A new report published by manufacturers’ organisation EEF in partnership with insurance firm AIG and the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) shows that 48% of UK manufacturers have been subject to a cyber-security incident at some time.

Loss and Disruption

Half of those manufacturing companies who admit to being hit by cyber-criminals have said that the incident(s) caused financial loss or disruption to business.

Challenges

The report highlighted several key challenges that the manufacturing industry faces in making itself less vulnerable to cyber-criminals. These challenges include:

• The age of equipment and the networked nature of production facilities. Many industrial systems are up to 20 years old and were developed before cyber threats became a big issue. As a result, poorly protected office systems, often the first implemented historically within manufacturing businesses, are particularly vulnerable. Also, a networked building, such as many manufacturing sites, can be hacked and exploited.
• Many manufacturing companies hold a large amount of classified information e.g. intellectual property (IP) and trade secrets, which makes them targets for (for example) financially motivated, state-sponsored hackers.
• Having no idea of the nature and size of the risks. 41% of manufacturing companies don’t believe they have access to enough information to assess their true cyber risk, and 12% of manufacturers admit they have no technical or managerial processes in place to even start assessing the real risk.
• A lack of basic detection that a cyber attack is taking place / has taken place, and a lack of investment in training i.e. 34% do not offer cyber-security training.
• Feeling that they are not equipped to tackle the risk anyway. For example, 45% are not confident they are prepared with the right tools for the job.
• A lack of confidence. Although 91% of the 170 UK manufacturing businesses polled are investing in digital technologies, 35% think that cyber vulnerability is inhibiting them from doing so fully.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For manufacturing businesses facing the very real threat of sophisticated, multi-level attacks, now is not the time to be left with a vulnerable outdated system. Advice from the report includes following the advice of the Government backed ‘Cyber Essentials’ scheme. This includes the 5 security essentials of using a firewall to secure your Internet connection, choosing the most secure settings for your devices and software, controlling who has access to your data and services, protecting yourself from viruses and other malware by using antivirus software, only downloading apps from manufacturer-approved stores, or running apps and programs in an isolated environment, and continually ensuring that operating systems and software are up-to-date and running the latest security patches.

Clearly, manufacturing companies with old systems may need to bite the bullet and invest in more modern, digitised, and well-protected systems. The report also indicates that greater investment in staff training is needed to help them spot and deal with risks, and to avoid the kind of human error that is needed in many modern cyber-attacks e.g. malware / viruses sent by email, phishing, and other social engineering attacks.

Another opportunity for manufacturing companies to boost cyber-security could also come from cyber-insurance. For example, many cyber insurers offer a comprehensive package of pre-loss services to businesses to carry out a cyber health check which could help to highlight gaps in cyber risk management and help identify what security measures should be prioritised.

GCHQ’s new director has revealed that last year, the UK has conducted a large-scale cyber-attack against ISIS that was designed to suppress online terrorist propaganda and hinder ISIS’s ability to coordinate attacks.

Growing For A Decade

Confirmation that the attack took place came as part of the first public speech by GCHQ’s new director and former MI5 agent, Jeremy Fleming. During his speech at the National Cyber Security Centre’s (NCSC) flagship event in Manchester, Mr Fleming said that the cyber attack is just the latest part in what have been GCHQ’s efforts to grow its online counterterrorism capabilities over more than a decade.

The outcomes of cyber attacks as weapons against any enemy can range from denying online services, disrupting a specific online activity, and deterring individuals or groups, to effectively destroying equipment and networks.

Degraded Infrastructure

The UK’s cyber-attack against ISIS is reported to have degraded the terror group’s online infrastructure, made a significant contribution to coalition efforts to suppress any Daesh propaganda, hindered the terror group’s ability to coordinate attacks, and provided more protection for coalition forces on the battlefield.

Over-Achievers

It seems that this latest big cyber-attack success is only the tip of the iceberg, as a report by Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) has said that GCHQ spies had “over-achieved” in 2017, and that GCHQ had delivered on the first of three stages in its mission to bolster its cyber capabilities thanks to staging almost twice as many potential hacks than its targets.

Russia In The Spotlight

The recent deterioration of the relationship between the West and Russia means that its cyber-behaviour, as well as that of ISIS, is now reported to be more of a focus for GCHQ. In the director’s speech in Manchester, Mr Fleming said that the Russian state should be held accountable for what it does, and that the UK will continue to respond to malicious cyber-activity in conjunction with international partners such as the United States.

Helpful Tool

Another helpful tool that could be used to combat terrorist propaganda online could include the auto-blocker for extremist content that was mentioned by Home Secretary Amber Rudd. The tool, which Home Secretary Rudd would like to see adopted by ISPs can be configured to detect 94% of extremist video uploads.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

It stands to reason that the UK is launching its own cyber-attacks against what it sees as legitimate targets elsewhere in the world. Cyber-attack and security capabilities are now being used worldwide to support military operations, damage enemy communications and infrastructure and thereby degrade the threat they pose, as well as protecting home infrastructure and vital networks.

Attacks by other states, criminal and terror groups e.g. hacks, DDoS attacks and viruses, can end up impacting many UK businesses, so its good to hear that GCQH, MI5 and other actors are ‘over-achieving’ in their efforts to protect the UK, and reduce the threats that we face in a time of shifting geopolitical and technological landscapes. We can assume, therefore, that the successful actions of our security agencies must be indirectly protecting many of the interests of UK businesses.

Microsoft has announced a set of business security tools, including a phishing attack simulator, that make it easier and more affordable for businesses to identify and fix vulnerabilities before they become an issue.

Attack Simulator

One of the key tools announced to coincide with the annual RSA conference in San Francisco, is the Attack Simulator. This tool is included in Office 365 Threat Intelligence, and is currently still in preview.

Spear Phishing Simulator

The tool, which simulates display name spear-phishing attacks, password-spray attacks, and brute-force password attacks, enables businesses to determine how end users behave in the event of an attack, and update policies to ensure that appropriate security tools are in place to protect the organization from threats.

A spear-phishing attack, for example, is used to gain access to users’ credentials or financial information, and often involves sending emails, purporting to be from a person of influence in an organisation to other users. The Microsoft attack simulator tool applies machine learning models and impersonation detection algorithms to incoming email messages. The AI system is trained to detect phishing messages. It also uses algorithms to protect against various user and domain impersonation attacks.

Intelligent Security Graph

Microsoft credits its ‘Intelligent Security Graph’ as being the ‘central nervous system’ that is at the heart of its tools for tracking and mitigation of attacks across platforms and services. This combines AI with data gained from analyzing web pages, emails and malware threats on Windows 10 and the cloud. This enables Microsoft to warn users of existing and new threats.

Only Access SaaS Service If Your Device Is Healthy

Another important development of Office 365’s Conditional Access service is an update (currently in preview) which combines Conditional Access Information with data from the Windows Defender Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) security scanner to ensure that a user can only access a given SaaS service if their device is healthy.

Security Score

A potentially important new tool that Microsoft has developed for IT admins is an expanded version of the Office 365 Secure Score tool, which gives a single measure for evaluating the risk profile across Office 365 service and their users’ devices.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

For many businesses e.g. SMEs, up-to-date cyber attack simulators would be beyond their resources. These new tools from Microsoft have been ‘trained’ thanks to AI and real-world analysis via Windows 10, thereby making them an affordable, accessible, and hopefully effective and welcome addition to the security options that businesses have at their disposal.

There is no doubt that human / employee error is at the heart of many successful cyber-attacks. With a phishing attack simulator that allows the creation of a fake phishing email, companies can see, for example, which employees fall for them, and this could serve as a way of identifying who needs extra security extra security training.

The combination of these new tools from Microsoft could provide an effective way that companies of all sizes could take proactive measures to plug gaps in their cyber-security shield, and guard against the kind of breaches that could be expensive and damaging, especially with the introduction of GDPR.

Facebook is in the news yet again, this time for having to face a class action lawsuit for allegedly gathering biometric information without users’ explicit consent, via facial recognition technology.

What Facial Recognition Technology?

A facial recognition technology feature in Facebook’s platform suggests who might be present in uploaded photos, based on an existing database of faces, and uses “tag suggestions” technology.

The feature works by trying to detect any faces in an uploaded photo, standardises and aligns those faces for size and direction, then, for each face, Facebook computes a face signature which is a mathematical representation of the face in that photo. Finally, the face signatures are run through a stored database of user face templates to look for similar matches

What’s The Problem?

The problem in legal terms is that the software allegedly gathers (and presumably stores) biometric information about individuals i.e. makes and stores face templates of them, without them giving their explicit consent for it to do so. This sounds as though it may breach Illinois state law – this is the state from which the class of people in the lawsuit question is made up.

The court order is reported to apply to Facebook users in Illinois for whom Facebook created and stored a face template after 7 June 2011.

What Are The Chances?

Although Facebook reportedly intends to fight the case and believes that it has no merit, the fact that the judge, James Donato, has ruled to certify a class of Facebook users, and has said that Facebook could be expecting billions in statutory damages, does not appear to bode well for Facebook.

Not Available Here

Privacy regulations mean that the facial recognition and tagging feature is not available in Europe or Canada, and can be turned off in settings for US users.

Facebook also said back in December 2017 that users would be notified if a picture of them was uploaded by someone else, even if they hadn’t been tagged in it.

Hearing In A Crowd Technology Developed By Google

Just as Facebook appears to be in trouble over voice technology, Google has announced that its research team has just developed technology that can recognise individual voices in a crowd, just as a human can.

The tech giant has made a demonstration video for the technology. The video shows how, with lots of people talking at once in a room, a user can select a particular face and hear the soundtrack of just that person. Users of this technology can also select the context of a conversation, and only references to that conversation are played, even if more than one person in the room is discussing that subject matter.

The AI technology behind the feature was developed using data collated from 100,000 videos of lectures and training videos on YouTube.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

With GDPR on the way, the case against Facebook’s voice recognition technology is another reminder of how businesses need to get to grips with the sometimes complicated area of consent. Video images and face templates of individual faces are also likely to qualify as personal data that consent for collection and storage will be needed for under GDPR. Privacy, as well as security, is a right that is getting even greater protection in law.

The technology from Google that can recognise individual voices, and can follow individual conversations in crowds could unlock valuable business opportunities in e.g. improving the function and scope of hearing aids, or improving video conferencing tools by enabling them to take place in the middle of an office space rather than only in a separate, soundproofed meeting room (provided other visual distractions are minimised). It seems that new technology is beginning to be developed to help tackle age-old human challenges.

A businessman has won the “right to be forgotten” by Google after taking his case to the High Court, because he wanted a past crime he had committed to be removed from Google’s search engine results.

What Crime?

The (un-named) businessman was hoping to remove details from Google of a conviction from 10 years ago, and of the six months jail sentence he was given for ‘conspiring to intercept communications’. The businessman was forced to take Google to court after Google refused his requests to have the information removed from its search engine results. The man’s legal argument was that the details of his past conviction were disproportionately impacting his life, and were no longer relevant, and therefore, it was not it was not in the public or the man’s interest for Google to show the details in searches.

What Does The “Right To Be Forgotten” Mean?

The legal precedent for what has become known as ‘the right to be forgotten’ was set by the Court of Justice of the European Union back in 2014. It was the result of a case brought by Spaniard Mario Costeja Gonzalez who had asked Google to remove information about his financial history from its search engine results.

In this particular case, the ‘right to be forgotten’ means that Google has to remove all search results about the businessman’s conviction, including links to news articles.

Had Shown Remorse

The judge ruled in favour of the businessman, stating that he had shown remorse. Google has said that it will respect the judgement made in the case and pointed out that it has removed 800,000 pages from its results following ‘right to be forgotten’ requests.

Not So Lucky

Another businessman who also brought a ‘right to be forgotten’ case against Google, and who had committed a more serious crime of ‘conspiring to account falsely’ was not so lucky, and lost his case. It was decided, in the High Court, that the man, who had spent four years in jail for the crime, had “mislead the public”, and that it would still be in the public interest for Google to keep the information about the man and his crimes in the search engine results.

Less Than Half

Google’s own Transparency Report from May this year revealed that of the 2.4 million requests made since 2014 to remove certain URLs from its search results, Google has only complied with less than half. Google doesn’t actually have to comply with a request, and can refuse to take links down if can demonstrate that there is a public interest in the information remaining in the search results. Google can also re-instate links that it has already taken down in a previous request if it can show that it has grounds to do so.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

It is good news that powerful international tech companies whose services are widely used, and who have the power to influence opinion and affect lives can sometimes be held accountable to national courts. There is a strong argument that they should not be a law unto themselves, and that they may not always be the best party to judge what is in the public interest.

The ‘right to be forgotten’ is particularly significant because it is something that all EU citizens will have when GDPR comes into force next month. This will impact businesses, many of whom may expect to receive ‘right to be forgotten’ requests, and will need to get their data management in order to both comply with GDPR generally, and to be able to respond quickly to such requests and avoid possible fines.