Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Perimeter

FTC Deal Suggests Enterprises Could Be Liable for Poor Security

ValueClick found negligent when Commission discovers vulnerabilites contrary to privacy policies promising encryption and 'reasonable security measures'

The Federal Trade Commission settled a lawsuit against ValueClick today for making email and advertising claims that were deceptive and misleading. But as with many other legal documents, the real impact of the decision might be in the fine print.

At $2.9 million, the FTC's settlement with ValueClick is larger than any previous lawsuit alleging violation of the CAN-SPAM Act. ValueClick repeatedly promised customers "free" items without disclosing the costs and obligations required to receive them, the Commission said.

Typical judgment against a spammer, right? But there's a twist: ValueClick was also found guilty of violating its own privacy policy, which promises to protect customer data and implement "reasonable security measures." The FTC nailed ValueClick for failing to encrypt data when its privacy policy promises encryption, and even for failing to fix vulnerabilities to SQL injection attacks.

In a nutshell, the decision means that enterprises could be found negligent for promising to protect user data but subsequently failing to implement the security precautions required to meet those promises. If you promise good security and then fail to provide it, it could weigh against you in court, the decision says.

"The FTC ruling sends a powerful message to the business community," says Scott Kamber, a partner at Kamber Edelson LLC, a legal firm that specializes in cyber security law.

"In the past, companies that failed to protect customer data have argued that they are immune from prosecution unless consumers can directly prove that they suffered harm from the breach of their personal information," Kamber explains. "Given that hackers are generally pretty good at covering their tracks, this argument -- if accepted -- would mean that few companies would have to account for their negligence."

With the ValueClick settlement, Kamber says, "the FTC has made clear that common sense will prevail over technical legal arguments, at least when it comes to governmental sanctions. We believe the FTC's ruling will help with the current cases we are prosecuting, as well as future ones we are contemplating."

The FTC has achieved many judgments against spammers, but in the past, most of these judgments have focused on the disparity between advertising claims and real-world results. In the ValueClick case, however, the Commission adds charges that the company failed to meet some fairly vague security promises made under its privacy policy -- a type of violation that might be common among non-spammers and legitimate companies as well.

"The FTC charged that ValueClick [and subsidiaries] Hi-Speed Media and E-Babylon misrepresented that they secured customers’ sensitive financial information consistent with industry standards," according to a statement by the Commission. "The FTC alleged the companies published online privacy policies claiming they encrypted customer information, but either failed to encrypt the information at all or used a non-standard and insecure form of encryption...

"The agency also charged that several of the companies’ e-commerce Web sites were vulnerable to SQL injection, a commonly known form of hacker attack, contrary to claims that the companies implemented reasonable security measures."

The settlement bars ValueClick and its subsidiaries from making misrepresentations about the use of encryption or other electronic measures to protect consumers’ information, and about the extent to which they protect personal information. The order also requires the companies to establish and maintain a comprehensive security program, and obtain independent third-party assessments of their programs for 20 years.

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
Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
7 Old IT Things Every New InfoSec Pro Should Know
Joan Goodchild, Staff Editor,  4/20/2021
News
Cloud-Native Businesses Struggle With Security
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  5/6/2021
Commentary
Defending Against Web Scraping Attacks
Rob Simon, Principal Security Consultant at TrustedSec,  5/7/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
Recent breaches of third-party apps are driving many organizations to think harder about the security of their off-the-shelf software as they continue to move left in secure software development practices.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-16632
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-15
A XSS Vulnerability in /uploads/dede/action_search.php in DedeCMS V5.7 SP2 allows an authenticated user to execute remote arbitrary code via the keyword parameter.
CVE-2021-32073
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-15
DedeCMS V5.7 SP2 contains a CSRF vulnerability that allows a remote attacker to send a malicious request to to the web manager allowing remote code execution.
CVE-2021-33033
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-14
The Linux kernel before 5.11.14 has a use-after-free in cipso_v4_genopt in net/ipv4/cipso_ipv4.c because the CIPSO and CALIPSO refcounting for the DOI definitions is mishandled, aka CID-ad5d07f4a9cd. This leads to writing an arbitrary value.
CVE-2021-33034
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-14
In the Linux kernel before 5.12.4, net/bluetooth/hci_event.c has a use-after-free when destroying an hci_chan, aka CID-5c4c8c954409. This leads to writing an arbitrary value.
CVE-2019-25044
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-14
The block subsystem in the Linux kernel before 5.2 has a use-after-free that can lead to arbitrary code execution in the kernel context and privilege escalation, aka CID-c3e2219216c9. This is related to blk_mq_free_rqs and blk_cleanup_queue.