Tag Archives: GDPR

The Holistic Z: Selective Encryption gives way to “At-Rest” & “In-Flight” Data Protection with Pervasive Encryption

IBM Z encryption moves the market from a selective encryption model to one that is pervasive. This represents a significant modification in the basic structure of computing and its effect on security will, in my opinion, have a major disruptive effect.

The overall concept is to not introduce a decision layer that says what will or will not be encrypted. Instead, it will be possible to have encryption be part of normal processing. The removal of the decision for selective encryption is a further saving in the overall cost and a reduction in the difficulty in using encryption in the current market.

The Holistic Z

The new IBM Z provides a bullet-proof platform for digital transformation, a base for strong cloud infrastructure (fortified clouds, which can be open, private, public, and hybrid), and allows back-end services to be securely exposed through secure APIs.

IBM have put security at the core of the new platform with “Pervasive Encryption as the new standardAnalytics & Machine Learning for Continuous Intelligence Across the Enterprise, and Open Enterprise Cloud to Extend, Connect and Innovate”.

The Z is arguably more powerful, more open, and more secure than any other commercial offering and makes serious moves in the rapidly evolving domains of Machine Learning, Cloud and Blockchain.

Positive Disruption with Pervasive Encryption 

But for me the focus of my interest comes back to Pervasive Encryption. The Z (“Zero Downtime“) appeals to many, on many different levels but for me it is Pervasive Encryption that piques my interest.

It is a seismic shift and legitimately makes the z14 the go-to platform for organisations who can afford their own and the Cloud platform of choice for those who cannot. The z14 mainframe has a tried-and-true architecture and excels with security features that are built into the hardware, firmware, and operating systems.

PervasiveEncryption3

True Cost & Performance Mitigation 

The largest barrier to doing full-scale encryption has been the cost of the encryption and the performance load that such activity puts on the computing platform.

Bolted-on solutions that are being deployed have caused system capacity to grow such that there are loads of up to 61% of the system load that is being consumed by security processes. This translates into significant infrastructure costs and performance drags.

Even without the newest advances the Z architecture delivered encryption (selective encryption) more efficiently and with a lower resource expenditure than other platforms.

It delivers over 8.5 times the security protection, at 93% less cost in overall expenditure, and with 81% less effort. The full impact of the faster encryption engine and the ability to encrypt information in bulk on the z14 creates a fully pervasive solution that runs more than 18.4 times faster and at only 5% of the cost of other solutions.

The Threat Landscape & GDPR Compliance 

IBM Z pervasive encryption provides the comprehensive data protection that organizations, customers, and the threat landscape demand.

Here are some stats on that threat landscape:

  1. Nearly 5.5 million records are stolen per day, 230,367 per hour and 3,839 per minute (Source:http://breachlevelindex.com/);
  2. Of the 9 Billion records breached since 2013 only 4% were encrypted (Source: http://breachlevelindex.com/);
  3. 26% is the likelihood of an organization having a data breach in the next 24 months(Source: https://www.ibm.com/security/infographics/data-breach/) ;
  4. The greatest security mistake organizations make is failing to protect their networks and data from internal threats. (Source:https://digitalguardian.com/blog/expert-guide-securing-sensitive-data-34-experts-reveal-biggest-mistakes-companies-make-data)

By placing the security controls on the data itself, the IBM solution creates an envelope of protection around the data on Z.

ENDS

Extracts, Source Material, References, & Acknowledgements to IBM Z Systems, IBM Security, IBM Systems, IBM Systems Social Program, and Solitaire Interglobal Limited.  

In Chamberlain-esque Pose EU Declares “Privacy in our Time”

The notional purpose of the EU-US Privacy Shield is to establish a framework that allows personal data for commercial purposes to be transferred between the European Union and the United States.

Personal data that is received by US companies operating in Europe is ostensibly governed by EU privacy laws. Pick any notable US organization and they have an office in Europe, typically serving the EMEA region.

But for the purposes of this rant suffice to say that we need only consider Google, Apple, Microsoft, Twitter, and Facebook (a.k.a “Farcebook”).

Do not buy into the high profile privacy battles that these organizations now raise high as examples of their commitment to their customers’ privacy. These are PR tactics.

All of these organizations were more than happy to be secretly willing accomplices to US intelligence agency antics and law-breaking before their activities were exposed and they suffered a backlash. They have been vigourously back-pedalling and papering over the cracks ever since. It is all meaningless posturing.

They are inherently compromised, every day, and in every way.

The EU-US Privacy Shield replaces what was called the International Safe Harbor Privacy Principles (ISHPP). Lofty names for a veneer that actually contains no verifiable substance or oversight when you examine the vast amount of exceptions and undermining laws that in fact render them all moot.

In late 2015 , the ISHPP was declared invalid in its entirety by the EU at a hearing in the European Court of Justice.

But like a smarmy salesperson, the US simply flicked the pages on the sales brochure asking “well, what about this?” – “no?” – “this?” – “no?” – “this?” – until some browbeaten Brussels technocrat bought the bullshit and agreed a new name for the same abuses.

In the usual garbled and meaningless language of the European Commission it was declared on 2nd February 2016 that the EU and the US had found new common ground on the privacy issue and an “Adequacy Decision” was published. (What exactly is an “Adequacy Decision” when it is at home eating chips and eavesdropping on its neighbours?)

In a Chamberlain-esque pose the EU held up this new agreement and declared that it was “…. equivalent to the protections offered by EU law.”

It is not.

ENDS

For more scholarly and considered thinking, read Joint letter to European Commission on EU-US Privacy Shield (July 26, 2017) from Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International to the European Commission to urge a re-evaluation of its Implementing Decision 2016/1250 on the adequacy of the protection provided by the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield on the basis that the United States of America (United States) does not ensure a level of fundamental rights protection regarding the processing of personal data that is essentially equivalent to that guaranteed within the European Union (EU).

IBM Mainframe Ushers in New Era of Data Protection with Pervasive Encryption

Main take-outs in IBM Z Systems announcement:

  1. Pervasively encrypts data, all the time at any scale;
  2. Addresses global data breach epidemic;
  3. Helps automate compliance for EU General Data Protection Regulation, Federal Reserve and other emerging regulations;
  4. Encrypts data 18x faster than compared x86 platforms, at 5 percent of the cost (Source: “Pervasive Encryption: A New Paradigm for Protection,” K. R. E. Lind, Chief Systems Engineer, Solitaire Interglobal Ltd., June 30, 2017);
  5. Announces six IBM Cloud Blockchain data centers with IBM Z as encryption engine;
  6. Delivers groundbreaking Container Pricing for new solutions, such as instant payments.

The new data encryption capabilities are designed to address the global epidemic of data breaches, a major factor in the $8 trillion cybercrime impact on the global economy by 2022. Of the more than nine billion data records lost or stolen since 2013, only four percent were encrypted, making the vast majority of such data vulnerable to organized cybercrime rings, state actors and employees misusing access to sensitive information.

In the most significant re-positioning of mainframe technology in more than a decade, when the platform embraced Linux and open source software, IBM Z now dramatically expands the protective cryptographic umbrella of the world’s most advanced encryption technology and key protection. The system’s advanced cryptographic capability now extends across any data, networks, external devices or entire applications – such as the IBM Cloud Blockchain service – with no application changes and no impact on business service level agreements.

“The vast majority of stolen or leaked data today is in the open and easy to use because encryption has been very difficult and expensive to do at scale,” said Ross Mauri, General Manager, IBM Z. “We created a data protection engine for the cloud era to have a significant and immediate impact on global data security.”

ENDS

* From an article originally published on July 17 2017 on my Peerlyst blog

Does Legislation Stifle Innovation?

(From an article originally published in July 2017 on my peerlyst blog)

Does legislation stifle innovation? No. Why? Because it legislates in “catch up mode” mostly and on those rare occasions when the legislators do see something coming in advance (examples? I don’t have any actually) – then they fail to implement the legislation or put in place checks and balances to monitor compliance.

Legislators are better at legislating for the abuse of data – the IP Act in the UK – in favour of mass surveillance and warrantless omnipresent spying and eavesdropping. It’s a catch all bucket – much easier than putting your back into it and figuring it out with Privacy, Civil Liberty and Human Rights in mind.

Legislators are looking to heavily regulate IoT. One wonders what their approach will be since they have failed or chose to ignore (more likely), it would appear, to legislate and police the most basic elements of Data Protection despite some of the first statutes being enacted (in Europe) as far back as 1986.

Now we have the kerfuffle of the NIS Directive (compelling member states to “be appropriately equipped, e.g. via a Computer Security Incident Response Team (CSIRT) and a competent national NIS authority” – another agency just when we thought that the ones that we had were as bad as the disjointed un-joined up implementation of policy could get) and GDPR (which contains the bizarrely general statement in Clause 4 that “The processing of personal data should be designed to serve mankind”) – good luck implementing that.

Data Protection legislation for much of the intervening period was “lip-service” and PR driven. The DATA PROTECTION ACT, 1988 was publicised by the Irish government as an innovative “first of its kind” legislation that would set the Republic of Ireland apart and create a “privacy regulated” USP for RoI as an FDI (foreign direct investment) destination.

The IDA boasts on their website “We favour green lights over red tape, which is why we are one of the best countries in the world for ease of doing business (Forbes). New business is welcomed and supported by the flow of talent coming from our schools, universities and abroad, to work for high-performing companies across a range of cutting-edge sectors.”

What this really means is that regulation in Ireland with respect to Data Protection and Central Bank governance (both having a direct impact on the operations of the likes of EU headquartered tech giants based in Ireland – Google, eBay,Facebook, Twitter, HubSpot etc … pick a name – they are based in Ireland somewhere) was all about accommodating whatever these firms asked for, with scant or little regard to what the privacy protections in the legislation actually dictated in terms of consumer / end user protection.

Put the following statement in front of your local Data Protection commission and ask them to respond with respect to their view on the best way to protect the consumer while enabling innovation – prepare for an answer characterised by vanilla, non-committal prose peppered with out of context TLA’s.

“Dear Data Protection Commissioner, How Does Your Office Propose To Balance Classically-Conceived Privacy Concepts In Light Of The Business Imperative Of Providing The End User With Contextual Richness?”

The Office of the Data Protection Commission and the Central Bank of Ireland are widely regarded as complicit in the wholesale abuse of the data protection, privacy and tax obligations of tech companies operating in the country.

Understaffed, under-skilled and under-whelming, these outfits have presided over some of the most spectacular breaches of these obligations.

Now, they seek to add to their NP-Complete task and their ever expanding skills gap – the area of IoT regulation.

They will be tasked with creating law to govern how companies should implement security protocols and data protection measures to control the people who use the information generated by IoT (or those who seek to illegally acquire it) and the application of Big Data, IoT, AI, data analytics, and machine learning.

I have no faith that Ireland or Europe will stay on the edge of the curve of innovation in order to regulate its expansion in a controlled and understood manner. But I could be wrong. Do you think that I am wrong? I would love to hear counter arguments to my usual cynical stance on these issues.

ENDS