#Encryption Software Market

[businesspointnews]

Encryption Software Market Size, Share, Demand and Forecast 2023-2028

IMARC Group has recently released a new research study titled “Encryption Software Market: Global Industry Trends, Share, Size, Growth, Opportunity and Forecast 2023-2028”, offers a detailed analysis of the market drivers, segmentation, growth opportunities, trends and competitive landscape to understand the current and future market scenarios. How big is the encryption software market? The…

[ict-123]

The global encryption software market was valued at $ billion in 2020, and is projected to reach $42.26 billion by 2030, growing at a CAGR of 16.5% from 2021 to 2030.

[aarunresearcher]

United States encryption software market size reached USD 3.5 Billion in 2024. Looking forward, IMARC Group expects the market to reach USD 10.1 Billion by 2033, exhibiting a growth rate (CAGR) of 12.7% during 2025-2033. The growing cyber threats and data breaches in the United States, rising remote work and bring your own device (BYOD) policies, increasing need to comply with government regulations, and the growing volume of digital transactions represent some of the key factors driving the market.

[oliviadlima]

Email Encryption Software Market Development Factors, Application, Future Prospects

According to a new report published by Allied Market Research, titled, “Email Encryption Software Market, By Component (Solution, Service), By Deployment Mode (On-premise, Cloud), By Organization Size (Large Enterprises, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises), By Industry Vertical (BFSI, IT and Telecom, Retail and E-Commerce, Healthcare, Manufacturing, Government, Energy and Utilities, Others): Global Opportunity Analysis and Industry Forecast, 2023–2032” The email encryption software market was valued at $6.3 billion in 2022, and is estimated to reach $55.4 billion by 2032, growing at a CAGR of 24.7% from 2023 to 2032.

Email encryption software is the process of using software to gather and analyze data from offline, online, and inventory outlets to offer retail businesses an understanding of customer behavior and shopping trends. In addition, email encryption software can measure customer satisfaction, identify purchasing patterns, predict demand, and optimize store layouts. Moreover, data analytics solutions and services have been increasingly employed in the retail industry, with rising user data on physical as well as online platforms. In addition, email encryption software helps businesses to understand demand trends so they can have enough products in stock. Overall, the email encryption software market is driven by the need for intelligent and analytical systems that can process and analyze vast amounts of data, which in turn allows organizations to take actions based on data-driven insights.

On the basis of deployment mode, the on-premise segment dominated the email encryption software market in 2022 and is expected to continue this trend during the forecast period. Many organizations preferred on-premise solutions due to various factors, including data control, customization options, and security concerns. These factors further drive the demand for the on-premise segment in the global market. However, the cloud segment is expected to exhibit the highest growth during the forecast period, as cloud-based solutions offer cost-effectiveness and scalability, which further is expected to provide lucrative growth opportunities for the market during the forecast period.

By region, North America dominated the email encryption software market share in 2022, as North America is home to numerous large enterprises and multinational corporations that handle vast amounts of sensitive data, which is expected to drive market revenue growth in the region. Thus, anticipated to propel the growth of the market. However, Asia-Pacific is expected to exhibit the highest growth during the forecast period. With the rise in cyber threats and data breaches, businesses and organizations in Asia-Pacific have become more aware of the importance of robust cybersecurity measures are expected to drive market revenue growth in the region and provide lucrative growth opportunities for the market in this region.

With most of the population confined in homes even after the lockdown measures of the COVID-19 pandemic, businesses needed to optimize their business operations and offerings to maximize their revenue opportunities while optimizing their operations to support the rapidly evolving business environment post the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. This enabled many businesses to invest in email encryption software solutions. In addition, integrating advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) into email encryption software can enhance threat detection, anomaly detection, and predictive analysis. These technologies are capable of supporting the detection of suspicious activity, the identification of possible security breaches, and the automation of encryption procedures based on user behavior patterns.

Inquiry Before Buying: https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/purchase-enquiry/132972

Furthermore, the rise in trend of cloud computing in several industries including email encryption software industry is anticipated to create numerous opportunities for the the growth. For instance, in March 2021, IBM launched new and enhanced services designed to help organizations manage the cloud security strategy, policies, and controls across hybrid cloud environments. Therefore, numerous strategies adopted by businesses further help to accelerate the email encryption software market globally.

Key Findings of the Study

By component, the solution segment accounted for the largest email encryption software market share in 2022.

By deployment mode, the on-premise segment accounted for the largest email encryption software market share in 2022.

By organization size, the large enterprises segment accounted for the largest email encryption software market share in 2022.

By industry vertical, the BFSI segment accounted for the largest email encryption software market share in 2022.

Region wise, North America generated the highest revenue in 2022.

The market players operating in the email encryption software market analysis are Proofpoint Inc., BAE Systems, CipherMail B.V., Cisco Systems, Inc., Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE), Micro Focus International plc, Proton Technologies AG, Sophos Ltd., Trend Micro Incorporated, and Virtru. These major players have adopted various key development strategies such as business expansion, new product launches, and partnerships, which help to drive the growth of the email encryption software market globally.

About Us: Allied Market Research (AMR) is a full-service market research and business-consulting wing of Allied Analytics LLP based in Portland, Oregon. Allied Market Research provides global enterprises as well as medium and small businesses with unmatched quality of “Market Research Reports Insights” and “Business Intelligence Solutions.” AMR has a targeted view to provide business insights and consulting to assist its clients to make strategic business decisions and achieve sustainable growth in their respective market domain.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

An adversarial iMessage client for Android

Adversarial interoperability is one of the most reliable ways to protect tech users from predatory corporations: that's when a technologist reverse-engineers an existing product to reconfigure or mod it (interoperability) in ways its users like, but which its manufacturer objects to (adversarial):

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interoperability

"Adversarial interop" is a mouthful, so at EFF, we coined the term "competitive compatibility," or comcom, which is a lot easier to say and to spell.

Scratch any tech success and you'll find a comcom story. After all, when a company turns its screws on its users, it's good business to offer an aftermarket mod that loosens them again. HP's $10,000/gallon inkjet ink is like a bat-signal for third-party ink companies. When Mercedes announces that it's going to sell you access to your car's accelerator pedal as a subscription service, that's like an engraved invitation to clever independent mechanics who'll charge you a single fee to permanently unlock that "feature":

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/12/05/carmakers-push-forward-with-plans-to-make-basic-features-subscription-services-despite-widespread-backlash/

Comcom saved giant tech companies like Apple. Microsoft tried to kill the Mac by rolling out a truly cursèd version of MS Office for MacOS. Mac users (5% of the market) who tried to send Word, Excel or Powerpoint files to Windows users (95% of the market) were stymied: their files wouldn't open, or they'd go corrupt. Tech managers like me started throwing the graphic designer's Mac and replacing it with a Windows box with a big graphics card and Windows versions of Adobe's tools.

Comcom saved Apple's bacon. Apple reverse-engineered MS's flagship software suite and made a comcom version, iWork, whose Pages, Numbers and Keynote could flawlessly read and write MS's Word, Excel and Powerpoint files:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/adversarial-interoperability-reviving-elegant-weapon-more-civilized-age-slay

It's tempting to think of iWork as benefiting Apple users, and certainly the people who installed and used it benefited from it. But Windows users also benefited from iWork. The existence of iWork meant that Windows users could seamlessly collaborate on and share files with their Mac colleagues. IWork didn't just add a new feature to the Mac ("read and write files that originated with Windows users") – it also added a feature to Windows: "collaborate with Mac users."

Every pirate wants to be an admiral. Though comcom rescued Apple from a monopolist's sneaky attempt to drive it out of business, Apple – now a three trillion dollar company – has repeatedly attacked comcom when it was applied to Apple's products. When Apple did comcom, that was progress. When someone does comcom to Apple, that's piracy.

Apple has many tools at its disposal that Microsoft lacked in the early 2000s. Radical new interpretations of existing copyright, contract, patent and trademark law allows Apple – and other tech giants – to threaten rivals who engage in comcom with both criminal and civil penalties. That's right, you can go to prison for comcom these days. No wonder Jay Freeman calls this "felony contempt of business model":

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/09/lead-me-not-into-temptation/#chamberlain

Take iMessage, Apple's end-to-end encrypted (E2EE) instant messaging tool. Apple customers can use iMessage to send each other private messages that can't be read or altered by third parties – not cops, not crooks, not even Apple. That's important, because when private messaging systems get hacked, bad things happen:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_celebrity_nude_photo_leak

But Apple has steadfastly refused to offer an iMessage app for non-Apple systems. If you're an Apple customer holding a sensitive discussion with an Android user, Apple refuses to offer you a tool to maintain your privacy. Those messages are sent "in the clear," over the 38-year-old SMS protocol, which is trivial to spy on and disrupt.

Apple sacrifices its users' security and integrity in the hopes that they will put pressure on their friends to move into Apple's walled garden. As CEO Tim Cook told a reporter: if you want to have secure communications with your mother, buy her an iPhone:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tim-cook-says-buy-mom-210347694.html

Last September, a 16-year old high school student calling himself JJTech published a technical teardown of iMessage, showing how any device could send and receive encrypted messages with iMessage users, even without an Apple ID:

https://jjtech.dev/reverse-engineering/imessage-explained/

JJTech even published code to do this, in an open source library called Pypush:

https://github.com/JJTech0130/pypush

In the weeks since, Beeper has been working to productize JJTech's code, and this week, they announced Beeper Mini, an Android-based iMessage client that is end-to-end encrypted:

https://beeper.notion.site/How-Beeper-Mini-Works-966cb11019f8444f90baa314d2f43a54

Beeper is known for a multiprotocol chat client built on Matrix, allowing you to manage several kinds of chat from a single app. These multiprotocol chats have been around forever. Indeed, iMessage started out as one – when it was called "iChat," it supported Google Talk and Jabber, another multiprotocol tool. Other tools like Pidgin have kept the flame alive for decades, and have millions of devoted users:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/07/tower-babel-how-public-interest-internet-trying-save-messaging-and-banish-big

But iMessage support has remained elusive. Last month, Nothing launched Sunchoice, a disastrous attempt to bring iMessage to Android, which used Macs in a data-center to intercept and forward messages to Android users, breaking E2EE and introducing massive surveillance risks:

https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/21/23970740/sunbird-imessage-app-shut-down-privacy-nothing-chats-phone-2

Beeper Mini does not have these defects. The system encrypts and decrypts messages on the Android device itself, and directly communicates with Apple's servers. It gathers some telemetry for debugging, and this can be turned off in preferences. It sends a single SMS to Apple's servers during setup, which changes your device's bubble from green to blue, so that Apple users now correctly see your device as a secure endpoint for iMessage communications.

Beeper Mini is now available in Google Play:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.beeper.ima&hl=en_US

Now, this is a high-stakes business. Apple has a long history of threatening companies like Beeper over conduct like this. And Google has a long history deferring to those threats – as it did with OG App, a superior third-party Instagram app that it summarily yanked after Meta complained:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/05/battery-vampire/#drained

But while iMessage for Android is good for Android users, it's also very good for Apple customers, who can now get the privacy and security guarantees of iMessage for all their contacts, not just the ones who bought the same kind of phone as they did. The stakes for communications breaches have never been higher, and antitrust scrutiny on Big Tech companies has never been so intense.

Apple recently announced that it would add RCS support to iOS devices (RCS is a secure successor to SMS):

https://9to5mac.com/2023/11/16/apple-rcs-coming-to-iphone/

Early word from developers suggests that this support will have all kinds of boobytraps. That's par for the course with Apple, who love to announce splashy reversals of their worst policies – like their opposition to right to repair – while finding sneaky ways to go on abusing its customers:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/22/vin-locking/#thought-differently

The ball is in Apple's court, and, to a lesser extent, in Google's. As part of the mobile duopoly, Google has joined with Apple in facilitating the removal of comcom tools from its app store. But Google has also spent millions on an ad campaign shaming Apple for exposing its users to privacy risks when talking to Android users:

https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/21/23883609/google-rcs-message-apple-iphone-ipager-ad

While we all wait for the other shoe to drop, Android users can get set up on Beeper Mini, and technologists can kick the tires on its code libraries and privacy guarantees.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/12/07/blue-bubbles-for-all/#never-underestimate-the-determination-of-a-kid-who-is-time-rich-and-cash-poor

[meret118]

The cogent documentary, “Surveilled,” now available on HBO, tracks journalist Ronan Farrow as he investigates the proliferation and implementation of spyware, specifically, Pegasus, which was created by the Israeli company NSO Group. The company sells its product to clients who use it to fight crime and terrorism. It is claimed that Pegasus was instrumental in helping capture Mexican drug lord, Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzman. However, there are also reports that NSO’s products are being used to target journalists, human rights activists and political dissidents.

. . .

Farrow: I put up a piece in The New Yorker this week. It was fascinating to talk to experts in the privacy law space who are really in a high state of alarm right now. The United States, under administrations from both parties, has flirted with this technology in ways that is alarming. Under the first Trump administration, they bought Pegasus. They claimed they were buying it to test it and see what our enemies were doing, and The New York Times later sued them for more information and found really persuasive evidence that the FBI wanted to operationalize that in American law enforcement investigations.

In September, the Department of Homeland Security (D.H.S.) signed a two-million-dollar contract with Paragon, an Israeli firm whose spyware product Graphite focusses on breaching encrypted-messaging applications such as Telegram and Signal. Wired first reported that the technology was acquired by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—an agency within D.H.S. that will soon be involved in executing the Trump Administration’s promises of mass deportations and crackdowns on border crossings. A source at Paragon told me that the deal followed a vetting process, during which the company was able to demonstrate that it had robust tools to prevent other countries that purchase its spyware from hacking Americans—but that wouldn’t limit the U.S. government’s ability to target its own citizens. The technology is part of a booming multibillion-dollar market for intrusive phone-hacking software that is making government surveillance increasingly cheap and accessible. In recent years, a number of Western democracies have been roiled by controversies in which spyware has been used, apparently by defense and intelligence agencies, to target opposition politicians, journalists, and apolitical civilians caught up in Orwellian surveillance dragnets.

Now Donald Trump and incoming members of his Administration will decide whether to curtail or expand the U.S. government’s use of this kind of technology. Privacy advocates have been in a state of high alarm about the colliding political and technological trend lines.

“It’s just so evident—the impending disaster,” Emily Tucker, the executive director at the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law, told me. “You may believe yourself not to be in one of the vulnerable categories, but you won’t know if you’ve ended up on a list for some reason or your loved ones have. Every single person should be worried.”

[feminist-space]

"In the age of smart fridges, connected egg crates, and casino fish tanks doubling as entry points for hackers, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that sex toys have joined the Internet of Things (IoT) party.

But not all parties are fun, and this one comes with a hefty dose of risk: data breaches, psychological harm, and even physical danger.

Let’s dig into why your Bluetooth-enabled intimacy gadget might be your most vulnerable possession — and not in the way you think.

The lure of remote-controlled intimacy gadgets isn’t hard to understand. Whether you’re in a long-distance relationship or just like the convenience, these devices have taken the market by storm.

According to a 2023 study commissioned by the U.K.’s Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology (DSIT), these toys are some of the most vulnerable consumer IoT products.

And while a vibrating smart egg or a remotely controlled chastity belt might sound futuristic, the risks involved are decidedly dystopian.

Forbes’ Davey Winder flagged the issue four years ago when hackers locked users into a chastity device, demanding a ransom to unlock it.

Fast forward to now, and the warnings are louder than ever. Researchers led by Dr. Mark Cote found multiple vulnerabilities in these devices, primarily those relying on Bluetooth connectivity.

Alarmingly, many of these connections lack encryption, leaving the door wide open for malicious third parties.

If you’re picturing some low-stakes prank involving vibrating gadgets going haywire, think again. The risks are far graver.

According to the DSIT report, hackers could potentially inflict physical harm by overheating a device or locking it indefinitely. Meanwhile, the psychological harm could stem from sensitive data — yes, that kind of data — being exposed or exploited.

A TechCrunch exposé revealed that a security researcher breached a chastity device’s database containing over 10,000 users’ information. That was back in June, and the manufacturer still hasn’t addressed the issue.

In another incident, users of the CellMate connected chastity belt reported hackers demanding $750 in bitcoin to unlock devices. Fortunately, one man who spoke to Vice hadn’t been wearing his when the attack happened. Small mercies, right?

These aren’t isolated events. Standard Innovation Corp., the maker of the We-Vibe toy, settled for $3.75 million in 2017 after it was discovered the device was collecting intimate data without user consent.

A sex toy with a camera was hacked the same year, granting outsiders access to its live feed.

And let’s not forget: IoT toys are multiplying faster than anyone can track, with websites like Internet of Dongs monitoring the surge.

If the thought of a connected chastity belt being hacked makes you uneasy, consider this: sex toys are just a small piece of the IoT puzzle.

There are an estimated 17 billion connected devices worldwide, ranging from light bulbs to fitness trackers — and, oddly, smart egg crates.

Yet, as Microsoft’s 2022 Digital Defense Report points out, IoT security is lagging far behind its software and hardware counterparts.

Hackers are opportunistic. If there’s a way in, they’ll find it. Case in point: a casino lost sensitive customer data after bad actors accessed its network through smart sensors in a fish tank.

If a fish tank isn’t safe, why would we expect a vibrating gadget to be?

Here’s where the frustration kicks in: these vulnerabilities are preventable.

The DSIT report notes that many devices rely on unencrypted Bluetooth connections or insecure APIs for remote control functionality.

Fixing these flaws is well within the reach of manufacturers, yet companies routinely fail to prioritize security.

Even basic transparency around data collection would be a step in the right direction. Users deserve to know what’s being collected, why, and how it’s protected. But history suggests the industry is reluctant to step up.

After all, if companies like Standard Innovation can get away with quietly siphoning off user data, why would smaller players bother to invest in robust security?

So, what’s a smart-toy enthusiast to do? First, ask yourself: do you really need your device to be connected to an app?

If the answer is no, then maybe it’s best to go old school. If remote connectivity is a must, take some precautions.

Keep software updated: Ensure both the device firmware and your phone’s app are running the latest versions. Updates often include critical security patches.

Use secure passwords: Avoid default settings and choose strong, unique passwords for apps controlling your devices.

Limit app permissions: Only grant the app the bare minimum of permissions needed for functionality.

Vet the manufacturer: Research whether the company has a history of addressing security flaws. If they’ve been caught slacking before, it’s a red flag.

The conversation around sex toy hacking isn’t just about awkward headlines — it’s about how we navigate a world increasingly dependent on connected technology. As devices creep further into every corner of our lives, from the bedroom to the kitchen, the stakes for privacy and security continue to rise.

And let’s face it: there’s something uniquely unsettling about hackers turning moments of intimacy into opportunities for exploitation.

If companies won’t take responsibility for protecting users, then consumers need to start asking tough questions — and maybe think twice before connecting their pleasure devices to the internet.

As for the manufacturers? The message is simple: step up or step aside.

No one wants to be the next headline in a tale of hacked chastity belts and hijacked intimacy. And if you think that’s funny, just wait until your light bulb sells your Wi-Fi password.

This is where IoT meets TMI. Stay connected, but stay safe."

https://thartribune.com/government-warns-couples-that-sex-toys-remain-a-tempting-target-for-hackers-with-the-potential-to-be-weaponized/

[mariacallous]

U.S. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, who started the now-infamous group chat coordinating a U.S. attack against the Yemen-based Houthis on March 15, is seemingly now suggesting that the secure messaging service Signal has security vulnerabilities.

“I didn’t see this loser in the group,” Waltz told Fox News about Atlantic editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg, whom Waltz invited to the chat. “Whether he did it deliberately or it happened in some other technical mean, is something we’re trying to figure out.”

Waltz’s implication that Goldberg may have hacked his way in was followed by a report from CBS News that the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) had sent out a bulletin to its employees last month warning them about a security “vulnerability” identified in Signal.

The truth, however, is much more interesting. If Signal has vulnerabilities, then China, Russia, and other U.S. adversaries suddenly have a new incentive to discover them. At the same time, the NSA urgently needs to find and fix any vulnerabilities quickly as it can—and similarly, ensure that commercial smartphones are free of backdoors—access points that allow people other than a smartphone’s user to bypass the usual security authentication methods to access the device’s contents.

That is essential for anyone who wants to keep their communications private, which should be all of us.

It’s common knowledge that the NSA’s mission is breaking into and eavesdropping on other countries’ networks. (During President George W. Bush’s administration, the NSA conducted warrantless taps into domestic communications as well—surveillance that several district courts ruled to be illegal before those decisions were later overturned by appeals courts. To this day, many legal experts maintain that the program violated federal privacy protections.) But the organization has a secondary, complementary responsibility: to protect U.S. communications from others who want to spy on them. That is to say: While one part of the NSA is listening into foreign communications, another part is stopping foreigners from doing the same to Americans.

Those missions never contradicted during the Cold War, when allied and enemy communications were wholly separate. Today, though, everyone uses the same computers, the same software, and the same networks. That creates a tension.

When the NSA discovers a technological vulnerability in a service such as Signal (or buys one on the thriving clandestine vulnerability market), does it exploit it in secret, or reveal it so that it can be fixed? Since at least 2014, a U.S. government interagency “equities” process has been used to decide whether it is in the national interest to take advantage of a particular security flaw, or to fix it. The trade-offs are often complicated and hard.

Waltz—along with Vice President J.D. Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and the other officials in the Signal group—have just made the trade-offs much tougher to resolve. Signal is both widely available and widely used. Smaller governments that can’t afford their own military-grade encryption use it. Journalists, human rights workers, persecuted minorities, dissidents, corporate executives, and criminals around the world use it. Many of these populations are of great interest to the NSA.

At the same time, as we have now discovered, the app is being used for operational U.S. military traffic. So, what does the NSA do if it finds a security flaw in Signal?

Previously, it might have preferred to keep the flaw quiet and use it to listen to adversaries. Now, if the agency does that, it risks someone else finding the same vulnerability and using it against the U.S. government. And if it was later disclosed that the NSA could have fixed the problem and didn’t, then the results might be catastrophic for the agency.

Smartphones present a similar trade-off. The biggest risk of eavesdropping on a Signal conversation comes from the individual phones that the app is running on. While it’s largely unclear whether the U.S. officials involved had downloaded the app onto personal or government-issued phones—although Witkoff suggested on X that the program was on his “personal devices”—smartphones are consumer devices, not at all suitable for classified U.S. government conversations. An entire industry of spyware companies sells capabilities to remotely hack smartphones for any country willing to pay. More capable countries have more sophisticated operations. Just last year, attacks that were later attributed to China attempted to access both President Donald Trump and Vance’s smartphones. Previously, the FBI—as well as law enforcement agencies in other countries—have pressured both Apple and Google to add “backdoors” in their phones to more easily facilitate court-authorized eavesdropping.

These backdoors would create, of course, another vulnerability to be exploited. A separate attack from China last year accessed a similar capability built into U.S. telecommunications networks.

The vulnerabilities equities have swung against weakened smartphone security and toward protecting the devices that senior government officials now use to discuss military secrets. That also means that they have swung against the U.S. government hoarding Signal vulnerabilities—and toward full disclosure.

This is plausibly good news for Americans who want to talk among themselves without having anyone, government or otherwise, listen in. We don’t know what pressure the Trump administration is using to make intelligence services fall into line, but it isn’t crazy to worry that the NSA might again start monitoring domestic communications.

Because of the Signal chat leak, it’s less likely that they’ll use vulnerabilities in Signal to do that. Equally, bad actors such as drug cartels may also feel safer using Signal. Their security against the U.S. government lies in the fact that the U.S. government shares their vulnerabilities. No one wants their secrets exposed.

I have long advocated for a “defense dominant” cybersecurity strategy. As long as smartphones are in the pocket of every government official, police officer, judge, CEO, and nuclear power plant operator—and now that they are being used for what the White House now calls calls  “sensitive,” if not outright classified conversations among cabinet members—we need them to be as secure as possible. And that means no government-mandated backdoors.

We may find out more about how officials—including the vice president of the United States—came to be using Signal on what seem to be consumer-grade smartphones, in a apparent breach of the laws on government records. It’s unlikely that they really thought through the consequences of their actions.

Nonetheless, those consequences are real. Other governments, possibly including U.S. allies, will now have much more incentive to break Signal’s security than they did in the past, and more incentive to hack U.S. government smartphones than they did before March 24.

For just the same reason, the U.S. government has urgent incentives to protect them.

[monetizeme]

Proton, the secure-minded email and productivity suite, is becoming a nonprofit foundation, but it doesn't want you to think about it in the way you think about other notable privacy and web foundations.

"We believe that if we want to bring about large-scale change, Proton can’t be billionaire-subsidized (like Signal), Google-subsidized (like Mozilla), government-subsidized (like Tor), donation-subsidized (like Wikipedia), or even speculation-subsidized (like the plethora of crypto “foundations”)," Proton CEO Andy Yen wrote in a blog post announcing the transition. "Instead, Proton must have a profitable and healthy business at its core."

The announcement comes exactly 10 years to the day after a crowdfunding campaign saw 10,000 people give more than $500,000 to launch Proton Mail. To make it happen, Yen, along with co-founder Jason Stockman and first employee Dingchao Lu, endowed the Proton Foundation with some of their shares. The Proton Foundation is now the primary shareholder of the business Proton, which Yen states will "make irrevocable our wish that Proton remains in perpetuity an organization that places people ahead of profits." Among other members of the Foundation's board is Sir Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of HTML, HTTP, and almost everything else about the web.

Of particular importance is where Proton and the Proton Foundation are located: Switzerland. As Yen noted, Swiss foundations do not have shareholders and are instead obligated to act "in accordance with the purpose for which they were established." While the for-profit entity Proton AG can still do things like offer stock options to recruits and even raise its own capital on private markets, the Foundation serves as a backstop against moving too far from Proton's founding mission, Yen wrote.

There’s a lot more Proton to protect these days

Proton has gone from a single email offering to a wide range of services, many of which specifically target the often invasive offerings of other companies (read, mostly: Google). You can now take your cloud files, passwords, and calendars over to Proton and use its VPN services, most of which offer end-to-end encryption and open source core software hosted in Switzerland, with its notably strong privacy laws.

None of that guarantees that a Swiss court can't compel some forms of compliance from Proton, as happened in 2021. But compared to most service providers, Proton offers a far clearer and easier-to-grasp privacy model: It can't see your stuff, and it only makes money from subscriptions.

[ict-123]

Encryption Software Market flourishes as cybersecurity investments soar according to a new research report

whatech.com · by David Correa · December 4, 2023

However, growing demand for cloud-based encryption software is expected to create lucrative opportunities in the industry.

The global encryption software market was valued at $ billion in 2020, and is projected to reach $42.26 billion by 2030, growing at a CAGR of 16.5% from 2021 to 2030.

[exitrowiron]

Wage Transparency

Numerous states and some cities now require employers to disclose pay scales, salaries and wage information for existing and potential employees. The applicable jurisdictions continue to proliferate so many companies have simply decided to provide this information in every market. In my experience, the company established such broad salary ranges that the information wasn't particularly helpful, however it did require the company to address the compensation for those few individuals who, for whatever reason, fell below the minimum of the range.

Too much granularity of salary information can, of course, cause conflict with an organization but in general I think more transparency is better than less.

Very early in my career I was given responsibility for the annual budget process. This was before online budget software was available, so I created a very sophisticated (for that time) Excel model with VBA routines, etc. Each manager was given an excel file with the historical costs/revenues for their department and provided with instructions on how to complete the budget for each line item. In order to calculate the correct payroll taxes, etc. managers were instructed to enter the name, salary and bonus of each of their employees. This Excel sheet was then hidden and password protected.

You can probably guess the rest of story. This was before Excel had really strong password and encryption features, so I had a backdoor to the payroll sheet and when all the files were submitted, I could see every employee's salary and bonus.

Seeing which functions were paid the most was extremely motivating and ultimately guided the next decade of my career. I knew exactly what job I wanted and how much to negotiate for my compensation. Beth and I were willing to make the necessary sacrifices (including relocating 3 times) because it would be worth it.

Rather than bitching that I was paid too little, I was motivated to do what it took to get the better paying job. I wonder what would happen if companies were more transparent about their payroll.

[techit-rp]

IoT Security Challenges in India: Protecting Smart Homes & Connected Devices

IoT is transforming the way people live by making their homes smart with devices such as security cameras, smart locks, and voice assistants. In India, IoT technology is adopted at a pace that cyber threats are rising rapidly. With weak security protocols, outdated software, and unawareness, Indian households are vulnerable to cyberattacks. In this blog, we will explore the major IoT security challenges in India and how individuals can safeguard their smart homes and connected devices. If you are looking to strengthen your understanding of cybersecurity, enrolling in a cyber security course can be a game-changer.

The IoT Boom in India

India is witnessing the highest adoption of IoT across homes and businesses. From smart TVs to intelligent thermostats, IoT is revolutionizing life. This booming technology, however, offers a large target size for hackers too who exploit the vulnerability of devices to gain unauthorized access to data.

Fundamental Drivers of IoT Adoption in India:

Increased internet penetration with low-priced data plans

Government initiatives such as Smart Cities Mission and Digital India

Increasing adoption of smart home devices as they become increasingly affordable

Growing application of industrial IoT in health, agriculture, and manufacturing

Chief IoT Security Challenges in India

Poor Authentication & Default Passwords

Most IoT devices have a factory-set password that the user ignores or fails to change. Hackers exploit these default credentials to take over the devices, entry private networks, and crack sensitive information.

Lack of Security Updates & Patches

Most smart devices have limited or no firmware updates, which makes them vulnerable to cyber threats. Many Indian consumers do not check for security updates, leaving their devices susceptible to known exploits.

Data Privacy Concerns

Smart devices collect vast amounts of personal data, from voice recordings to daily routines. Without stringent data protection policies, this information can be misused or leaked by malicious actors.

Botnet Attacks & DDoS Threats

Cybercriminals hijack unprotected IoT devices to form botnets, which are used to launch massive Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks. These attacks can cripple networks and cause disruptions to online services.

Unsecured Wi-Fi Networks

Many Indian households rely on poorly secured Wi-Fi connections, providing an easy entry point for hackers. Without encryption or strong passwords, attackers can intercept sensitive information and compromise connected devices.

Absence of Specific Cybersecurity Legislation for IoT

India has advanced in data protection with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, but there is no dedicated IoT security framework. The absence of it leaves the manufacturer to choose cost over security and sell devices which are not so well protected in the market.

How to Secure Smart Homes & Connected Devices

Change Default Credentials

Always change the default usernames and passwords of the IoT after installation. Use strong, unique passwords and implement multi-factor authentication wherever possible.

Update Firmware Periodically

Scan for software and security updates on all smart devices, and install them as soon as they are available. In case your device can no longer get any updates, consider replacing it with a newer version that is at least as secure.

Secure Your Wi-Fi Network

Use a robust Wi-Fi password, and make sure WPA3 encryption is turned on. Limit remote access to your router, and make an IoT-specific network so that those devices can't contaminate your primary network.

Firewall & Security Solutions The use of firewalls and network security solutions monitors traffic and can block malicious activity on IoT networks. 5. Limit Data Sharing & Permissions

Assess permission for smart appliances and reduce or limit the devices from accessing unsecured personal information. De-activate unused add-ons, remote access in devices.

Cyber Security Courses

IoT-based cyber-attacks are minimized if awareness against the threat builds. To boost that awareness further, take time out to become a certified graduate of cyber security by signing for courses in areas like best security practices, principles of ethical hacking, and defending digital systems.

Road Ahead to Improving Indian IoT Security:

The Indian government, device manufacturers, and consumers must take proactive steps to mitigate IoT security risks. Stronger security standards, public awareness, and robust cybersecurity laws are the need of the hour to secure the future of IoT in India.

Conclusion

IoT devices offer incredible convenience but also introduce significant security risks. Protecting smart homes and connected devices requires a combination of best practices, awareness, and robust cybersecurity measures. By staying informed and adopting the right security strategies, individuals can ensure a safer IoT experience.

If you’re passionate about cybersecurity and want to build expertise in protecting digital systems, consider taking a cyber security course to gain hands-on knowledge and skills in ethical hacking, network security, and data protection.

[dailyanarchistposts]

J.4.7 What about the communications revolution?

Another important factor working in favour of anarchists is the existence of a sophisticated global communications network and a high degree of education and literacy among the populations of the core industrialised nations. Together these two developments make possible nearly instantaneous sharing and public dissemination of information by members of various progressive and radical movements all over the globe — a phenomenon that tends to reduce the effectiveness of repression by central authorities. The electronic-media and personal-computer revolutions also make it more difficult for elitist groups to maintain their previous monopolies of knowledge. Copy-left software and text, user-generated and shared content, file-sharing, all show that information, and its users, reaches its full potential when it is free. In short, the advent of the Information Age is potentially extremely subversive.

The very existence of the Internet provides anarchists with a powerful argument that decentralised structures can function effectively in a highly complex world. For the net has no centralised headquarters and is not subject to regulation by any centralised regulatory agency, yet it still manages to function effectively. Moreover, the net is also an effective way of anarchists and other radicals to communicate their ideas to others, share knowledge, work on common projects and co-ordinate activities and social struggle. By using the Internet, radicals can make their ideas accessible to people who otherwise would not come across anarchist ideas. In addition, and far more important than anarchists putting their ideas across, the fact is that the net allows everyone with access to express themselves freely, to communicate with others and get access (by visiting webpages and joining mailing lists and newsgroups) and give access (by creating webpages and joining in with on-line arguments) to new ideas and viewpoints. This is very anarchistic as it allows people to express themselves and start to consider new ideas, ideas which may change how they think and act.

Obviously we are aware that the vast majority of people in the world do not have access to telephones, never mind computers, but computer access is increasing in many countries, making it available, via work, libraries, schools, universities, and so on to more and more working class people.

Of course there is no denying that the implications of improved communications and information technology are ambiguous, implying Big Brother as well the ability of progressive and radical movements to organise. However, the point is only that the information revolution in combination with the other social developments could (but will not necessarily) contribute to a social paradigm shift. Obviously such a shift will not happen automatically. Indeed, it will not happen at all unless there is strong resistance to governmental and corporate attempts to limit public access to information, technology (e.g. encryption programs), censor peoples’ communications and use of electronic media and track them on-line.

This use of the Internet and computers to spread the anarchist message is ironic. The rapid improvement in price-performance ratios of computers, software, and other technology today is often used to validate the faith in free market capitalism but that requires a monumental failure of historical memory as not just the Internet but also the computer represents a spectacular success of public investment. As late as the 1970s and early 1980s, according to Kenneth Flamm’s Creating the Computer, the federal government was paying for 40 percent of all computer-related research and 60 to 75 percent of basic research. Even such modern-seeming gadgets as video terminals, the light pen, the drawing tablet, and the mouse evolved from Pentagon-sponsored research in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Even software was not without state influence, with databases having their root in US Air Force and Atomic Energy Commission projects, artificial intelligence in military contracts back in the 1950s and airline reservation systems in 1950s air-defence systems. More than half of IBM’s Research and Development budget came from government contracts in the 1950s and 1960s.

The motivation was national security, but the result has been the creation of comparative advantage in information technology for the United States that private firms have happily exploited and extended. When the returns were uncertain and difficult to capture, private firms were unwilling to invest, and government played the decisive role. And not for want of trying, for key players in the military first tried to convince businesses and investment bankers that a new and potentially profitable business opportunity was presenting itself, but they did not succeed and it was only when the market expanded and the returns were more definite that the government receded. While the risks and development costs were socialised, the gains were privatised. All of which make claims that the market would have done it anyway highly unlikely.

Looking beyond state aid to the computer industry we discover a “do-it-yourself” (and so self-managed) culture which was essential to its development. The first personal computer, for example, was invented by amateurs who wanted their own cheap machines. The existence of a “gift” economy among these amateurs and hobbyists was a necessary precondition for the development of PCs. Without this free sharing of information and knowledge, the development of computers would have been hindered and so socialistic relations between developers and within the working environment created the necessary conditions for the computer revolution. If this community had been marked by commercial relations, the chances are the necessary breakthroughs and knowledge would have remained monopolised by a few companies or individuals, so hindering the industry as a whole.

Encouragingly, this socialistic “gift economy” is still at the heart of computer/software development and the Internet. For example, the Free Software Foundation has developed the General Public Licence (GPL). GPL, also know as

“copyleft”, uses copyright to ensure that software remains free. Copyleft ensures that a piece of software is made available to everyone to use and modify as they desire. The only restriction is that any used or modified copyleft material must remain under copyleft, ensuring that others have the same rights as you did when you used the original code. It creates a commons which anyone may add to, but no one may subtract from. Placing software under GPL means that every contributor is assured that she, and all other uses, will be able to run, modify and redistribute the code indefinitely. Unlike commercial software, copyleft code ensures an increasing knowledge base from which individuals can draw from and, equally as important, contribute to. In this way everyone benefits as code can be improved by everyone, unlike commercial code.

Many will think that this essentially anarchistic system would be a failure. In fact, code developed in this way is far more reliable and sturdy than commercial software. Linux, for example, is a far superior operating system than DOS precisely because it draws on the collective experience, skill and knowledge of thousands of developers. Apache, the most popular web-server, is another freeware product and is acknowledged as the best available. The same can be said of other key web-technologies (most obviously PHP) and projects (Wikipedia springs to mind, although that project while based on co-operative and free activity is owned by a few people who have ultimate control). While non-anarchists may be surprised, anarchists are not. Mutual aid and co-operation are beneficial in the evolution of life, why not in the evolution of software? For anarchists, this “gift economy” at the heart of the communications revolution is an important development. It shows both the superiority of common development as well as the walls built against innovation and decent products by property systems. We hope that such an economy will spread increasingly into the “real” world.

Another example of co-operation being aided by new technologies is Netwar. This refers to the use of the Internet by autonomous groups and social movements to co-ordinate action to influence and change society and fight government or business policy. This use of the Internet has steadily grown over the years, with a Rand corporation researcher, David Ronfeldt, arguing that this has become an important and powerful force (Rand is, and has been since its creation in 1948, a private appendage of the military industrial complex). In other words, activism and activists’ power and influence has been fuelled by the advent of the information revolution. Through computer and communication networks, especially via the Internet, grassroots campaigns have flourished, and the most importantly, government elites have taken notice.

Ronfeldt specialises in issues of national security, especially in the areas of Latin American and the impact of new informational technologies. Ronfeldt and another colleague coined the term

“netwar” in a Rand document entitled “Cyberwar is Coming!”. Ronfeldt’s work became a source of discussion on the Internet in mid-March 1995 when Pacific News Service correspondent Joel Simon wrote an article about Ronfeldt’s opinions on the influence of netwars on the political situation in Mexico after the Zapatista uprising. According to Simon, Ronfeldt holds that the work of social activists on the Internet has had a large influence — helping to co-ordinate the large demonstrations in Mexico City in support of the Zapatistas and the proliferation of EZLN communiqués across the world via computer networks. These actions, Ronfeldt argues, have allowed a network of groups that oppose the Mexican Government to muster an international response, often within hours of actions by it. In effect, this has forced the Mexican government to maintain the facade of negotiations with the EZLN and has on many occasions, actually stopped the army from just going in to Chiapas and brutally massacring the Zapatistas.

Given that Ronfeldt was an employee of the Rand Corporation his comments indicate that the U.S. government and its military and intelligence wings are very interested in what the Left is doing on the Internet. Given that they would not be interested in this if it were not effective, we can say that this use of the “Information Super-Highway” is a positive example of the use of technology in ways un-planned of by those who initially developed it (let us not forget that the Internet was originally funded by the U.S. government and military). While the internet is being hyped as the next big marketplace, it is being subverted by activists — an example of anarchistic trends within society worrying the powers that be.

A good example of this powerful tool is the incredible speed and range at which information travels the Internet about events concerning Mexico and the Zapatistas. When Alexander Cockburn wrote an article exposing a Chase Manhattan Bank memo about Chiapas and the Zapatistas in Counterpunch, only a small number of people read it because it is only a newsletter with a limited readership. The memo, written by Riordan Roett, argued that “the [Mexican] government will need to eliminate the Zapatistas to demonstrate their effective control of the national territory and of security policy”. In other words, if the Mexican government wants investment from Chase, it would have to crush the Zapatistas. This information was relatively ineffective when just confined to print but when it was uploaded to the Internet, it suddenly reached a very large number of people. These people in turn co-ordinated protests against the U.S and Mexican governments and especially Chase Manhattan. Chase was eventually forced to attempt to distance itself from the Roett memo that it commissioned. Since then net-activism has grown.

Ronfeldt’s research and opinion should be flattering for the Left. He is basically arguing that the efforts of activists on computers not only has been very effective (or at least has that potential), but more importantly, argues that the only way to counter this work is to follow the lead of social activists. Activists should understand the important implications of Ronfeldt’s work: government elites are not only watching these actions (big surprise) but are also attempting to work against them. Thus Netwars and copyleft are good examples of anarchistic trends within society, using communications technology as a means of co-ordinating activity across the world in a libertarian fashion for libertarian goals.