Risk
2/25/2010
05:45 PM
50%
50%

Security And Privacy Certification Service Nailed For Misleading Customers

FTC alleges that ControlScan offered 'little or no verification' of site security or privacy

ControlScan, a company that consumers have relied on to certify the privacy and security of online retailers and other Websites, has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it misled consumers about the steps it took to verify their privacy and security practices.

The settlements will bar future misrepresentations. The founder and former CEO has entered into a separate settlement that requires him to give up $102,000 in ill-gotten gains.

Third-party privacy and security certification programs, like ControlScan, are used by Websites to assure visitors their sites are secure and that consumers can feel confident about providing personal and financial information. ControlScan provides privacy and security "seals" to assure users that an independent third party is auditing the sites' practices.

ControlScan offers a variety of privacy and security seals for display on sites. Consumers click on the seals to discover exactly what assurances each seal conveys. For example, the company's Business Background Reviewed, Registered Member, and Privacy Protected seals convey that ControlScan has verified a site's information security practices.

However, the FTC alleges ControlScan provided these seals to sites with "little or no verification" of their security protections. Similarly, the FTC alleges the company provided its Privacy Protected and Privacy Reviewed seals to Websites with "little or no verification" of their privacy protections.

The FTC also charged that although ControlScan's seals displayed a current date stamp, the company did not review any of the seal sites on a daily basis. In some instances, Websites were reviewed only weekly, and in other instances ControlScan did no ongoing review of a company's fitness to continue displaying seals. The FTC charged the defendants' deceptive acts violated federal law.

The consent agreement settling the case with Richard Stanton, the founder and former CEO of ControlScan, bars him from misrepresenting the steps that are taken to verify a site's privacy and security protections. He also is barred from misrepresenting the frequency of verification. The settlement requires he give up $102,000 in ill-gotten gains.

The settlement with ControlScan bars the same misrepresentations, requires it to notify the sites that have displayed the seals of the FTC action, and requires them to take down the seals. Finally, a judgment of $750,000 is suspended, based on ControlScan's inability to pay.

Have a comment on this story? Please click "Discuss" below. If you'd like to contact Dark Reading's editors directly, send us a message.

Tim Wilson is Editor in Chief and co-founder of Dark Reading.com, UBM Tech's online community for information security professionals. He is responsible for managing the site, assigning and editing content, and writing breaking news stories. Wilson has been recognized as one ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Security Operations and IT Operations: Finding the Path to Collaboration
A wide gulf has emerged between SOC and NOC teams that's keeping both of them from assuring the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of IT systems. Here's how experts think it should be bridged.
Flash Poll
New Best Practices for Secure App Development
New Best Practices for Secure App Development
The transition from DevOps to SecDevOps is combining with the move toward cloud computing to create new challenges - and new opportunities - for the information security team. Download this report, to learn about the new best practices for secure application development.
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2017-0290
Published: 2017-05-09
NScript in mpengine in Microsoft Malware Protection Engine with Engine Version before 1.1.13704.0, as used in Windows Defender and other products, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (type confusion and application crash) via crafted JavaScript code within ...

CVE-2016-10369
Published: 2017-05-08
unixsocket.c in lxterminal through 0.3.0 insecurely uses /tmp for a socket file, allowing a local user to cause a denial of service (preventing terminal launch), or possibly have other impact (bypassing terminal access control).

CVE-2016-8202
Published: 2017-05-08
A privilege escalation vulnerability in Brocade Fibre Channel SAN products running Brocade Fabric OS (FOS) releases earlier than v7.4.1d and v8.0.1b could allow an authenticated attacker to elevate the privileges of user accounts accessing the system via command line interface. With affected version...

CVE-2016-8209
Published: 2017-05-08
Improper checks for unusual or exceptional conditions in Brocade NetIron 05.8.00 and later releases up to and including 06.1.00, when the Management Module is continuously scanned on port 22, may allow attackers to cause a denial of service (crash and reload) of the management module.

CVE-2017-0890
Published: 2017-05-08
Nextcloud Server before 11.0.3 is vulnerable to an inadequate escaping leading to a XSS vulnerability in the search module. To be exploitable a user has to write or paste malicious content into the search dialogue.

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
In past years, security researchers have discovered ways to hack cars, medical devices, automated teller machines, and many other targets. Dark Reading Executive Editor Kelly Jackson Higgins hosts researcher Samy Kamkar and Levi Gundert, vice president of threat intelligence at Recorded Future, to discuss some of 2016's most unusual and creative hacks by white hats, and what these new vulnerabilities might mean for the coming year.