Internet Security

Fingerprint Bank Card

RBS is reportedly about to hold trials of a new, more secure biometric bank card where customers can use their fingerprint instead of a PIN to verify purchases.


The trial, which will involve some 200 RBS and NatWest UK-based customers, is due to begin in April this year and will and last for three months. Although this is the first time this kind of advanced card technology has been trialled in the UK, a similar trial has already taken place in Cyprus.


RBS is working on the biometric fingerprint-verified card project in partnership with digital security company Gemalto, Visa, and Mastercard.


The advantages of a biometric card of this kind include improved security, speed and convenience for customers with no need to worry (as with contactless) about the £30 limit because the biometric card will be able to verify payments of larger amounts.

Already Used For RBS App

RBS already offer their customers a mobile banking app that uses fingerprint log-in on iPhone, iPad or Android.

Fingerprint Sensor On The Card

Gemalto, one of the partners in the new RBS project explains that the fingerprint card works by using a fingerprint sensor on the card body.  When paying, a customer places the card next to the POS terminal (as with contactless) and places their finger on this part of the card.  This securely authenticates their fingerprint and enables the transaction to go through without the need for a PIN.  Gemalto says that the user’s biometric data never leaves the card, so is kept secure.


In order to activate and start using such a card, customers would have to record their fingerprint with an enrolment procedure.  This is likely to be possible from home a self-enrolment sleeve shipped with the card with activation which is then completed at the first transaction at the POS, or by going to a go bank branch and using a secure enrolment tablet or kiosk.

Own Research

Gemalto’s own research has found that 54% of UK cardholders who have evaluated the information about the card would get one today if it were available from their bank, and 82% said it would become their preferred payment card.

Security Concerns

Although biometrics are preferred over password verification systems in terms of security, there is still concern about where a person’s biometric data is stored, and how securely that data is stored.  Also, biometric voice-activated systems have already shown themselves to be vulnerable.  For example, back in May 2017, a BBC Click reporter was able to fool HSBC’s biometric voice recognition system by passing his brother’s voice off as his own.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Biometric authentication and verification systems appear to be much more secure than password and PIN systems, which is why banks and credit companies are already adopting and using them.  The popularity of contactless cards with businesses and users is clear, and introducing a more secure authentication method e.g. fingerprint, is a way of getting customers to feel more comfortable with spending over £30 amounts with a quick, contactless system.  This could bring benefits to a wider range of businesses, and contactless has mainly favoured those retail businesses with typically lower value transactions.

Many people are already getting used to mobile apps that use biometric authentication, so a card that uses a similar idea is not a big step, plus the unique nature of fingerprints would make card fraud less likely, which should please the banks and users.

Other types of biometric systems e.g. voice activated systems have run into problems and some opposition (e.g. privacy groups) challenging the lawfulness of HMRC’s Voice ID system which has collected and stored more than 7 million “audio signatures”.

This new type of fingerprint card is still awaiting its trial in the UK, but the signs are that it looks like it could be an acceptable next step for bank customers who want to use a more secure contactless card system that works for everything.

New York’s Governor Orders Investigation Into Facebook Over App Concerns

The Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, has ordered an investigation into reports that Facebook Inc may be using apps on users’ smartphones to collect personal information about them.

Alerted By Wall Street Journal

The Wall Street Journal prompted the Governor to order New York’s Department of State and Department of Financial Services (DFS) to investigate Facebook when the paper reported that Facebook may have more access than it should to data from certain apps, sometimes even when a person isn’t even signed in to Facebook.

Health Data

It has been reported that the kind of data that some apps allegedly share with Facebook includes health-related information such as weight, blood pressure and ovulation status.

The alleged sharing of this kind of sensitive and personal data, whether or not a person is logged-in Facebook, prompted Governor Cuomo to call such practice an “outrageous abuse of privacy.”


Facebook’s defence against these allegations, which appears to have prompted a short-lived but noticeable fall in Facebook’s share value, was to point out that WSJ’s report focused on how other apps use people’s data to create ads.

Facebook added that it requires other app developers to be clear with their users about the information they are sharing with Facebook and that it prohibits app developers from sending sensitive data to Facebook.

The social media giant also stressed that it tries to detect and remove any data that should not be shared with it.

Lawsuits Pending

This appears to be just one of several legal fronts where Facebook will need to defend itself.  For example, Facebook is still facing a U.S. Federal Trade Commission investigation into the alleged inappropriate sharing of information belonging to 87 million Facebook users with now-defunct political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica.

Apple Also Accused By Governor Over FaceTime Bug

New York’s Governor Cuomo and New York Attorney General Letitia James have also announced an investigation into Apple Inc’s alleged failure to warn customers about a bug in its FaceTime app that could inadvertently allow eavesdropping as iPhones users were able to listen to conversations of others who have not yet accepted a video call.

DFS Involvement

The Department of Financial Services (DFS), which is one of the two agencies that have been ordered to investigate this latest Facebook app sharing matter has only recently begun to get more involved in digital matters, particularly by producing the country’s first cybersecurity rules governing state-regulated financial institutions such as banks, insurers and credit monitors.

Some commentators have expressed concern, however, about the DFS saying last month that DFS life insurers could use social media posts in underwriting their policies, on the condition that they did not discriminate based on race, colour, national origin, sexual orientation or other protected classes.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

You could be forgiven for thinking that after the scandal over Facebook’s unauthorised sharing of the personal details of 87 million users with Cambridge Analytica, that Facebook may have learned its lesson about the sharing of personal data and may have tried harder to uncover and plug any loopholes that could allow this to happen. The tech giant still has several lawsuits and regulatory inquiries over privacy issues pending, and this latest revelation about the sharing very personal health information certainly won’t help its cause. Clearly, as the involvement of the FDS shows, there needs to be more oversight of (and investigation into) apps that share their data with Facebook, and possibly the need for more legislation and regulation of the smart app / smart tech ecosystem.

There are ways to stop Facebook from sharing your data with other apps via your phone settings and by disabling Facebook’s data sharing platform.  You can find instructions here:

Discovery of Microphone in Google’s Nest Guard Prompts Backlash

The discovery of a microphone in Google’s Nest Guard product that was not listed in tech spec has been put down to an erroneous omission by Google, but it has also caused a backlash that escalated to the US Congress.

What Happened?

One of Google’s products is the Nest Secure product which is a home security system that operates using a phone app, alarm, keypad, and motion sensor with Google Assistant built in (which is the main hub), Nest Detect Sensors for doors and windows, and a tag which the homeowner taps on the main hub when they enter the house to disarm the system. Earlier this month, the addition of Google’s digital assistant to the product led to the surprise discovery that the main hub unit has always had a microphone installed in it, but the microphone was not mentioned on the technical specifications for the product.

The discovery of what appeared to be a “secret” microphone has, therefore, prompted anger and discussion among privacy and security advocates and commentators, concern from consumers, bad publicity for Google, and calls for action by a Senator, a Congressman, and many others.

Google Says 

Google’s response to the discovery was simply to apologise for what was an “error” and oversight on its part for not listing the microphone in the tech spec for the system, and to stress that the microphone was not intended to be ‘secret’ and had not been used until the addition of the Google Assistant.

It has also been reported that Google has said that one of the reasons for the microphone’s inclusion had originally been to allow future functionality, for example, to detect breaking glass in the home.


Google has faced anger and criticism from many different angles over the discovery of the microphone including:

  • Maryland Congressman John Delaney calling for privacy legislation to now be applied to a broad range of tech products.  Mr Delaney also proposed that electronic tech products should have labelling on them like that on food products, so consumers can be quickly and easily alerted to any privacy and security implications.
  • Virginia Senator Mark Warner, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, calling for hearings with federal agencies and the U.S. Congress about the digital economy, and the smart home ecosystem.
  • The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) calling on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to request via an enforcement action, that Google divests of its Nest hardware products, and that Google disgorges any data that it may wrongfully have obtained from Nest customers.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Smart electronic products and devices are now in homes and businesses everywhere, but consumers and business owners should have the right to be clearly informed about the security and privacy implications of those products so that they can make an informed choice about whether to buy and operate them.

As some commentators have noted, the arguments that it’s easier to ask for forgiveness than seek permission or that ‘it’s in the fine print’, shouldn’t be acceptable privacy policies from tech companies.  The idea of food packaging-style labelling on smart tech products to help inform about security and privacy implications may not be a bad one, and if the tech industry can’t regulate itself on this matter then more legislation to protect consumers and businesses seems likely.

This is a damaging story in terms of trust and reputation for Google, particularly in the US where the story has been given greater prominence and may cause consumers to think twice about the kinds of smart products that they let into their homes and businesses.

DNS Infrastructure Under Attack

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has issued a warning that the DNS infrastructure is facing an “ongoing and significant risk” and has urged domain owners to deploy DNSSEC technology.


ICANN is one of the many organisations involved in the decentralised management of the Internet but is specifically responsible for coordinating the top-most level of the DNS in order to ensure that it can operate in a secure and stable way and maintain universal resolvability.


According to ICANN’s statement, public reports indicate that the DNS infrastructure is facing “multifaceted attacks utilizing different methodologies”.  Examples of such attacks include replacing the addresses of intended servers with addresses of machines controlled by attackers.  The prevalence of so-called “man in the middle” attacks, where a user is unknowingly re-directed to a potentially malicious site is of particular concern.

Cisco’s Talos Intelligence blog has highlighted how this type of attack has been carried out on a grand scale by some international players.  For example, the blog reports how Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have been targeting .gov domains, as well as a private Lebanese airline company.  The attackers used two fake, malicious websites containing job postings via malicious Microsoft Office documents which had embedded macros. The malware, dubbed “DNSionage” supported HTTP and DNS communication with the attackers.

The Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency in the US has also been forced to order federal agencies to act against DNS tampering.


One of the main ways that ICANN and Internet companies like Cloudflare and Google are suggesting that DNS-focused attacks can be countered is through the deployment of DNSSEC technology by domain owners.   Domain Name System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) has been described as a suite of Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) specifications.  DNSSEC was designed to protect Internet resolvers/clients from forged DNS data, and it complements other technologies e.g. Transport Layer Security (usually used in HTTPS) that protect the end user/domain communication.  In essence, it cryptographically signs data to make it much more difficult to forge.

Low Adoption Rate

One of the reasons why DNS-focused attacks are so prevalent may be that the adoption rate of DNSSEC is so low – around 20%.  In fact, according to Cloudflare, only 3% of the Fortune 1,000 are using DNSSEC.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

It is good that ICANN has identified this threat as this will now facilitate greater discussion and action and may motivate more domain owners to look into and adopt DNSSEC, hopefully across all unsecured domain names.  Although full deployment of DNSSEC is not the ultimate answer, it may go a long way towards drastically reducing the current threat.

ICANN has produced a helpful checklist of recommended security precautions that members of the domain name industry e.g. registries, registrars, resellers, and others, can proactively take to protect their systems, their customers’ systems and any that could be reached via DNS.  You can find the checklist here:

Form-Jacking Attacks Hit High Profile Companies

Research by Security Company Symantec has revealed that high profile companies such as BA and Ticketmaster are among the many thousands of businesses whose websites are being targeted with “form-jacking” attacks every month.

What Is Form-Jacking?

Form-jacking involves inserting a small amount of malicious JavaScript code into the checkout web pages of e-commerce sites, thereby allowing attackers to monitor payment card information being entered and to then syphon that information off.

When a user hits the submit button on a checkout page that contains the malicious code, the user’s payment and personal details are sent to an attacker’s servers where the attacker can use this information to perform payment card fraud or sell these details on to other criminals on the dark web.

Pages that have been compromised in this way aren’t easy to spot, and to the naked eye, the checkout process looks normal.

How Big Is The Problem?

Symantec claims to have stopped more than 3.7 million form-jacking attacks in 2017, and between August and September 2018, the company says that it blocked 248,000 attempts at form-jacking.  The fact that 36% of these blocks took place from September 13th to September 20th was an indicator that form-jacking attempts were escalating towards the end of last year.

Symantec reports that 4,800 websites are being hit by form-jacking attacks every month.


High profile examples of victims of form-jacking given by Symantec include British Airways and Ticketmaster who were both targeted by the ‘Magecart’ hacking group.

The attack on British Airways saw the Magecart attackers set up a spoof web domain designed to look like those of the legitimate company, and even purchase paid SSL certificates from Comodo to make it look more legitimate. Magecart was present on British Airway’s website from August 21 to September 5, and the 22 lines of digital skimming JavaScript code that it took to operate the form-jacking attack affected 380,000 transactions.  In the BA attack, the vital customer data was skimmed and stolen in a fraction of a second between the time the customer put the mouse over the submit button and before the data had a chance to reach BA’s servers as the customer clicked on the button.

In the case of Ticketmaster attack, which took place in June, attackers first compromised a chatbot from tech firm Inbenta that was used for customer support on Ticketmaster websites.  This chatbot then provided the way in for the Magecart attackers which enabled them to alter the JavaScript code on Ticketmaster’s websites so that payment card data from customers could be captured and sent to their servers.  It is thought that the form-jacking code remained undetected on Ticketmaster’s website from September 2017 to June 2018.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Cybercriminals have found that better back-up practices by businesses and home users have made attacks like ransomware less likely to pay, so may have moved into form-jacking. The fact that it only requires the insertion of a relatively small amount of JavaScript and that it can be very difficult to detect make it an attractive new way to get paid for many criminals.

Companies can use network-based and file-based protection against form-jacking, and ways to stop attackers getting in to inject the code include using firewalls to block all incoming connections from the internet to services that should not be publicly available, enforcing a (complex) password policy, turning off file sharing if not needed, turning off and removing unnecessary services, keeping patching up to date, and configuring email servers to block or remove emails that contains file attachments that are commonly used to spread threats e.g. .vbs, .bat, .exe, .pif and .scr files.

Also, companies should guard against software supply chain attacks by testing new updates, even seemingly legitimate ones, in small test/sandbox environments, and by monitoring the behaviour of all activity on a system to help identify any unwanted patterns.

Targets Of A Rise In Extortion Scams

A report by cyber-crime researchers is warning professional people and those in higher level management positions that extortion scams are on the rise with higher earners as the obvious targets.


The report, from researchers at risk protection firm Digital Shadows, tracked so-called ‘sextortion’ campaigns from July 2018 to February 2019, during which time they discovered that more than 89,000 unique recipients were the targets of 792,000 extortion attempts!


Extortion scams aimed at higher earners have become popular because:

– These scams are cheap and easy to operate. For example, aspiring extortionists can purchase sensitive corporate documents and extortion manuals online from other criminals for less than £10.

– The rewards are high.  Professionals, business owners and high net worth individuals who hold positions of power within companies have the ability and often the motivation to pay.  For example, as part of the research, analysis of bitcoin wallets associated with extortion scams showed that “sextortionists” are making an average of £414 per victim.


As the name suggests, sextortion involves blackmail and bribery through coercion based upon the criminal threatening to release images and/or other information about their victim.

This type of crime is now one of the main methods of extortion. Individuals who are thought likely to be vulnerable to this type of crime are often targeted with manufactured attacks.  For example, one type of attack which features in extortion guides is carried out when a criminal begins an online relationship with a married person and then threatens to reveal details of the affair to their partner unless a ransom is paid. Less sophisticated ‘sextortion’ attacks involve using a password to ‘prove’ to the victim that they have been compromised, claiming to have video footage of the victim watching adult content online, and then telling the victim to pay a ransom to a specified bitcoin address.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Most businesses will continue to face some of the more common threats such as phishing attempts, malware, social engineering, hacking, credential compromise and DDoS attacks.  Cybercriminals are, however, becoming even more daring, and the amount of resources available to them on criminal forums now makes extortion-style attacks more likely.  For example, a massive leak of 2.6 billion rows of data from 12,000 files dubbed Collection #1 onto hacking forums was revealed in a blog post in January by security researcher Troy Hunt, who is most well-known for managing the ‘Have I Been Pwned’ service. Mr Hunt said that the leaked personal data is a set of email addresses and passwords totalling 2,692,818,238 rows and is made up of many different data breaches from thousands of different sources.

Some ways that businesses may be able to protect themselves from extortion attacks include:

  • Checking the HaveIBeenPwned website to find out if your accounts have been previously breached.
  • Regularly backing up data and storing sensitive files in detached storage away from your main network, and making disaster recovery plans, business continuity plans, and periodically testing your backup and recovery processes.
  • Not answering extortion emails.
  • Making sure that your email system is secure and applying best practices for user permissions.
  • Educating / training staff on how to deal with extortion emails.
  • Where possible, minimising your personal and professional online exposure.
  • Keeping software patches up to date.
  • Making your remote workers use a (good, paid-for) VPN.

Potential Jail For Clicking on Terror Links

The new UK Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 means that you could face up to 15 years in jail if you visit web pages where you can obtain information that’s deemed to be useful to ‘committing or preparing an act of terrorism’.


The government states that the Act is needed to “make provision in relation to terrorism; to make provision enabling persons at ports and borders to be questioned for national security and other related purposes; and for connected purposes”.

As shown online in at, Chaper1, Section 3 of the Act, which relates to the amended Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (collection of information) for example, states that unless you’re carrying out work as a journalist, or for academic research, if a person “views, or otherwise accesses, by means of the internet a document or record containing information of that kind” i.e. (new subsection) information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, you can be punished under the new Act.

Longer Sentences

The new Act increases the sentences from The Terrorism Act 2000, so that a sentence of 15 years is now possible in some circumstances.

The Most Terror Deaths in Europe in 2017

A Europol Report showed that the UK suffered more deaths as a result of terror attacks than any other country in Europe in 2017.  The bill which has now become the new law was first introduced on 6th June 2018 after calls to for urgent action to deal with terrorism, following three terrorist attacks on the UK within 3 months back in 2017.

Online Problem

One of the key areas that it is hoped the law will help to tackle is how the internet and particularly social media can be used to recruit, radicalise and raise money.


The new Act, which received royal assent on 12th February, has been criticised by some as being inflexible, based too much upon ‘thought crime’, and being likely to affect more of those at the receiving end of information rather than those producing and distributing it.  The new law has also been criticised for infringing upon the privacy and freedom of individuals to freely browse the internet in private without fear of criminal repercussion, as long as that browsing doesn’t contribute to the dissemination of materials that incite violent or intolerant behaviour.

The new Act has been further criticised by MPs for breaching human rights and has been criticised by legal experts such as Max Hill QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, who is reported as saying that the new law may be likely to catch far too many people, and that a 15-year prison is “difficult to countenance when nothing is to be done with the material, it is not passed to a third party, and it is not being collected for a terrorist purpose.”

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

We may assume that most people will be unlikely to willingly view the kind of material that could result in a prison sentence, and many in the UK are likely to welcome a law that provides greater protection against those who plan and commit terror attacks or who are seeking to use online means to recruit, radicalise and raise money.  The worry is that such a law should not be so stringent and inflexible as to punish those who are not viewing or collecting material for terrorist purposes, and there are clearly many prominent commentators who believe that this law may do this.

Businesses, organisations and venues of all kinds are often caught up in (or are the focus of) terror attacks and/or must ensure that they invest in security and other measures to make sure that their customers, staff and other stakeholders are protected.  A safer environment for all in the UK is, of course, welcome, but many would argue that this should not be at the expense of the levels of freedom and privacy that we currently enjoy.

Naming and Shaming of Companies With Poor Cyber Security

A report from the Cyber Security Research Group and the Policy Institute at King’s College London, has suggested that the government could help combat high cyber-crime levels by naming (and shaming) companies with poor cyber-security.

The Cyber Security Research Group at King’s College London brings together experts with backgrounds in international relations, security studies, strategic studies, intelligence, public policy, informatics and computer science in order to promote better research into cyber-security.  The other research partner in this case, the Policy Institute at King’s College London is an independent research institute focusing on using evidence and expertise to tackle societal challenges.

Cyber-crime Levels

The report highlights the fact that government’s 2018 data breach survey showed that 4 in 10 businesses experienced a cyber-security breach or attack in 2017-18 should be grounds to enable the public to see what steps are being taken by companies (or not) to keep users safe online and to protect their data.

Championing The ACD Programme

The report also champions the government’s Active Cyber Defence (ACD) programme, which was developed by the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) for the public sector, as something that could bring benefits if rolled-out to the private sector too, and/or if at least the tools and techniques of ACD could be extended beyond the public sector.

The report points to the relative success that ACD has had in bringing about a fall in scam emails from fake government addresses, and in shutting down thousands of “phishing” sites that pose as government agencies in order to steal users’ personal information.  Symantec figures, for example, show that phishing rates have increased across most industries and organisation sizes, and in this latest report, Tim Stevens, convenor of the Cyber Security Research Group at King’s College London notes that, according to his research findings, ACD could be rolled out beyond the public sector legally, cheaply and efficiently, with few obstacles, and could help to tackle phishing. The report, therefore, urges non-public sector organisations to engage more actively with the NCSC in order to deploy ACD as a tool to better tackle cyber-crime in the UK.

According to the National Cyber Security Centre (part of GCHQ), the ACD defence programme can be used to tackle cyber attacks in a relatively automated and scalable way. Last February, when the results of the NCSC’s Active Cyber Defence programme figures were published, they showed that UK share of visible global phishing attacks dropped from 5.3% (June 2016) to 3.1% (Nov 2017), and that 121,479 phishing sites hosted in the UK had been removed, and 18,067 sites worldwide that were spoofing UK government sites had been removed as a result of the ACD programme.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Reputations are valuable and vitally important to businesses, as should be cyber-security defences, and making sure that strong data protection measures are in place is critical. With this in mind, the idea that there could be a public naming and shaming of companies with poor cyber-security could be one way to incentivise action to be taken to bring about improvements and contribute to the tackling of cyber-crime across the private as well as the public sector. 

The NCSC, for example, has been working with companies for some time anyway with the ACD programme to help them protect their customers.  For example, the NCSC launched a collaborative online platform where BT has been able to share its threat intelligence data with other UK ISPs, and the NCSC has offered support to BT to help strengthen its security and block malicious malware infections. 

As acknowledged, however, in the Cyber Security Research Group and the Policy Institute at King’s College London report, ACD is not a finished product but a work in progress, and it is not a single entity, amenable to simple, one-off deployment. Also, a government programme that is extended to the private sector could face suspicion as being perhaps a way of the government scanning and collecting data about private organisations.  For this reason, the CSRG and King’s College London Report recommends perhaps putting a buffer between the government’s intelligence community and third parties in the form of regulatory authorities in each sector e.g. the Charity Commission in the third sector.

In reality, effective cyber-security comes from a large number of factors working together, including education and training as well as deploying relevant technologies, but the figures from the success of the ACD programme so far, show that it, or tools based upon it, could have real value as part of a number of measures that could help reduce cyber-crime for private as well as public sector organisations.

Biggest Personal Data Breach Puts Password Effectiveness In The Spotlight

Password-based authentication has long been known to be less secure than other methods such as multi-step verification or biometrics, but a massive leak of a staggering 87GB of 772.9 million emails, 21.2 million passwords and 1.1 billion email address and password combinations recently shared on hacking forums has brought the inherent weaknesses of password authentication into sharp focus.

What Leak?

The massive leak of 2.6 billion rows of data from 12,000 files dubbed Collection #1 onto hacking forums was revealed in a blog post by security researcher Troy Hunt, who is most well-known for managing the ‘Have I Been Pwned’ service.

In his post, Mr Hunt said that the leaked personal data is a set of email addresses and passwords totalling 2,692,818,238 rows and is made up of many different data breaches from thousands of different sources. The data contains 772,904,991 unique email addresses, and 21,222,975 unique passwords, all of which can be put into 1,160,253,228 unique combinations.


Clearly, Mr Hunt has an interest in publicising the existence of Collection #1 and the fact that it has been incorporated into his service to help publicise the ‘Have I Been Pwned’ service, but as Mr Hunt points out, if your password/email combinations are part of the collection and have not been changed since, you could face some serious risks.  For example:

  • Credential stuffing attacks. In this case, 2.7 billion of the username and password combinations could be put into a list and used for credential stuffing.  This is where cyber-criminals rely on the fact that people may use the same username and password combinations for multiple websites, and therefore, the criminals use software to automate the process of trying the breached username/password pairs on many other websites to see if they can gain access.
  • Phishing attacks.  The stolen credentials can be used to automatically send malicious emails to a victim’s list of contacts.
  • Targeted digital identity attacks. The breached credentials can be used in targeted attacks designed to steal a victim’s entire digital identity or steal their money or even to compromise their social media network data.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

This story highlights the importance of always using strong passwords that you change on a regular basis. Also, it highlights the importance of not using the same usernames and passwords on multiple websites as this can provide an easy route to your data for criminals using credential stuffing.

Managing multiple passwords in a way that is secure, effective, and doesn’t have to rely on memory is difficult, particularly for businesses where there are multiple sites to manage. One tool that can help is a password manager.  Typically, these can be installed as browser plug-ins that are used to handle password capture and replay, and when logging into a secure site, they offer to save your credentials. On returning to that site, they can automatically fill in those credentials. Password managers can also generate new passwords when you need them and automatically paste them into the right places, as well as being able to sync your passwords across all your devices. Examples of popular password managers include Dashline, LastPass, Sticky Password, and Password Boss, and those which are password vaults in other programs and CRMs include Zoho Vault and Keeper Password Manager & Digital Vault.

If you’re worried that people in your organisation may be using passwords that have been stolen, Troy Hunt has provided a list of them here:  and provides some answers to popular questions about the stolen passwords in the ‘FAQs’ section of his blog post here:

Fake News Fact Checkers Working With Facebook

London-based, registered charity ‘Full Fact’ will now be working for Facebook, reviewing stories, images and videos, in an attempt to tackle misinformation that could “damage people’s health or safety or undermine democratic processes”.


The UK Brexit referendum, the 2017 UK general election, and the U.S. presidential election were both found to have suffered interference in the form of so-called ‘fake news’ / misinformation spread via Facebook which appears to have affected the outcomes by influencing voters.

For example, back in 2018, it was revealed that London-based data analytics company, Cambridge Analytica, which was once headed by Trump’s key adviser Steve Bannon, had illegally harvested 50 million Facebook profiles in early 2014 in order to build a software program that was used to predict and generate personalised political adverts to influence choices at the ballot box in the last U.S. election. Russia was also implicated in trying to influence voters via Facebook.

Chief executive of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, was made to appear before the U.S. Congress in April to talk about how Facebook is tackling false reports, and even recently a video that was shared via Facebook (which had 4 million views before being taken down) falsely suggested that smart meters emit radiation levels that are harmful to health. The information in the video was believed by many even though it was false.

Scoring System

Back in August 2018, it was revealed that for 2 years Facebook had been trying to manage some misinformation issues by using a system (operated by its own ‘misinformation team’) that allocated a trustworthiness score to some members.  Facebook is reported to be already working with fact-checkers in more than 20 countries. Facebook is also reported to have had a working relationship with Full Fact since 2016.

Full Fact’s System

This new system from third-party Full Fact will now focus on Facebook in the UK.  When users flag up to Facebook what they suspect may be false content, the Full Fact team will identify and review public pictures, videos or stories and use a rating system that will categorise them as true, false or a mixture of accurate and inaccurate content.  Users will then be told if the story they’ve shared, or are about to share, has been checked by Full Fact, and they’ll be given the option to read more about the claim’s source, but will not be stopped from sharing anything.

Also, the false rating system should mean that false content will appear lower in news feeds, so it reaches fewer people. Satire from a page or domain that is a known satire publication will not be penalised.

Like other Facebook third-party fact-checkers, Full Fact will be able to act against pages and domains that repeatedly share false-rated content e.g. by reducing by their distribution and by reducing their ability to monetise and advertise.  Also, Full Fact should be able to stop repeat offenders from registering as a news page on Facebook.


Full Fact has published assurances that among other things, they won’t be given access to Facebook users’ private data for any reason, Facebook will have no control over what they choose to check, and they will operate in a way that is independent, impartial and open.

Political Ad Transparency – New Rules

In October last year, Facebook also announced that a new rule for the UK now means that anyone who wishes a place an advert relating to a live political issue or promoting a UK political candidate, referencing political figures, political parties, elections, legislation before Parliament and past referenda that are the subject of national debate, will need to prove their identity, and prove that they are based in the UK. The adverts they post will also have to carry a “Paid for by” disclaimer to enable Facebook users to see who they are engaging with when viewing the ad.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

As users of social networks, we don’t want to see false news, and false news that influences the outcome of important issues (e.g. elections and referendums) have a knock-on effect to the economic and trade environment which, in turn, affects businesses.

Facebook appears to have lost a lot of trust over the Cambridge Analytica (SCL Elections) scandal, findings that Facebook was used to distribute posts of Russian origin to influence opinion in the U.S. election, and that the platform was also used by parties wishing to influence the outcome of the UK Referendum. Facebook, therefore, must show that it is taking the kind of action that doesn’t stifle free speech but does go some way to tackling the spread of misinformation via its platform.

There remains, however, some criticism in this case that Facebook may still be acting too slowly and not decisively enough, given the speed by which some false content can amass millions of views.