Tag Archives: Data Security

Preserving Your CEO’s Vehicle Infotainment System Data

 
William Kellermann
August 7, 2015

Like the technology ecosystem it feeds from, electronic discovery is rife with acronyms, for good or ill.  One of the more recent is COPE – “Company Owned, Personally Enabled.”  The target of COPE is mobile devices – tablets, phablets, smartphones – whatever your preferred nom du jour.  It is the counterpoint to BYOD (“Bring Your Own Device”) the alternative way that mobile devices significantly impact enterprise security, privacy and electronic discovery efforts.  Which begs the question, does your Enterprise Mobile Management (EMM) system consider the ultimate corporate mobile device, the company car?

In the latest episode of vehicle hack-a-mania, Wired reports the successful hack of a Tesla Model S.  Researchers Hacked a Model S, But Tesla’s Already Released a Patch.  This report is just the latest news about a series of similar exploits, starting with the Jeep Cherokee hack reported two weeks ago.  Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep On The Highway – With Me In It.  The motivation for the Tesla hack was to demonstrate a way to virtually “hot wire” and steal a Tesla, otherwise thought to be impervious to traditional methods of auto theft.  But what both these hacks reveal is a more insidious threat vector.

In each of the hacks demonstrated thus far, access to the command and control system was accomplished via a breach of the car’s infotainment system – the Bluetooth smartphone-enabled navigation and entertainment computer installed in many new vehicles.  Therein lies the rub.  In addition to being a method to steal or wreak havoc with vehicle operation, these systems are a virtual gold mine of hacker information or electronic discovery data, depending on where you sit.

I recently discussed new technology to forensically collect vehicle infotainment system data, such as iVE by Berla, with a close friend in the computer forensics business.  He related how in a test, a forensic analyst was able to extract the user and vehicle event data from over 30 prior users of a rental car.  User data includes call logs, contacts, text messages, navigation data and the names and MAC addresses of connected devices.  Examples of vehicle event data include doors opening, closing and locking, light activation, device connections, system resets and transmission shifter activation, such as a sequence from “park” to “reverse” to “drive.” Each event is accompanied by a time and date stamp, as well as geolocation data if the vehicle has a navigation system.  In all there are over 250 data attributes forensically available in the modern computerized vehicle system.  Much of this data is captured in addition to better known vehicle “black box” data found in all late-model cars and trucks and targeted for auto accident reconstruction.

Have your executives ever synchronized their Smartphone with the system in a rental car?  What about the systems in a company car or their personal vehicles?  Much of the above-mentioned information will have leaked onto those various systems.  For every hacker who ever rented a car, all this information is low hanging fruit for easy pickings.  It is also sitting out there unprotected in every vehicle traded-in or sold, as most vehicles have no technical mechanism to wipe this data. If nothing else, contact lists are extremely valuable to initiate spear-phishing attacks: spoofing an executive’s email or text-messaging address to send virus laden payloads to trusted advisors such as lawyers, doctors, accountants and financial services professionals.

Moreover, to the extent the company is obligated to preserve and collect this data for electronic discovery, is that data source contemplated by your internal electronic discovery protocols?  As with anything else, such devices may be the bane or panacea, depending on your particular circumstances.  Text messages deleted from a device may be recovered from the car to save the company from a spoliation sanction.  On the flip side, a savvy opposing counsel may make a credible argument the data should have been collected for preservation before the executive traded-in the car.

As with everything else with technology, these concepts may take some time to seep into the consciousness of the legal profession.  Nevertheless, forward thinking lawyers and technologists have another dimension to track when mapping out data sources for investigations and discovery.  Similarly, Information Governance professionals must consider the retention, disposition, security and privacy impacts presented by vehicle infotainment systems bridged to corporate information systems via mobile devices.

Court: No expectation of privacy in a pocket-dialed conversation

 
William Kellermann
July 27, 2015

Two steps forward, one step back.  In the introduction to a law review article entitled “Emerging Changes in the Practice of Law,” USC Law Center professor Louis M. Brown wrote of the “Fable of the Telephone.”  Essentially, the story goes that back in 1878, white-shoe New York law firms resisted use of the telephone in their law offices because there was no protection for client confidentiality in the age of the party line.[i]  When clients demanded access to telephones, pay phones were installed in the lobby.  It would be many years before the expectation of privacy was established in the law for telephone conversations and more than 100 years before the last commercial party lines were eliminated in the US.

The same late 19th century lawyers also rejected the typewriter (there was no precedent upholding the legal validity of documents created on a typewriter) and female legal secretaries (because of the prevailing view women gossiped too much and would constitute a threat to the confidentiality of office communications.)  How times have changed.  Nevertheless, with respect to the telephone, there is a kernel of truth in the concerns of those luddite lawyers (all men, by the way).

Fast forward to the 2014 holiday season and the proliferation of “Smart Televisions.”  The press was replete with dire warnings of the anti-privacy effect of voice recognition and control, based on this statement in a privacy policy:

“Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party…”  Samsung Privacy Policy – Smart TV Supplement

Put simply, if you want to use voice recognition to control your TV, you consent to having everything said in front of your TV recorded and uploaded to Nuance, the third-party company providing voice recognition services to Samsung.  See Not in front of the telly: Warning over ‘listening’ TV  BBC News, 9 February 2015.

So it should come as no surprise when the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that there is no expectation of privacy in a conversation inadvertently transmitted to a third-party by what the court called a “pocket dial.”  Bertha Huff, et al. v. Carol Spaw, 2014 U.S.App. LEXIS 12538; 2015 FED App. 0157P (6th Cir. – July 21, 2015).

Continue reading Court: No expectation of privacy in a pocket-dialed conversation

How A Data Breach Led To A ‘Billboard Bomb’

 
William Kellermann
May 22, 2015

On Saturday, May 9, 2015 a bomb went off at a busy intersection of the affluent Atlanta suburb of Buckhead. Nobody was killed or physically injured, so you probably didn’t read or hear about it with your Sunday morning coffee. But both the FBI and Homeland Security are investigating the incident. The “bomb” has come to be known as the “Buckhead Billboard Bomb.” The incident reflects the ever-growing need for businesses large and small to pay attention to data security.

The Buckhead Billboard Bomb resulted when a hactivist group calling itself Assange Shuffle Collective accessed a web-connected digital billboard to display an obscene pornographic image to passers-by at the intersection of Peachtree and East Paces Ferry roads. The software running the billboard had no system security in place and, worse yet, a cyber-security expert had warned the company it was vulnerable. The billboard company responded “not interested…” to the expert’s offer to assist.

Continue reading How A Data Breach Led To A ‘Billboard Bomb’

Two Federal Cybersecurity Bills Move Forward

 
Eric Junginger
April 23, 2015

At the White House Summit on Cybersecurity and Consumer Protection at Stanford University on February 13, 2015, President Obama called for a single national data breach standard and for improved information sharing about threats to America’s technology infrastructure between government and the private sector. In the past two months, Congress has responded with multiple bills to address these pressing issues.

First, the Data Security and Breach Notification Act of 2015 was passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee on April 15, and was sent to the House floor. The Act would set a single national standard for data breach notification that would be enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and the states’ attorneys general, and would preempt state data security and breach notification statutes. While the Act made it out of committee, the vote was along party lines, including a no vote from the Act’s Democratic co-sponsor.

Continue reading Two Federal Cybersecurity Bills Move Forward

Feds Attempt To Preempt Conflicting State Laws On Data Breaches

 
Eric Junginger
April 8, 2015

Federal and state privacy and data security laws affect nearly every industry ranging from healthcare providers to financial institutions to start-ups. One federal bill that could bring clarity to varied state laws and regulations is the Data Security and Breach Notification Act of 2015 originally co-sponsored by Representatives Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Peter Welch (D-VT). If passed, it will change how companies, non-profit organizations, and common carriers handle data breach notifications from trying to comply with an uneven quilt of state laws to a single, enforceable, uniform standard.

There are two important provisions in this Act. First, this federal law would preempt all existing state data breach notification laws, providing a single uniform rule for what to do when a company discovers a data breach. Second, the rules for data breach notification are well defined for all companies. For example, the bill states what information a company will need to provide in its data breach notice, how notification should happen (even when some of the contact information for data breach victims is outdated), and when it should take place (not later than 30 days after the entity has investigated and secured its system).

Continue reading Feds Attempt To Preempt Conflicting State Laws On Data Breaches