Connect with us

Featured

BYOD: Bring Your Own Damage

Published

on

Companies need to start determining the impact BOYD plays on them and implement appropriate policies that would balance the security concerns, as well as their employees’ requirements, writes CATHERINE BERRY.

It is estimated that, by 2018, there will be approximately 10 billion mobile devices in use globally. The harsh reality is employers cannot prevent employees from utilising their personal mobile devices in the workplace, whether it be for personal or professional use. Further, organisations typically expect a high level of productivity from employees, and the utilisation of mobile devices supports this due to the large degree of flexibility it introduces for the employee. Unfortunately, the issue is exacerbated further by the fact that employees expect the organisation’s information technology to provide support in respect of these devices. What most companies do not understand is that they are in fact liable for the consequences of employees using their own personal devices for work.

Most employees would also be shocked to discover that that their devices may be subject to discovery request in the context of litigation involving their company, and may have to surrender their personal devices (containing browser history and including personal information, photos, etc).

The challenge facing organisations is that this employee IT ownership model, generally referred to as Bring Your Own Devices (BYOD), significantly influences the traditional security model, particularly since these devices are being used to access corporate data. BYOD typically includes end users who provide their own mobile phones, use their personal tablet device at work, or where there are unsubsidised devices required for business utilisation. Organisations now have to determine what the exact impact is, in order to establish appropriate procedures and policies that would balance the security concerns, as well as their employees’ requirements.

BYOD without Borders

In an attempt to establish the organisation’s exposure to BYOD, an exercise should be undertaken to determine exactly what type of data and functionality is being exposed. Consideration should also be given to legislation which may impact hereon, such as the imminent POPI Act, as well as PCI-DSS requirements (if applicable to the organisation). Other considerations include geographical spread of the devices, given that this would not only increase risk levels, but would also require absolute clarity in respect of legislation applicable to those areas.

Password Protection, Remote Wipe & Lock & Disclosure

One of the primary concerns surrounding the security of mobile devices is the loss of such devices. Particularly in respect of the content on the mobile device being accessed, or the possibility of corporate data being accessed through channels such as VPN connections. Clearly security considerations must include password protection, encryption, as well as remote wipe procedures. Many organisations enforce ActiveSync policies, pre-installed in most consumer mobile devices, to enforce password protection and remote wipe and lock. As a further measure, employees should be encouraged to keep sensitive devices in their possession, and sight, at all times. Ensuring that regular backups are made will not only salvage lost information, but will also assist with minimising downtime by easing the transfer of the information onto a new device. Last and perhaps even more importantly, having a backup of the data will make identifying what information has been lost (and thus determining whether a disclosure needs to be made in terms of regulations) that much simpler.

Verizon’s 2014 Data Breach Investigation Report considered 63,437 security incidents, of which 1,367 were confirmed data breaches. Of this, incidents where an information asset went missing, whether it be through misplacement or malice, accounted for 9,704 total incidents, and 116 confirmed data disclosures. Out of the 9,704 incidents, the theft / loss of laptops accounted for 308 incidents, desktops for 108, flash drives for 102 and a staggering 8,929 “other devices” (where the type of device has not been stipulated). Interestingly, loss of devices is 15 fold more prevalent than theft of a device. The statistics show that, in terms of location, 43% occurred at the victim’s work area, 23% from a personal vehicle and 10% from a personal residence.

Another concern posed by the use of mobile devices in the corporate network, is the risks posed by the integration of applications into our daily lives.

Vulnerabilities within the application could potentially expose the corporate network. Malware presents a major concern, particularly given the risk of it being injected into the corporate network at large.

Effective Policing Improbable

It is vital that organisations proactively engage with employees to manage their expectations relating to the support of personal mobile devices, particularly as this may impact upon information technology support resources required. It should also be borne in mind that help desk staff may require additional training to ensure that they are able to render the necessary support. Hinging hereon is the fact that organisations have less control over these devices. This makes identifying vulnerabilities which may exist, by utilising anti-virus software, ensuring patches are regularly installed, and implementing fire walls near impossible. Even if employees do agree to BYOD policies, it is questionable as to how effectively the organisation will be able to monitor the devices for compliance.

The complexities of cybercrime risk management are more intricate that imaginable; regardless of the complications – it takes just moments from connection to infection.  While staff may be protecting their personal computers, the general lack of awareness to safeguard BYOD tablets and smartphones poses a major risk to organisational cyber security. For all these reasons, businesses would be remiss to leave protection to chance, particularly in a country that is home to some of the best hackers in the world.

* Catherine Berry, Camargue Director, Commercial and Cyber Crime Division

* Follow Gadget on Twitter on @GadgetZA

Arts and Entertainment

VoD cuts the cord in SA

Some 20% of South Africans who sign up for a subscription video on demand (SVOD) service such as Netflix or Showmax do so with the intention of cancelling their pay television subscription.

Published

on

That’s according to GfK’s international ViewScape survey*, which this year covers Africa (South Africa, Kenya and Nigeria) for the first time.

The study—which surveyed 1,250 people representative of urban South African adults with Internet access—shows that 90% of the country’s online adults today use at least one online video service and that just over half are paying to view digital online content. The average user spends around 7 hours and two minutes a day consuming video content, with broadcast television accounting for just 42% of the time South Africans spend in front of a screen.

Consumers in South Africa spend nearly as much of their daily viewing time – 39% of the total – watching free digital video sources such as YouTube and Facebook as they do on linear television. People aged 18 to 24 years spend more than eight hours a day watching video content as they tend to spend more time with free digital video than people above their age.

Says Benjamin Ballensiefen, managing director for Sub Sahara Africa at GfK: “The media industry is experiencing a revolution as digital platforms transform viewers’ video consumption behaviour. The GfK ViewScape study is one of the first to not only examine broadcast television consumption in Kenya, Nigeria and South Africa, but also to quantify how linear and online forms of content distribution fit together in the dynamic world of video consumption.”

The study finds that just over a third of South African adults are using streaming video on demand (SVOD) services, with only 16% of SVOD users subscribing to multiple services. Around 23% use per-pay-view platforms such as DSTV Box Office, while about 10% download pirated content from the Internet. Around 82% still sometimes watch content on disc-based media.

“Linear and non-linear television both play significant roles in South Africa’s video landscape, though disruption from digital players poses a growing threat to the incumbents,” says Molemo Moahloli, general manager for media research & regional business development at GfK Sub Sahara Africa. “Among most demographics, usage of paid online content is incremental to consumption of linear television, but there are signs that younger consumers are beginning to substitute SVOD for pay-television subscriptions.”

Continue Reading

Featured

New data rules raise business trust challenges

When the General Data Protection Regulation comes into effect on May 25th, financial services firms will face a new potential threat to their on-going challenges with building strong customer relationships, writes DARREL ORSMOND, Financial Services Industry Head at SAP Africa.

Published

on

The regulation – dubbed GDPR for short – is aimed at giving European citizens control back over their personal data. Any firm that creates, stores, manages or transfers personal information of an EU citizen can be held liable under the new regulation. Non-compliance is not an option: the fines are steep, with a maximum penalty of €20-million – or nearly R300-million – for transgressors.

GDPR marks a step toward improved individual rights over large corporates and states that prevents the latter from using and abusing personal information at their discretion. Considering the prevailing trust deficit – one global EY survey found that 60% of global consumers worry about hacking of bank accounts or bank cards, and 58% worry about the amount of personal and private data organisations have about them – the new regulation comes at an opportune time. But it is almost certain to cause disruption to normal business practices when implemented, and therein lies both a threat and an opportunity.

The fundamentals of trust

GDPR is set to tamper with two fundamental factors that can have a detrimental effect on the implicit trust between financial services providers and their customers: firstly, customers will suddenly be challenged to validate that what they thought companies were already doing – storing and managing their personal data in a manner that is respectful of their privacy – is actually happening. Secondly, the outbreak of stories relating to companies mistreating customer data or exposing customers due to security breaches will increase the chances that customers now seek tangible reassurance from their providers that their data is stored correctly.

The recent news of Facebook’s indiscriminate sharing of 50 million of its members’ personal data to an outside firm has not only led to public outcry but could cost the company $2-trillion in fines should the Federal Trade Commission choose to pursue the matter to its fullest extent. The matter of trust also extends beyond personal data: in EY’s 2016 Global Consumer Banking Survey, less than a third of respondents had complete trust that their banks were being transparent about fees and charges.

This is forcing companies to reconsider their role in building and maintaining trust with its customers. In any customer relationship, much is done based on implicit trust. A personal banking customer will enjoy a measure of familiarity that often provides them with some latitude – for example when applying for access to a new service or an overdraft facility – that can save them a lot of time and energy. Under GDPR and South Africa’s POPI act, this process is drastically complicated: banks may now be obliged to obtain permission to share customer data between different business units (for example because they are part of different legal entities and have not expressly received permission). A customer may now allow banks to use their personal data in risk scoring models, but prevent them from determining whether they qualify for private banking services.

What used to happen naturally within standard banking processes may be suddenly constrained by regulation, directly affecting the bank’s relationship with its customers, as well as its ability to upsell to existing customers.

The risk of compliance

Are we moving to an overly bureaucratic world where even the simplest action is subject to a string of onerous processes? Compliance officers are already embedded within every function in a typical financial services institution, as well as at management level. Often the reporting of risk processes sits outside formal line functions and end up going straight to the board. This can have a stifling effect on innovation, with potentially negative consequences for customer service.

A typical banking environment is already creaking under the weight of close to 100 acts, which makes it difficult to take the calculated risks needed to develop and launch innovative new banking products. Entire new industries could now emerge, focusing purely on the matter of compliance and associated litigation. GDPR already requires the services of Data Protection Officers, but the growing complexity of regulatory compliance could add a swathe of new job functions and disciplines. None of this points to the type of innovation that the modern titans of business are renowned for.

A three-step plan of action

So how must banks and other financial services firms respond? I would argue there are three main elements to successfully navigating the immediate impact of the new regulations:

Firstly, ensuring that the technologies you use to secure, manage and store personal data is sufficiently robust. Modern financial services providers have a wealth of customer data at their disposal, including unstructured data from non-traditional sources such as social media. The tools they use to process and safeguard this data needs to be able to withstand the threats posed by potential data breaches and malicious attacks.

Secondly, rethinking the core organisational processes governing their interactions with customers. This includes the internal measures for setting terms and conditions, how customers are informed of their intention to use their data, and how risk is assessed. A customer applying for medical insurance will disclose deeply personal information about themselves to the insurance provider: it is imperative the insurer provides reassurance that the customer’s data will be treated respectfully and with discretion and with their express permission.

Thirdly, financial services firms need to define a core set of principles for how they treat customers and what constitutes fair treatment. This should be an extension of a broader organisational focus on treating customers fairly, and can go some way to repairing the trust deficit between the financial services industry and the customers they serve.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2018 World Wide Worx