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Ok then, how about considering that this will only serve to benefit the big tech companies because they’re the ones that can afford the fines? A breach is usually enough to make a smaller company go out of business already between cleanup and lawsuits. Why make it easier for the big tech companies to maintain power?

          • demesisx@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Did you even read my comment? I specifically mentioned that the size of the fine could be tied to their market cap.

            If you work in cyber security, you’d know that there are best practices in place for cybersecurity and it is a WELL UNDERSTOOD FIELD. The main advice everyone gives is to never roll your own cryptography…and that is EXACTLY what many of the hacked companies did.

            Taking a shortcut and hiring shitty devs who just use some random NPM package for security and call it a day is exactly why there are so many breaches. Just as bridges need to be built to withstand double or triple their weight, there should be STANDARDS in place that if violated are subject to fines.

            Companies like Google would basically have to build SUPER SECURE technologies lest they be bankrupted by a breach.

            In conclusion, please try to remove your tongue from your exploitive employer’s back side.

            • eltimablo@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              I did miss that, but again, it’s additional fines on top of an almost guaranteed lawsuit for something that may not even be their fault. If they got owned by a Heartbleed exploit back when it was first announced and a fix wasn’t available yet, should a company be responsible for that? What about when they get hit by a vuln that’s been stockpiled for a couple years and purposely has no fix due to interference from bad actors? There are a lot of situations where fining someone for getting breached doesn’t make sense.

              • demesisx@infosec.pub
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                11 months ago

                You make great points but my final point is this: if a company simply cannot guarantee protection of user data, it shouldn’t be trusted with user data in the first place.

                • eltimablo@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  And I’ll counter with this: no system is perfect, especially when major parts are made by non-employees. Mistakes can and do happen because corporations, regardless of size, are made up of humans, and humans are really good at fucking up.

  • Vub@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    91
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    Kind of worrying when their source is a “data breach information website” that does advertorials for “the most safe password manager” NordPass. 🤮 The internet of today has become a pile of absolute shit.

  • Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    11 months ago

    I think it’s gotten to the point that we. (Collective) Have to start using alias. I know proton for a price gives fake mobile and email address.

    I have started using a 5th email to sign up to things. Have an extra number as well. It’s beyond a joke really.

    Tried to sign up for a budget app and it requires email phone and address.

    No. No you don’t require any of that. You want that to sell. And you’ve likely got inadequate protection.

    Nobody but my bank job and maybe a few places require all my info.

    • XTornado@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Oh proton gives mobile too… Ya know I didn’t feel like paying for the mail thing as I can have my domain and relay easily but the mobile thing I didn’t know.

      But I will be honest I didn’t see it mentioned on the web, it’s already a thing?

        • Bizzle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Yeah except it’s fully FOSS. If you set up nextcloud there’s even a web app for it that’s pretty good.

            • Bizzle@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              I used it in college and never had any problems, it seems to have feature parity with Excel. I used Excel professionally for a while and some of the workflows are a little different, but on the whole it’s really intuitive and easy to use. I’m sure there are other FOSS budgeting solutions, but Calc works so well for me I don’t see myself using anything else.

    • vsis@feddit.cl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      I don’t think so.

      Trump himself was victim of credential stuffing. And he’s not the only politician or billionaire who has suffered stolen accounts of something.

      • KᑌᔕᕼIᗩ@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        You’d have to have the data breach also be the cause of them losing massive amounts of wealth, which probably isn’t going to happen.

  • Kazumara@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    11 months ago

    That seems weird, it’s called mother of all breaches, but isn’t the result of any one breach. It’s just data collection from ordinary breaches with perhaps some credential stuffing in the mix.

    • PlasmaDistortion@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      And everyone should just assume that every account they have will be hacked. Because it already is, they just haven’t found out yet (assume breach).

  • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I’ve always thought LinkedIn is nothing more than a massive treasure trove of personal information just waiting to be harvested by thieves wanting the entire life and work history of millions of upwardly mobile career focused people.

    • XTornado@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      Work History ok… But entire life… I guess people that used like it’s Facebook maybe? 🤔

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        LinkedIn is trying to encourage people to use it as a social networking site.

  • Lutra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    11 months ago

    “The MOAB contains 26 billion records over 3,800 folders, with each folder corresponding to a separate data breach. While this doesn’t mean that the difference between the two automatically translates to previously unpublished data, billions of new records point to a very high probability, the MOAB contains never seen before information.” Totaling 12TB.

  • Hyperreality@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I honestly wonder if my data wouldn’t be safer on some sites, if I skipped two-factor authentication and a recovery email, and simply used my date of birth as a password. At least then, they’d wouldn’t be able to leak the phone number or email adress, because I was never forced to give it to them.

    It’s even more annoying, because you can’t easily avoid many of these companies. Eg. for jobs it’s really hard to get around using linkedin. I mean, I refuse out of principe and have for years, so my data’s a decade out of data, but it’s obviously cost me opportunities.

    There are almost certainly pictures of me floating around social media, taken without my permission, but tagged by facebook or google just in case I had any fucking privacy. And now thanks to some phones. they also have our finger prints and retinal scans, which will inevitably get leaked sooner rather than later. I pity the poor chumps whose DNA was leaked, that’s even worse. Most of that will probably be leaked sooner or later, if it hasn’t already, because it turns out a subcontractor used the youtube comment section to communicate between departments.

    If I had the technical ability, I would design a two-factor authentication system based on rectal scans.

    “Here at OmniCorp we believe all our customers our unique, that’s why we believe in securing your data by linking your DNA, phonenumber, social security number, retinal scan and finger print, with a picture of your anus. Bend Over. The Future’s Now.”

  • theodewere@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Tencent tops the chart, with 1.5 billion records leaked, followed by Weibo at 504 million and MySpace at 360 million.

    MySpace in the news as Top Western Leaker