Naavi.org

In a bid to reactivate the Cyber Appellate Tribunal, the Government of India has decided to merge it into a single larger entity with Airports Economic Regulatory Authority Appellate Tribunal will be merged with the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal.

The proposal is being introduced as part of the Finance Bill 2017 which will be passed during this budget session and hence will be a reality soon.

The details of how the operations will be structured will perhaps be released in the form of a new set of rules.

It is good that CyAT is being re-activated. But we need to wait and see how it will be useful to the Cyber Crime Victims as a flexible low cost operation.

Naavi

Recently UIDAI filed a criminal case against three entities namely Axis Bank, Suvidhaa Infoserve and e-Mudhra and temporarily barred them from using the Aadhaar authentication services.

The allegation was, that these agencies had indulged in “Unauthorized Access” of the UIDAI server and committed “Impersonation” with “Forged Digital Identities”.

What these entities did can be called “Stored Biometric Attack” where the biometrics of a valid user given for a valid transaction is copied and stored unauthorizedly and used subsequently for other transactions.

We can appreciate UIDAI for having identified the unauthorized nature of the transactions by a statistical evaluation of the biometric parameters.

It was obviously a violation of the contractual arrangement between the UIDAI and the authenticators and  UIDAI can take both civil and criminal action.

Under Section 34 of the Aadhaar act, the offence was punishable with imprisonment upto 3 years and a fine.

At the same time under ITA 2000/8, the offence could be charged under Section 66, 66C and 66D each having an imprisonment of upto 3 years.

Though the accused defended their position by stating that they were only doing a testing of the process and hence there was no fraudulent intentions, primafacie offence was established.

Under any due diligence process therefore, the regulators namely RBI for Axis Bank and CCA for e-Mudhra had to take some action that justified that they had also taken note of what could be potentially called a “Criminal Breach of Trust” and “Contravention of multiple statutes”.

Since UIDAI server is also a “Protected System” under Section 70 of ITA 2000/8, even an attempt to access it except in an authorized manner is an offence which may invoke imprisonment of upto 10 years and arrest without bail provisions.

We however donot know if UIDAI, RBI and CCA have all agreed to ignore the serious nature of the offence and condoned the offence. Since a complaint has already been filed, Police should also agree to look at the other way and probably a competent Court needs to approve the compromise as a compounding under Section 77A of ITA 2000/8 and or other provisions of law.

In the meantime it is observed that e-Mudhra website shows that CCA has initiated some punitive action against the Certifying authority by disallowing renewal of earlier digital signature certificates issued by the Company while not yet barring issue of new digital signature certificates.

The note on the website states “As per the latest CCA Identity Verification Guidelines, renewal of digital signatures is no more permitted. It is required to carry Fresh identity proofing for each DSC to be issued till further orders.“

It is not clear if this is a fall out of the UIDAI case or it was for some other irregularity in e-Mudhra’s KYC process observed by CCA.

However, this opens up a debate on what the order could mean for the present and immediate future for e-Mudhra customers and holders of digital certificates issued by e-Mudhra in the past.

Firstly, if any current holder of a valid digital certificate issued by e-Mudhra approaches them for renewal, they are advised to submit physical documents of identity and address proof duly attested by a Bank Manager or a Gazetted officer etc. In other words, the earlier digital certificates issued by e-Mudhra and confirmed by CCA is not accepted as valid for the parameters represented there in which are presumed to be “Un Trustworthy”.

If so, it means that the digital certificate is being declared void or “revoked”. Hence any contracts, tenders etc signed using these certificates in the past may also be considered invalid. All these contracts need to be re-signed to protect the contractual interests of the parties.

Secondly, e-Mudhra has the responsibility for KYC but it is  refusing to do its own KYC or accept the past KYC represented by the current digital certificate and instead pushing the applicants to Bank Managers who charge commission for attestation from the customers. In other words, the cost of KYC is being pushed to the customers besides making the Bank Manager responsible for the validity of the digital certificate issued by the Certifying authorities.

This is an anti-consumer issue which CCA should not allow.

Also, if the Certifying authority wants to use the attestation of a Bank Manager, it needs to enter into a contractual arrangement with the Bank and consider the Bank as its “Agent for KYC” and also incur the expenditure directly. This was the system when digital signature certificates were originally issued in and around the time of their origin in India around 2002.

Since e-Mudhra does not have the specimen signature of any Bank Manager, the KYC has no legal footing and it would be easy for fraudsters to forge the signature of Bank Managers and obtain digital certificates completely eroding the sanctity of the digital signature system in India.

This is a serious fraud risk to the digital signature system in India.

Companies like e-Mudhra does not have an adequate process of Grievance Redressal as per Section 79 of ITA 2000/8 and CCA has not so far asserted its authority and ensured ITA 2000/8 compliance by these agencies. Hence I have not been able to get official clarifications directly from the company in this regard.

In case there is any doubt about  e-Mudhra’s past certificates being tainted according to CCA, there is a need for CCA to disclose the circumstances under which e-Mudhra has been advised not to renew the old digital certificates except with a new set of physical KYC documents.

If however, irregularity if any is not serious, but the CCA took the extreme step of disallowing the renewal not recognizing the legal effect of casting a doubt on the reputation of e-Mudhra as a “Trusted” party and a custodian of the identity of all its existing digital certificate owners, it should admit its mistake and immediately revoke its order so that e-Mudhra can start renewing its current digital certificates online.

At the same time, e-Mudhra needs to also disclose on the website the position of the UIDAI complaint and its implications on the criminal liability which extends through Section 85 of ITA 2000/8 to all the Directors and the officials in charge of the business.

It should also be a disclosure under corporate Governance both at E Mudhra and its holding company, failing which it may attract attention of SEBI.

I have tried to obtain clarification on this matter from both e-Mudhra and CCA over the last one week but it is clear that the seriousness of the issue has not been recognized. My queries have not gone beyond the customer service executives to the senior management.

I hope that at least now, both e-Mudhra and CCA would move fast and try to resolve the issues raised here. In the meantime, I have raised a formal Adjudication complaint against e-Mudhra with CCA and awaiting the response. I suppose this will perhaps be the first adjudication application filed with CCA and hence some procedural precedence need to be established for future guidance.

I regret the inconvenience/embarassment this may cause to e-Mudhra which in the past was actually better than some other Certifying authorities in following good practices. But in the interest of the digital certificate environment in general and the interests of adoption of the right practices in the interest of Indian consumers, we cannot brush under the carpet the current issues and hence I am bringing this to public knowledge.

Naavi

As a part of the “Reasonable Security Practices” under Section 43A of ITA 2000/8, Government of India has released draft rules called “Information Technology (Security of Prepaid Payment Instruments) Rules, 2017” for public comments.

A copy of the draft rules is available here: 

(P.S: The draft has since been removed from the website of MeitY. A copy is now available here)

The comments may be sent to Shri Prafulla Kumar. Scientist-G, at pkumar@meity.gov.in  before 20th March 2017.

Summary of recommendations with our immediate comments :

1. The Central Government may further specify by notification security standards to be adopted by e-PPI (electronic Prepaid Instrument) issuers. It is also possible that the Government  may also designate some other security standard. (Comment: Will some ISO standards be imported?.. Will a new set of standard based on PCI DSS be developed? …)
2. e-PPI issures need to develop an IS policy in tune with these rules and any further IS guidelines that may be issued.(Comment: Will there be an audit? or a Self Declaration?..)
3. Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions for use to be published on the website and mobile applications. (Comment: This is also required under Section 79 of ITA 2000/8)
4.  Grievance Redressal officer need to be designated, contact details disclosed. (Comment: This is also required under Section 79 of ITA 2000/8. Additionally, the process of Grievance redressal needs to be developed and incorporated by reference in the terms and privacy policy. Perhaps it is time for these companies to use ODR as described in www.odrglobal.in)
5. The e-PPI issuers shall mandate its sub contractors who handle authentication data to have necessary security measures in place to protect such data. (Comment: Always considered as required security policy)
6. End to End Encryption needs to be ensured to safeguard the data exchange in the application. (Comment: Some e-PPI issuers might have introduced such encryption. But most have not. Hence this will be one of the key areas of change to be incorporated by the operators. A welcome move)
7. Every e-PPI issuer shall have adequate processes to trace the transactions.  (Comment: Some e-PPI issuers might have introduced such measures. But most have not. Hence this will be another key areas of change to be incorporated by the operators. A welcome move)
8. e-PPI needs to retain the data related to payments for periods as may be specified. (Comment:. This is reiteration of Section 67C of ITA 2000/8. Again, no specific period is mentioned. But the retention period has to be “reasonable”. Considering that there is a law of limitation that provides an option to raise civil disputes within a period of 3 years, the minimum period of retention cannot be less than 3 years. It would be a best practice to retain it for atleast 6 years in such format where it is not dependent on any application. Such information has to be securely archieved. Most 3-PPIs donot have a proper Data Retention Policy and will need to put it in place now.  It would be better if the minimum period of 6 years is also designated with the additional words “Six years or as otherwise may be required under law”. This will be another area of compliance that operators need to take a relook.)
9. The e-PPI issuers need to adopt an incident management policy that includes a data breach notification policy. This will require reporting of incidents to CERT-IN as per the policy already in place. Some new specific guidelines may be issued by CERT-IN specifically for e-PPI operators in due course.(Comment: Most e-PPI issuers are presently ignoring the current requirements of CERT-IN. They need to take this more seriously now)
10. e-PPI issueres are also required to take measures to educate the users of their services to use the services in a secure manner. (Comment:This will require some action and cost which e-PPI issuers need to initiate)

General Comments: Most of the guidelines are reasonable interpretation of the current ITA 2000/8 compliance guidelines though the ignorant operators are better served with a specific notification that they can take notice of. This notification will therefore get into the compliance manuals of the e-PPIs and their advisors who so far had little respect for ITA 2008 compliance.

The notification is therefore a good move.

However, if the operators are to be serious, CERT-IN needs to make it mandatory that the managements file a voluntary disclosure that they are in compliance with the provisions of ITA 2000/8 and the rules made there in. This should be made a statutory mandated clause in all terms and agreements on the lines similar to the declarations that CFOs and CEOs are required to make under corporate Governance requirements in their share holder’s reports.

We donot recommend a “Licensing” or mandated audit from “Accredited auditors” both of which are ineffective and give room for corrupt practices. But a voluntary disclosure of compliance and an indemnity to the customers under Section 79 of ITA 2000/8 should be more effective.

Additionally, the operators should be mandated to secure their customer’s interest by a group insurance scheme under which every user should be covered by a Cyber Insurance plan upto at least an amount of Rs 10000/- per incident.

Also, all e-PPI operators should provide a warranty on their applications to be free from known vulnerabilities and also have a reasonable  Bug bounty program to crowd source security knowledge.

Any other comments that readers want to contribute are welcome. Naavi.org will consolidate and send its recommendations to the Ministry in the next few days.

Naavi

According to the ad, the Government has now decided to license public & private agencies to provide Digital Locker Services, as licensed Digital Locker Service Providers (DSLP) and invited applications.

Applications can be made either by an agency of the appropriate Government or a body corporate meeting the following criteria.

1. Minimum Paid up capital Rs 5 crores
2. Minimum Networth Rs 50 Crores
3. Foreign equity not to exceed 49%

The business of a DLSP may include “Portal Services” and “Access gateway management services” related to the Digi Locker scheme.

Naavi expects this business to be huge and requires a high level of skills in managing a secure electronic cloud environment.

It is possible that some of the existing Certifying Authorities who are managing Digital Certificate related business may try to get into this business. However it is not clear if the capital criteria required for the Certifying Authority business and Digi Locker business can be merged or they should be considered separate.

This business is a good opportunity for start ups who have the backing of a group which can provide the initial capital.

Otherwise the NBFCs  may also consider this as a good opportunity to diversify into this area.

It would be interesting to know which type of organizations have the vision to see the business prospects that this new line of activity presents.

Naavi

On the International Women’s Day, the Board of SBI has just announced what could be considered as an unwise move to allow women workers to work from home for one year. (As per news reports)

Is this a goodwill move for women employees? .. Perhaps it is intended to be so and perhaps the Board may also believe it to be so.

However there are two other dimensions to the decision. SBI is now merging its associate Banks with itself and will find this year to be a year of Chaos. At this time, there would be a huge excess staff and perhaps SBI Board considers it good if some congestion in the Branch is reduced.

By asking its  women employees to work from home they are being told that you are not required at the critical operation center. However we will pay you the salary but keep off the operations. This is an expression of no confidence on the women employees. This will be welcomed by all inefficient employees but many others would resent the need to get back to the family cores for the whole day without the relaxation of being in the Bank. However I am sure a majority of efficient members would be uncomfortable since they will lose competitive edge if they accept the “Home Based Work” instead of the Customer facing important work at the Branch and at the same time if they refuse to take the option, would find the pressures from the home front to stay at home increase.

But more seriously, SBI needs to consider the quantum jump in the Information Security Risks that will arise because some of their employees holding passwords on behalf of the Bank would now be working off-site on open networks and using their own computing devices when their attention is being diverted by the complaining mother in laws, the crying babies and the demanding husbands besides the servants and courier boys who may have more than prying eyes.

The “Techno-Legal- Behavioural Risks” of banking with SBI will therefore multiply.

SBI recently faced the massive card security breach and many cyber crime victims are still struggling to get their money back. Mr Urjit Patel is helping the banks to dodge the Cyber Crime victims from receiving back their dues by not operationalizing the August 11, 2016 draft circular issued by them.

But instead of providing a greater assurance to the customers about the security of the State Bank system particularly in the midst of the chaos of mergers which will be a fertile opportunity for fraudsters to indulge in massive phishing exercise, the Board of the Bank  has taken a political decision that will endanger the security of its account holders.

I urge Ms Arundathi Battacharya not to look at herself as a “Lady Chair Person” and push decisions that will endanger the community.

Our conventional media may not be able to analyze the impact of such populistic decisions and may praise the Bank.

But Naavi.org strongly denounces this populistic move and demands the Bank to explain what information security measures will be initiated by the Bank before the move is put into practice.

I urge the RBI to clarify if they have done their due diligence in this regard before the move was announced by SBI in the public.

Naavi

For the last week or so, there have been intense debate on the social media and TV media about the Gurmeher Kaur incident where the 20 year old student of Delhi University kicked off a controversy by posting a You Tube Video in which she said “Pakistan did not kill my father, War did”.

Gurmeher’s father was a Kargil martyr and her statement incensed many who felt that she was trying to absolve Pakistan of the responsibility for the Kargil war.

When those who opposed her view posted their comments including one from Virendra Sehwag saying “I did not score two triple centuries. My Bat did”, the media started hounding Sehwag and others accusing that they were unfairly trolling Gurmeher, the poor 20 year old Girl and Student who had a “Right of Free Expression” under our respected Constitution with which all these “Liberals” swear. The people who opposed Gurmeher were accused of “Trolling” .

It is therefore necessary for Cyber Watchers to debate what constitutes “Trolling” and whether it should be considered as an “Offence” and if so under which law? etc.

As a disclaimer, I would like to say that I donot support the threats on this “20 year old  girl student” which was repeatedly stressed by Burkhadatt. I however consider that she was acting at the behest of political interests represented by RG and AK to raise a controversy in the light of the ongoing UP elections and to inconvenience BJP. She therefore deserves to be considered as a “political activist” and not a “Student”. Her age and gender is immaterial for holding her a motivated political worker.

First of all, I am seriously opposed to the student politics of all kinds and our educational institutions should be free of elections and political affiliations of all kinds. Students should focus on education and those who remain students eternally and keep creating problems whether in JNU or Ramjas or Film Institute-Pune or Jadhav University, must be kicked out of the educational institutions. They are free to join political parties and continue their disruptive work but not pose as if they are “Students” and claim respect and sympathy.

Those who support Gurmeher would like to consider that the “Trolls” have tried to curb the “Freedom of Expression” of Gurmeher and forced her to shut up and retreat from the “Campaign” she was in.  If Section 66A of ITA 2008 was present, perhaps we could have seen cases being filed (or tried to be filed by Congress and AAP) on Sehwag and others for harassing the young Girl student. Probably if a proper advocate who can influence the Judges by their powerful arguments as they did in the Shreya Singhal case is engaged, they may get the honourable Supreme Court to declare that “Trolling” is an offence and Sehwag and others like him should be immediately arrested for having violated the  Constitution of India.

In this connection, I would like to draw the attention of this community about the definition of what constitutes “Trolling”.

According to the Wikipedia,

Internet Troll means

“In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,often for the troll’s amusement”

This definition seems to fit to Gurmeher’s post more appropriately than say Sehwag’s post. Hence she would be considered guilty of “Trolling”.

So if “Trolling” is to be punished, the first person to be convicted would be Gurmeher herself and hence her supporters should be wary of going to the Court seeking a remedy for trolling.

Naavi