Category: Computer Security

BlockchainComputer SecurityCryptocurrency

Bitcoin: The Currency of the Future

on January 6, 2021

The news of Bitcoin’s recent and successful market performance is spreading like wildfire. In the eleven years since its inception, it has surpassed the market value of companies such as Visa, Mastercard, and Walmart (CNN Business). As of the date of this publication, one Bitcoin is being traded for $34,306.17. This incredible feat has made Bitcoin quite popular for investors and people interested in financial markets. However, some critics have raised concerns about Bitcoin and cryptocurrency in general. Defining Bitcoin, explaining its functions, and addressing the advantages and disadvantages to cryptocurrency will be the subject of this week’s blog post. 

Although the algorithms for the modern-day cryptocurrency have existed since the 1980s, the emergence of Bitcoin has changed the future of financial transactions. Bitcoin’s founding in 2009 is shrouded in mystery. The housing market crash of the same year was the catalyst for its emergence. By whom is the enigma. The founder of Bitcoin is known by the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. The true identity of the person or persons is still unknown.  

Bitcoin is a form of decentralized cryptocurrency. Because its design is public, all transactions are managed by “peer-to-peer” technology instead of banks. Cryptocurrencies are often compared to an online version of dollar bills and can be used to buy and sell services and products. To obtain Bitcoins, people can buy it using “real” money, have people pay for a product using Bitcoin, or “computer-mining,” like searching for gold. Because Bitcoin is essentially a computer file, consumers can store them on a digital wallet, accessed by any smartphone or computer, and even send them to other people. Now that Bitcoin has been defined, it is important to know how it works. 

Bitcoin Mining Is Now More Competitive Than Ever, New Data Shows

When a beginner uses Bitcoin, it generates a Bitcoin address. You can create more than one address and share the addresses with friends and family so transactions can ensue. These addresses can only be used once. Bitcoin has three main functions (Bitcoin):  

  • Function 1: Blockchain – a shared public ledger which all consumers within the Bitcoin network depend on. It includes and verifies all transactions and spendable balances to ensure both are owned by the spender.  
  • Function 2: Transaction – an exchange of value between Bitcoin wallets. Although transactions are included in the blockchain, Bitcoin wallets keep a “private key.” Private keys prove the owners of the transaction. Bitcoin also uses “signatures” to ensure the lack of alterations to the transactions. 
  •  Function 3: Mining – a process which confirms and places the transactions in the blockchain in chronological order. It also bears the responsibility of protecting the neutrality of the Bitcoin network. Transactions are only confirmed when they are compiled in a “block” which includes rigid cryptographic rules approved by the Bitcoin network so previous blocks are not modified. Mining also prohibits individuals from controlling, replacing, or adding blocks and parts of the block chain. In other words, it prohibits theft. 

After defining and explaining Bitcoin’s functions, and as the number of people investing in Bitcoin increases, addressing the benefits and drawbacks of this cryptocurrency are crucial. 

Pros & Cons of Trading Bitcoin & Cryptocurrencies | Paxful Blog

There are plenty of advantages and disadvantages to investing in Bitcoin (Money Crashers). Let’s first discuss its benefits. As previously mentioned, Bitcoin is not controlled by any political or financial institution. These parties can only confiscate or suspend cryptocurrency either for retribution for political acts or for a criminal investigation.  

Bitcoin also has greater liquidity compared to its competitors like Ethereum, IOTA, and Dogecoin. This permits users to keep much of its value when switching to fiat currencies like the U.S. dollar bill. Essentially, out of all the cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin is most like a fiat currency.  

Bitcoin has become widely recognized as a payment method, partially because of their built-in privacy protections. It allows users to distance the account itself from the public persona. Unlike using cash or PayPal transactions where protections are scarce, Bitcoin tracks transactions between users but it is difficult to discover who the users are. Individuals or groups who want to mitigate the use of fiat currency should invest in cryptocurrency, since a plethora of sellers accept Bitcoin payments (Microsoft, Overstock, Etsy, AT&T, Shopify). Even though Bitcoin has inexpensive transaction fees, it also eases the process of international transactions because, like credit card payments and ATM cash withdrawals, it does not require international transaction fees. 

Finally, Bitcoin’s built-in scarcity component inculcates the currency with inherent value like gold and other metals. This supports its lasting value against fiat currencies and non-scarce cryptocurrencies. 

Purchasing Anything on the Black Market With Any Currency Is a Good Thing´ | Op-Ed Bitcoin News

A major inconvenience to using Bitcoin is the lack of policy regarding refunds and chargebacks. Because of its decentralized design, it is extremely difficult for users to dispute transactions. Even though miners are responsible for recording the transactions, it cannot prove the legitimacy of those transactions. 

Bitcoin’s reputation as the world’s most popular cryptocurrency precedes itself, so much so that it becomes vulnerable to fraud cases. Examples include the small-scale Ponzi scheme with Bitcoin Savings & Trust to grand-scale hacks such as the infiltrations of Sheep Marketplace and Mt. Gox, which were bilked of hundreds of thousands of Bitcoins. To add, Bitcoin attracts groups and individuals involved with the black market due to its inherent anonymity protections. Ultimately, Bitcoin’s competitors do not acquire nearly the number of users to engender maliciously profitable activity for criminals. If fiat currency were used, such crimes would be prosecuted by law enforcement (see Member Dr. Stephen Castell’s recent article on the subject).  

There is the exception of people who are converting to newer cryptocurrencies. Depending on the type of cryptocurrency, these services either eliminate third-party involvement in transactions or use “smart contracts.” These contracts hold the cryptocurrency providers liable for their offerings. If the number of people leaving Bitcoin for another service increases, then its value would certainly decrease.   

As previously mentioned, an advantage to Bitcoin is its liquidity and ability to be easily exchanged. However, it becomes susceptible to unpredictable price swings within small time intervals. For instance, after the FBI announced the legitimacy of Bitcoin as a financial service, its value skyrocketed in late 2017 and yet halved at the start of 2018 due to the Mt. Gox hack. These decimated billions of dollars of the market value instantly. 

Lastly, Bitcoin mining weakens the environment because it exhausts large quantities of electricity. The source of power for Bitcoin stems from coal plants. When mining occurs, the amount of electricity used directly correlates to the vast amounts of air pollutants released into the atmosphere, creating difficulty for surrounding citizens to breathe.  

As the world transitions into a virtual age, and the value of fiat currency remains in flux, people face the crucial decision to either invest in cryptocurrency or continue with their current monetary choices. For those looking to invest in Bitcoin or cryptocurrency, hopefully this blog post provides general insight and clarity for future financial endeavors.  

Sources: 

https://bitcoin.org/en/how-it-works

https://www.moneycrashers.com/bitcoin-history-how-it-works-pros-cons/

TikTok Logo
Computer SecurityComputersInformation & Communication TechnologySocial Media

TikTok: Is It The Next Cyber-Security Threat?

on September 21, 2020

TikTok has been the most downloaded app globally in 2020. Although it has existed since 2018, TikTok surpassed 2 billion downloads back in April, during the apex of the new socially-distanced reality engendered by the pandemic. The ability to share and create content such as comedy skits, dance challenges, and lip-syncing clips, has appealed to various age groups around the world, especially teenagers. However, TikTok has been at the center of controversy for raising cyber security concerns not just here in the United States, but around the world. 

The problem with TikTok is twofold. The first issue is the app is owned by a Chinese company called ByteDance. Because ByteDance is not American-based, it does not follow U.S. federal and state consumer privacy laws. TikTok announced the data collected by American users is backed-up in Singapore, which is not subject to Chinese law. Though true, it is possible the Chinese government could pressure ByteDance to relinquish its user information. 

Second, TikTok has a large accumulation of data related to the types of videos Americans watch and post. Because it has turned into an important platform for political activism, people are worried the Chinese government could influence public opinion and control speech. For instance, according to both The Guardian and The Intercept, last year, TikTok company officials told their employees to censor content considered sensitive to Beijing. TikTok claimed their policies were outdated when the reports were released. As a result of this incident, they established a “transparency center” so security and technology experts from around the world can observe their policies. 

Despite TikTok’s official statement, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order in August declaring the prohibition of all business with ByteDance. Unless ByteDance announces a plan to sell TikTok, the app will be banned on September 29th, 2020. Several American agencies and companies, such as the U.S. Army and Wells Fargo, have been proactive, requiring servicemen and employees to uninstall the app in response to these security concerns. Other countries, like India, have followed suit, banning the app altogether. 

Many people, including computer security experts, believe banning the app in the United States would be an extreme course of action. Not only would it invite questions about censorship in a free country right before an election, but it would affect various companies here in the U.S. who use the platform for marketing purposes. A solution technology experts have mentioned is to implement policies for protecting consumer privacy and measures to minimize data misuse from companies around the world. Currently, with the exception of a few state laws, the responsibility of American privacy and data sharing belongs to companies such as TikTok, Facebook, and Twitter. 

On September 14th, 2020, ByteDance accepted Oracle’s proposal to be their new technology provider. This means Oracle would be held accountable for protecting all user information collected through TikTok. Although this deal is pending approval by the U.S. government, this would keep businesses invested in TikTok afloat and allow up to 100 million users to continue posting creative content. Tresury Secretary, Steve Mnuchin, told CNBC that the government will be reviewing the proposal this week, as their top priority is to keep American user data from the Chinese Communist Party.   

Four days later, the U.S. government announced the removal of TikTok and fellow Chinese app, WeChat, from American app stores supplied by Apple and Google. Distribution, updates, and maintenance will be expelled for purchase unless the Trump administration, TikTok, and Oracle can close a deal by September 20th. Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross, told Bloomberg WeChat would be shut down for practical purposes, but Americans could still use the app for payments in China and talk to loved ones overseas. He added TikTok’s official shut down is scheduled after November 12th if the deal with Oracle falls through.  

On Monday, September 21st, 2020, President Trump announced his approval of the deal between Oracle and TikTok. As a result of the ongoing proposal, Oracle and Walmart will share a 20% stake in TikTok Global, a new company headquartered in the United States. ByteDance will own 80% of TikTok Global and allow Oracle to review its source code. Ceding algorithms and other technologies was not included in the deal. Allowing Oracle to review the source code is still not fool-proof as ByteDance could easily instruct the code to send data back to China in secret. Trump’s approval has postponed the ban for now, but the removal of TikTok through American app stores is still in effect. As relations between the United States and China remain tumultuous, the final outcome of the TikTok debate remains to be seen. 

Computer SecurityExpert WitnessInformation & Communication TechnologySecurity

Is New Hampshire the Next Iowa Voting Disaster? Information Technology Expert Analysis

on February 7, 2020

A hastily-developed app and combined with a lack of user testing caused a ruckus in Iowa Caucus voting this week. What’s in store for New Hampshire, Super Tuesday, and beyond?

It has been an exciting week in US politics. We had a State of the Union address and an impeachment vote. A whirlwind week by any standard! Before we could even get to those two events, we started the week with an outrageous technology failure in the Iowa Democratic Caucus. For purposes of this blog post, I’m not going into the differences between a caucus and a primary. Let’s just assume they accomplish the same result: selecting a candidate for political office.

For the Iowa Democratic Party, Monday night was a disaster and then it continued into Tuesday, Wednesday… you get the idea. As I write this blog post on Friday morning, I’m not even sure if they have an official determination of who won. The news stories seem to be conflicting.

So here is what we know about the app (IowaRecorder) failure based on available reports. The Iowa Democratic Party hired a marketing technology company to build an app which would be used, statewide, to report results of local caucus votes (I’m simplifying for purposes of brevity). The app was going to be used to submit voting results. Nobody was actually voting through the app.

This first really good article I read that outlined the technology implementation failure, came from Slate. Here was a good summary from a couple of days ago:

“It’s still unclear what exactly went wrong with the app, but all of these issues appear to have something in common: The Iowa Democratic Party clearly wasn’t prepared for any possible issues with the app and a more involved method of vote reporting introduced this year—and sure enough, it reportedly turns out that the app was never tested on a statewide scale. Shadow, which is run by alumni of the Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigns as well as Google, was paid $60,000 to develop the app, but it had just two months after party officials decided to abandon plans to report results over the phone.”

There’s some updated information on the failure from Motherboard, which was released yesterday (along with the app code). Below, you’ll see that they released an app that was still in beta format:

“And Instead of going through proper app store review processes conducted by Apple and Google, Shadow used beta testing platforms like Apple’s TestFlight to distribute the software so it could meet the Monday deadline. So when it came time for the app to do its most critical role — letting Democratic precinct leaders report results from Iowa on Monday — it failed in every way imaginable.”

Expert Analysis:

As I do when these major stories break, I turn to Experts.com members to get insights. You may recall Dr. Stephen Castell. Dr. Castell, Chartered Information Systems Practitioner and Member of the Expert Witness Institute, is Chairman of CASTELL Consulting. He is an internationally acknowledged Independent Computer Expert who has been involved in a wide range of computer litigation over many years.

Dr. Castell and I wrote a blog post back in 2018, regarding West Virginia’s Blockchain voting program. They are actually expanding this plan, which may necessitate a separate blog post.

Below, please find my questions and Dr. Castell’s answers (Disclaimer: these questions and answers provided on February 5th, 2020):

Nick: From available reporting, it appears the Iowa Democratic Party failed to do a statewide testing of this vote reporting application. What type of tests would have been necessary to identify errors in the system before statewide roll-out?

Dr. Castell: As other ICT professionals comment in the reports, there should be thorough systems testing and QA procedures, including User Acceptance Testing and Pilot Trials, plus scaled-up ‘soak testing’, before contemplating any real-world launch, such as this statewide roll-out. You expect to get errors in systems testing – its main purpose is to identify faults and fix them. Sadly, software systems and Apps these days do seem often to be launched publicly without adequate systems testing, let alone with adequate prior User Testing and Pilot Trials. If such standard professional QA processes were omitted, or truncated, for something as high-profile and important as an App to collect and relay voter data in the Iowa Caucus, that does appear rather astonishing.

Nick: It doesn’t appear that all of the fault lies with the app developer. It seems the Iowa Democratic Party only gave the app developer 2 months to develop and deploy this application. What sort of time-frame would you anticipate to develop, test, and implement a software of this scale?

Dr. Castell: That is difficult to estimate without more knowledge of the actual detailed Customer Requirements Specification that the developer’s App was contracted to meet. On the face of it, an App simply to in-gather voting data, aggregate and transfer it, sounds in principle like fairly straightforward functionality to code, test (at scale) and implement, and 2 months may not have been an unrealistic timescale for development, testing and deployment.

Nick: Would you expect there to be a certain level of user sophistication for those using the app on this scale? Should there have been company representatives available at caucus sites?

Dr. Castell: Reports suggest that there was little prior familiarity, let alone ‘training’, or ‘user sophistication’, with the App on the part of those expected to employ it for real, in the high-pressure, real-time Iowa Caucus conditions. Whatever the state of compliance of the App with its contractual specification – perhaps reasonably well delivered to time, budget, specification, and of suitable quality, ‘fit for purpose’ – if there was no program for adequate user familiarity and training, plus some sort of support and trouble-shooting team from the developer company at caucus sites, that alone could account for the problems encountered in statewide roll-out operation.

Nick: From what I’ve read, it looks like the company was paid $60,000 to build this application. Is there any way to gauge whether this is too little or too much for this type of application development?

Dr. Castell: Again, that is difficult to gauge without more knowledge of the actual detailed Customer Requirements Specification, and thus the likely complexity of the functionality needed, and its associated software design and coding; also, there may have been a tight budget to which the developer company was obliged to work. It is not unusual for software developers to invest in a ‘plum’ assignment such as this high-profile Iowa Caucus project, for the promotional and marketing impact that gives them in securing hopefully more lucrative and profitable development jobs later. In this case, the $60,000 could have been much less than the true cost to the developer company of the analyst, designer, coder, tester, deployer and trainer man-days expended in building and launching the App with a statewide roll-out, against a tough deadline.

Nick: What sort of testing, trials, and quality assurance requirements would you have employed prior to such an implementation?

Dr. Castell: There should ideally have been thorough systems testing and QA procedures, including User Acceptance Testing and Pilot Trials, plus scaled-up ‘soak testing’, well understood by ICT professionals, before the real-world launch of this statewide roll-out. Relevantly, I teach a Course Avoiding IT Disasters – the Expert Way, the principles of which are also covered in my seminal paper “Forensic Systems Analysis: A Methodology for Assessment and Avoidance of IT Disasters and Disputes”, issued as a Cutter Consortium Executive Report, Enterprise Risk Management & Governance Advisory Service series (Vol. 3, No. 2, March 8, 2006).

 

We cannot say that New Hampshire is next. All available information tells us that New Hampshire is not using the same company/app used in the Iowa Caucuses. Furthermore, there was talk of Nevada using the app, but they have claimed they will not move forward with the application.

That’s the end of this particular blog post. Though, we’re already in talks about another post related to voting systems.

BlockchainComputer SecurityExpert Witnesslegaltech

Blockchain Voting Election 2018: Expert Analysis of West Virginia’s Plan

on August 14, 2018

This November, West Virginians deployed overseas will have the opportunity to vote via smart phone through a Blockchain-based application. Given the existing concerns of election integrity, I couldn’t help but reach out for expert analysis.

Hey, did you know that election integrity is kind of big deal? Have you been watching any number of news stations in the last few years? Our country has not stopped talking about election meddling, voter fraud, electronic voting, and wide variety of related topics, for two or more years, give or take.

If you are not aware of these concerns, you must be living under a rock. Please make room under the rock as I’d like to join you. I do my best to ignore the talking heads because I’ve found they add no value to my life (anyone else feel that way about the twenty-four hour television news cycle?).

Before I digress entirely, my point is election integrity and vote verification are legitimate concerns and imperative for the success of our democracy. As such, broadcast news covers the subject extensively.

Rarely, however, do these broadcasters address the micro-issues. This is why I choose to get my news from a variety of different publications, most of which I read online. That’s how I found this article: Experts Criticize West Virginia’s Plan for Smartphone Voting, from Ars Technica. Many of my regular readers know I appreciate the legal and policy analysis from Ars Technica. Routinely, I use it as a jumping off point for further research. The publication often acts as a catalyst for blog posts. In this case, I’d been waiting for the opportunity to discuss the Blockchain topic and get insights from expert witnesses on the subject.

The issue of a Blockchain-based application being used, to allow soldiers stationed abroad, the opportunity to vote through their smart phone was the perfect topic. Bitcoin (a Blockchain-based crytocurrency) is already being written and discussed extensively. Voting, through a Blockchain application, is getting less coverage and is therefore more interesting to me.

Much of what I’ve read about the Blockchain is hyperbolic. I’ve read on more than one occasion that “the Blockchain cannot be hacked.” On its face, that statement appears illegitimate. There is no such thing as 100% secure. So, how do we plan on safely using a smart phone app to conduct one of our country’s most sensitive civic processes?

According to the Ars Technica article, West Virginia did a limited run of the system (Voatz is the name of the app) for the primary election in May. The article further provided, “West Virginia’s secretary of state told CNN that the pilot worked well and that the system passed four audits of various parts of the system. So this November, the state is planning to offer the system more broadly to West Virginians deployed overseas.”

Naturally, I have a lot of questions about the security and reliability of the voting application offered by Voatz. So I reached out to one of our computer science experts who has studied the Blockchain and recently published articles on the topic.

Computer Science and Systems Expert Witness – Dr. Stephen Castell

Dr. Stephen Castell is a computer science and systems expert witness with over 30 years of experience. As an expert witness, Dr. Castell has acted in over 100 major cases including the largest and longest computer software actions to have come to trial in the English High Court. Most recently, Dr. Castell contributed to the 200th issue of Computer Law and Security Review (CLSR), with his paper titled, “The Future Decisions of RoboJudge HHJ Arthur Ian Blockchain: Dread, Delight or Derision?” Find out more about Dr. Castell by visiting his website: www.castellconsulting.com.

I’ve been working with Dr. Castell for more than eight years. We always have delightful conversations and “geek out” together over emerging technologies. Our recent conversations have, of course, covered the rapidly changing legal technology space.

Here are the questions I posed and the answers provided by Dr. Castell:

Nick: Can you describe Blockchain technology for the lay reader?

Dr. Castell: In its elemental form, a Blockchain is simply a decentralized database system – digital ledgers that store transaction data, distributed across many nodes.  It has a linked list data structure, with each block (an aggregated set of data) containing a ‘hash’ of the previous block.  Each block is formed by a ‘proof-of-work algorithm’, through which consensus of this distributed system is obtained via the longest possible chain.  A ‘traded’ cryptocurrency Blockchain (e.g. Bitcoin) is a shared public chain: in principle everyone has access to the chain, not only to read the information on the chain, but also to append new blocks on the chain.  This is known as an unpermissioned chain.  The West Virginia voting application is likely to be a permissioned chain, where, through public key cryptography, access control can be implemented during setting up of the chain so that differentiated access can apply – both voters and those managing and controlling the voting process can differentially record, and/or interrogate, votes and voting data added to its Blockchain.

Nick: Is a Blockchain-based voting system secure?

Dr. Castell: The Blockchain in and of itself provides strong cryptographic security.  However, ICT expert professionals bear in mind that not only are there no finalised international standards for Blockchain (eight  standards are in development under ISO/TC 307), but also there is far more to specifying, designing, developing, testing, deploying and maintaining an appropriate complete QA’d application than just the Blockchain element.  The security of the complete system needs to be addressed and designed-in from the start, irrespective of the use case for the Blockchain.  And whether to use a Blockchain as a component at all for a given business requirement such as public elections is a critical initial feasibility exercise that the expert knows is essential, as much from a security perspective as any other.

Nick: We know that electronic voting systems are vulnerable to hacking. Can Blockchain-based voting systems also be hacked?

Dr. Castell: Anything can be hacked, and electronic voting systems are no different.  Back in the late 1980s, I carried out a major definitive study, commissioned by the British H M Treasury, on the admissibility of computer evidence in court and the legal reliability/security of IT systems (The APPEAL Report, 1990, May, Eclipse Publications, ISBN 1-870771-03-6).  This concluded with what became known as my ‘First Dictum’:  “You cannot secure an ontologically unreliable technology by use of an ontologically unreliable technology”.  Nothing has changed.  Commercial computer hardware and operating systems, including smartphones, remain essentially ‘open’, and ontologically unreliable.

Nick: Is it the Blockchain that could be compromised or is it more likely a voter’s smartphone would be compromised by a hacker?

Dr. Castell: A well-engineered and implemented Blockchain distributed voting ledger should itself be as immune to compromise as its cryptography can provide.  But the voter’s smart phone security, and the overall voting application, are only as sound as whatever has been designed-in to the whole system – and we know that smartphones have for sure in the past been hacked.  It is not clear that the proposed West Virginia smartphone application would be any more (or less) hackable than anything else hitherto.

Nick: What sort of checks and balances would you expect for a Blockchain-based voting system before implementation?

Dr. Castell: It would seem an obvious (constitutional?) requirement that votes must always be manually-countable in any US election, in the event of suspected error or lack of trust in the reported result, whether through suspected deliberate tampering or compromise, accident or incident, random system malfunction, or whatever else, and particularly if the result is legally challenged in court.  Any smart phone app voting system must therefore always be designed so that its operation, and the voting data recorded, are auditable for integrity, accuracy and reliability ‘by hand’ – that is surely the most basic check and balance.

Lawyer Jonathan Bolls is a Magistrate, and Chief Election Officer, in Fairfax County, Virginia, who had personal experience of the consequences of unreliable computer systems, as a past victim of technical problems saving Bar Exam essays using suspect software provided by the Virginia Board of Bar Examiners (I provided expert opinion on his behalf – see http://jonathanbolls.blogspot.com/).  He notes that US citizens are passionate about the integrity of elections:  “For Blockchain technology, where someone is voting on their phone from overseas, they would want to consider that in doing so they potentially waive their rights to have their vote counted should a re-count be necessary.  We have actually gone the other way: removed our high-tech touchscreen voting systems and returned to the paper ballot.  If ever we need to check voting numbers we hand count”.

Aside from manual auditability, before implementation it is vital that ‘Proof of Concept’ projects be thoroughly executed, carefully trialing any proposed smartphone public voting system, prior to actual ‘go live’ for real.  Such Pilot Trials or Proving Systems are essential, with their scale, planning, operation, data and results, and assessment thereof, monitored and carried out by independent experts.

Nick: In your expert opinion, would you trust a Blockchain-based voting system to accurately register votes?

Dr. Castell: Deliberate hacking or compromise apart, there is no reason why a well-engineered and implemented Blockchain-based voting system, with careful professional expert involvement in its design and trialing before go-live, should not accurately register votes.  However, I do not consider that a so-called ‘trustless’ Blockchain-based voting system removes the need for a Trusted Third Party legally responsible for its operation and security.  ‘Who you gonna sue when it goes wrong?’ is still an essential consideration, and the Blockchain itself, nothing magical, ‘just another computer system’, cannot be sued.

See:

  • https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1XSpq_654J6Hkp  ‘The future decisions of RoboJudge HHJ Arthur Ian Blockchain: Dread, delight or derision?’, Stephen Castell, Computer Law & Security Review, Volume 34, Issue 4, August 2018, Pages 739-753.
  • Commission of the European Community. Green paper on the security of information systems, ver. 4.2.1, 1994.
  • S. Castell, Code of practice and management guidelines for trusted third party services, INFOSEC Project Report S2101/02, 1993.

Conclusion:

What are your thoughts? Would you trust a smart phone, Blockchain-based voting application? Please share your comments below!

UPDATE (08/16/2018):

Our friends over at the Robinette Legal Group, located in Morgantown, West Virginia, wrote a complementary piece to this blog. The author of the piece, Terri Robinette, did an exceptional job elaborating on prior “uses” of Blockchain in Sierra Leone and describing how West Virginia is legitimately the first to truly test this technology. She further described election security and fraud in West Virginia. Take a look at her article below:

Smartphone Voting App for Deployed West Virginia Military

Computer ForensicsComputer SecuritySecurity

Tesla Trade Secrets Lawsuit: Investigators & Expert Witnesses

on June 26, 2018

Did you hear about Tesla suing a former employer for stealing trade secrets?

Early last week, Tesla CEO Elon Musk emailed Tesla employees reporting another employee had done some pretty significant sabotage to the company’s manufacturing operations. According to one Ars Technica article, “In the all-hands email to Tesla staff, Musk wrote that the employee had made ‘direct code changes’ to the company’s production systems, as well as exporting ‘large amounts’ of Tesla’s data to unknown third parties.”

In the same article, Ars Technica quotes Musk’s email further, “the alleged saboteur could have been working with short sellers, oil and gas companies—whom he described as ‘sometimes not super nice’—or ‘the multitude of big gas/diesel car company competitors.’ Of this last group, Musk reminded his employees that, since the traditional OEMs have been known to cheat emissions tests, ‘maybe they’re willing to cheat in other ways.'”

Mr. Musk is not subtle in his indication that he believes the saboteur may have been working with others in a coordinated effort of corporate espionage and theft of trade secrets.

Later in the week, Tesla filed suit against a now-former-employee, Martin Tripp. We can only assume this is the employee to whom Mr. Musk referred in the earlier email, given the civil complaint allegations against Mr. Tripp. The civil complaint link is courtesy of Cyrus Farivar of Ars Technica.

The civil complaint alleges Mr. Tripp violated the Defend Trade Secrets Act and the Nevada Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Further, Tesla alleges of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty, and violating the Nevada Computer Crimes Law.

To me, the interesting part was the “prayer for relief” (an absurdly arcane way of saying “this is what we want!”).  Here’s the summary. Take note of the first item:

tesla-prayer-for-relief

Section A goes hand in hand with Elon Musk’s comments indicating the saboteur may have been acting with unknown third parties. The legal action seems intended to prohibit the use of any stolen trade secrets and preventing any potential financial or competitive damage resulting from corporate espionage.

What experts played a role or may play a role?

The case being brand new (complaint filed last week), I don’t expect we’ll hear about expert witness involvement for some time. However, I do imagine some experts (working for Tesla) were involved in uncovering the alleged sabotage.

Digital Forensics, Computer Security, Corporate Security, Software, Human Resources…

We know from the complaint there are allegations that Mr. Tripp stole trade secrets from Tesla. According to the complaint, Mr. Tripp “has thus far admitted to writing software that hacked Tesla’s manufacturing operating system (MOS) and to transferring several gigabytes of Tesla data to outside entities.” To someone like me, with fairly basic coding experience, it appears Mr. Tripp was quite advanced. He was able to bypass Tesla’s internal security to install hacking software.

Mr. Tripp has not admitted, but Tesla further alleges, “he also wrote computer code to periodically export Tesla’s data off it’s network and into the hands of third parties.” This sentence alone makes me wonder why Tesla did not add potential JOHN DOES to the complaint. Nevertheless, the complaint continues, “his hacking software was operating on three separate computer systems of other individuals at Tesla so that the data would be exported even after he left the company and so that those individuals would be falsely implicated as guilty parties.” Again, I mention this is a pretty advanced thought process because Mr. Tripp had plans to cover his tracks.

Given this information, I presume Tesla’s corporate security in conjunction with their legal department had to investigate Mr. Tripp’s actions for some time before terminating his employment and filing suit.

This investigation was likely to include those with knowledge and experience in digital forensics, computer security, and hacking software. Since the investigation involved an employee, I suppose there’s a chance human resources was included in the investigation as well.

Why was the investigation likely to include this variety of individuals? Tesla had to identify the breach using digital forensics and computer security experts. After recognizing the hacking software in their system, it’s possible they would have reviewed the code to see how it breached their computer security and I assume they would be able to identify the terminals on which the code resided. Since Mr. Tripp had taken precautions to misdirect Tesla, they may have identified the three other employees as responsible parties early in the investigation, causing them to monitor those employees.

Having watched enough spy movies to pretend I know what I’m talking about, I have to imagine Tesla would want to identify the third party entities mentioned in the complaint. So, they probably allowed some data to be exported while they were monitoring the situation in an effort to identify those who may have conspired with Mr. Tripp. With my spy movie knowledge, prognostications, and five bucks, you can get a cup of coffee.

Of this, I am certain. Tesla had to use investigators familiar with protection of intellectual property and digital evidence collection. Experts listed above would have the appropriate specialization to conduct this investigation in preparation for the recent litigation.

So as the litigation develops and if it goes to trial, I will expect to see software, digital forensics, computer security, corporate security, and human resources experts and consultants assisting in discovery and preparing for trial.

 

 

 

 

 

Computer ForensicsComputer SecurityComputersConsultantsExpert Witness

Google Antitrust Investigations: FTC, EU, state attorneys general… More to come?

on November 17, 2017

The ABA Journal reported this week that Google was subpoenaed by the Missouri attorney general (Josh Hawley) for antitrust and consumer protection violations. Google has been placed on notice and the investigation is ongoing. Earlier this year, the Mississippi attorney general sued Google for similar violations and the European Union fined the company $2.7 billion for consumer protection violations. Are you seeing a pattern? Antitrust litigation against Google seems to be full speed ahead.

According to the article, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) completed an investigation against Google in 2013. The FTC concluded, “We have not found sufficient evidence that Google manipulates its search algorithms to unfairly disadvantage vertical websites that compete with Google-owned vertical properties.” Evidently, Mr. Hawley does not agree with the FTC finding so he decided to investigate on his own.

When investigating and prosecuting cases involving sophisticated technology and antitrust issues, attorneys depend on experts to perform complex investigations and unravel complex issues. Who will the attorneys general and defense counsel turn to in support of these involved matters? Let’s take a look at the issues:

Antitrust / Consumer Protection:

To understand more about the laws governing antitrust issues in the US please visit the FTC for a brief summary.

Essentially, United States antitrust law is a collection of federal and state laws regulating the conduct and organization of businesses, generally to promote fair competition for the benefit of consumers.  As the FTC page indicates, there are three main laws covering antitrust behavior: the Sherman Act 1890, the Clayton Act 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act 1914. For more than 100 years, “The antitrust laws have had the same basic objective: to protect the process of competition for the benefit of consumers, making sure there are strong incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, keep prices down, and keep quality up.” The laws also basically prevent collusion or cartel-like practices and monopolies.

The Missouri attorney general has said, “There is strong reason to believe that Google has not been acting with the best interest of Missourians in mind.” It appears the Mr. Hawley believes Google is doing things which are not promoting, and possibly impeding, fair competition. Further, their algorithms may be directing users to Google-owned properties rather than websites offering services which compete with those Google-owned properties. As Google is the 800 pound gorilla when it comes to Internet searching, any tactics directing users to their own goods or services could be considered a restraint of trade.

In order to prove Google manipulates algorithms for their own benefit, the Missouri attorney general is probably going to have to employ some expert consultants who may later testify as expert witnesses. Google’s defense counsel will probably have to do the same. I assume Google will have many of the pre-litigation consultants in-house.

During the investigation, Mr. Hawley will likely need to consult with antitrust and antitrust economics experts to determine if actions by Google are negatively impacting consumers or restraining trade. Furthermore, he may need to employ consultants to conduct market research to have statistical evidence of the impact on consumers.

Algorithms:

Most of us (is this too presumptive?) have some sort of rough idea about search algorithms and what they accomplish. We understand it to be a mathematical equation used to search data and deliver a result based on the search terms we utilized.

After reading my last paragraph, I have to say there are probably far more accurate and simplistic descriptions of an algorithm. I may not have properly described how they work. That’s because I’m not a computer scientist. Luckily, neither the prosecution nor defense will be calling Nick Rishwain as an expert witness in Missouri v. Google.

The legal representatives from both sides are going to need assistance in understanding search algorithms and how algorithms might be manipulated by Google. They are going to need to know this quite early in the case in order to request and deliver the proper documentation during the investigation and discovery stages should Missouri file a lawsuit.

Both sides will likely need the assistance of information and Internet technology consultants. More specifically, I can see the need for information science & architecture experts as well as search engine optimization experts.

As the ABA Journal article made abundantly clear: Google has faced many legal actions related to antitrust and it appears even more legal actions lie ahead. It should be noted that Google is not alone in this area. There appears to be increased chatter about antitrust actions against Amazon as well. If the US Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission avoid taking action, we may see more attorneys general choosing to investigate and possibly prosecute the corporate giants for dominating the market.

For more information, check out the Experts.com Antitrust Articles section.

Updated: 07/24/2019:

Well, as we noted when we last wrote about the Google antitrust matter, more was likely to come. Yesterday, we learned the Department of Justice (DOJ) has opened an antitrust investigation into some of the world’s largest tech companies, although they did not mention the companies by name.

According to Ars Technica, the DOJ’s Antitrust Division opened an investigation which would “consider the widespread concerns that consumers, businesses, and entrepreneurs have expressed about search, social media, and some retail services online.”

From this, we can only take a guess that they mean they’ll be investigating Google, Facebook, Amazon, and some others. Other pundits assume Apple will also be investigated. If the investigation is a broad as reports are indicating, we can assume others will find themselves in the cross hairs at some point in the future.

Computer ForensicsComputer SecurityComputers

Computer Safety and Security Articles

on September 15, 2010

CYBER ABUSE, CYBER CRIME

By: Richard Albee
DataChasers, Inc.
Tel: 877-DataExam (877-328-2392)
Website: www.DATACHASERS.COM

The Internet is a vast universe of discovery, with items of interest for everyone–regardless of your particular curiosity. Unfortunately, this availability often leads to abuse, and sometimes to crime. But, not unlike adolescent discovery, the steps to cybercrime are achieved in stages.

The first stage is availability

Without access to the Internet the potential for abuse becomes a moot point. It was common, several years ago, to simply advise employers against allowing employees access to the Internet; this is no longer practical. Internet access is an integral part of many businesses, and certainly a part of everyday life…
Read the Entire Article

DataChasers, Inc., is a select, exclusive computer forensics and e-discovery company. Our examiners find the evidence, interpret it, evaluate its importance, and articulate those facts to a jury. Computer forensics and e-discovery is our only business, and we welcome your inquiries about the process, or our procedures.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

CSI COMPUTER FORENSICS – Real Cases From Burgess Forensics #9 – The Case of the Teacher and the Trickster

By: Steven G. Burgess
Tel: (866) 345-3345
Website: www.BurgessForensics.com

The stories are true; the names and places have been changed to protect the potentially guilty.

It was a grey October day, the kind of day when a guy likes to cozy up next to a bank of servers to keep warm, when the Teacher first called me. “They think I’m nuts” were the words emanating from the phone. Well, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you. I sat up and went to my desk, away from the noisy fans cooling off all those Gigahertzes. “What’s the problem, Miss?”

The young woman explained that she was a not-yet-tenured teacher in a New England (greyer there than here) high school with a problem. Seems that a student in one of her classes was repeating things in the classroom that she had uttered only the night before in the apparently illusory privacy of her own living room…
Read the Entire Article

Steve Burgess is a freelance technology writer, a practicing computer forensics specialist as the principal of Burgess Forensics, and a contributor to the just released Scientific Evidence in Civil and Criminal Cases, 5th Edition by Moenssens, et al.

Read More Articles on Computer Forensics