Magazine menu Close Magazine menu

Blockchain

Latest stories

Person sits at a desktop computer ticking ballot boxes as if voting in an election, with a monitor shaped like a big padlock.

Is digital voting secure enough for national elections?

  • min read
    • With rising prices leading to political instability and voter turnout down around the globe, policymakers should also be asking how the can re-engage citizens in democracy. You've probably not seen that question answered quite so cluelessly as my local council in the run-up to its 2019 election, by sticking giant poo emojis all over town. Surprise – it didn't work. Voter turnout fell six percentage points on the previous election. Among the Facebook fury that called the poo emoji campaign tasteless and patronizing, a lone voice suggested another way to achieve the campaign's aim. "I filled in my voting papers a couple of weeks ago, but it's sitting in its envelope still, ready to be posted. When I get the chance to swing by a post box, I will, but it's not something I do these days. Bring voting into the click-of-a-button digital world, and you will have voters." Could it possibly be that simple? Voter turnout is falling in almost every country – a trend that started around 1990. When we've fought life-and-death battles to vote, could inconvenience really put people off something so important? It's certainly plausible –  behavioral science shows small changes in environment can make a big difference to what people choose to do. I asked democracy campaigners and commentators in several countries where they stand on digital voting. Do they think it will soon be feasible for national elections? Proportional representation may be fairer, but does it get us voting? Josiah Mortimer of the UK Electoral Reform Society dismisses digital voting entirely. "There are more pressing problems with the voting system than going to a polling station or getting a postal vote. Major privacy, accuracy and trust concerns have not been dealt with, and we feel the issue is a distraction from the real democratic crisis. The priority is ensuring every vote counts – in the UK by switching to proportional representation, modernizing voter registration and improving citizenship education." Proportional representation describes any electoral system that ensures the proportion of representatives elected matches their party's share of the overall vote. That's distinct from non-proportional systems like first-past-the-post or electoral college, where winning certain areas can see a party less popular overall gaining power. Proportional representation might make for fairer results, but could it reverse declining voter turnout? After New Zealand adopted proportional representation in 1993, voter turnout fell for many years, to an all-time low in 2011. Then, it started rising again, with their October 2020 election seeing the highest turnout in many years. Whatever drives New Zealand's election turn-out, there's more to it than proportional representation. For its "privacy, accuracy and trust" concerns around digital voting, Electoral Reform Society pointed me to a 2015 article, Why we can't vote online. It describes designing online systems that match the secrecy, accuracy and verifiability of paper as "incredibly hard," referencing flaws found in Estonia's election system in 2014. The article's arguments may have been fair and accurate at the time, but what about today? Five years is a long time in technology, and in the number of eligible voters who expect to do everything digitally. Ballot secrecy is the heart of the issue Lawrence Norden, Director for Election Reform and Democracy at the US's Brennan Center for Justice, often writes on security and electronic voting. He's optimistic online voting could one day be secure enough to rely upon, but cautions against 'too much, too soon'. "Election officials shouldn't be left on their own to figure out whether a system is secure and reliable. It is possible that one day, we can develop such a system. But currently, there are no generally accepted benchmarks to evaluate the security of online voting pilots." Norden places safeguarding electronic voting suppliers in his top two priorities. "We need a federal certification framework for election system vendors and their products. Hackers targeted vendors in 2016. We have little insight into vendors' internal cybersecurity practices, who works for them and who owns them. This is more of a security risk than we should be willing to accept." This makes sense, given supply chain attacks are common. Norden thinks ballot secrecy is the big challenge for voting online. "When we rely on software to provide us with election totals, as in the US, we must have a way to confirm the totals are accurate. The best way, while maintaining ballot secrecy, is to check the paper record against the electronic totals. There is no such record in paperless electronic machines or online ballots. If a hacker changes a vote transmitted over the internet, we might not know." Norden highlights voters can still do a lot to protect their vote from cyberattack. "They should check their voter registration online. They could volunteer to work on election day. They can learn the rules for how and when to vote early – the earlier people vote, the less chance a cyberattack can interfere with their ability to cast a ballot that will count." What does secure digital voting look like? Dr. Muhammad Rizwan Asghar, Senior Lecturer, School of Computer Science at the University of Auckland, is another frequent commentator on digital voting. Does he think online voting could be secure enough to be the election standard sooner, later or never? "One might argue if Estonia can do online voting, any country can, but this might not be true. There have been reported vulnerabilities on the voter and voting server ends. Even if we assume there are no issues with existing online voting systems, Estonia is a tech-oriented country with a population of just 1.3 million. "Addressing security risk for online voting means mitigating cybersecurity challenges at the user, communication and server levels. An online voting system needs a form of vote integrity, so votes can be tallied while ensuring voter privacy. Cryptographic schemes achieve this. Each voter encrypts her vote. Using a public bulletin board, voters can see the votes they cast. Once all the votes are cast, they're summed using homomorphic encryption, then the final sum decrypted. The decryption key is split among a set of trusted authorities who must collaborate to reveal the final result. It's promising, but not enough on its own. Some cybersecurity experts say there will never be anything safer than in-person voting with paper slips, but Dr. Asghar points out, "Each approach has its issues. In paper-based elections, people can be prevented from reaching polling booths. They can be harassed or coerced. A returning officer can spoil ballots. We can address most of these concerns using online voting. It could also make voting more accessible and help get results faster. But recent reports show voting servers are an attractive target for state-sponsored attackers. They can make servers unavailable using Denial of Service (DoS) or Distributed DoS (DDoS) attacks." What should any authority considering online voting learn from Estonia? "Estonia has made their system's source code public to foster trust and minimize the potential attack surface. They have internet and computer training programs for voters. If a voter has been coerced, they can go back later and change their vote or even vote in person on election day." Despite his optimism for the future of online voting, Dr. Asghar says it's hard to imagine online voting being ready for national-level elections in the next few years. "Not only is developing the system highly challenging, there must also be training in how to use it." How will we come to trust digital voting? British political philosopher Baroness Onora O'Neill speaks in her lecture series, A Question of Trust, of how public institutions should aim, rather than to be trusted, to be trustworthy. She argues it is being trustworthy that creates trust. The same may be true of electronic voting. For the public to trust it, it must prove itself trustworthy. Many of the risks of digital voting exist with paper-based voting and are as hard to detect in that setting. Secure, digital voting would offer voters protection paper cannot. The Brennan Center's Lawrence Norden makes sense when he says digital democracy shouldn't be rushed. But it seems high time to trial digital voting alongside existing options for lower-risk, local elections. In the face of plummeting voter engagement and global recession, the need to re-engage voters can't be put aside – trust in government depends on it. Policymakers must acknowledge technology has changed everything about how voters live. It must inevitably change how we vote.
cryptomining

Cryptojacking could be costing your business and the Earth

  • min read
    • As you read this, a cybercriminal could be stealing your business's electricity and computer processing power. 'Cryptojacking' means high energy bills for business and a big environmental impact everyone wants to avoid. Cryptojacking is illegally using another's devices for the power needed to mine cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. The threat is already common and fast-growing, costing business billions worldwide and responsible for significant, unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions. So, what can you do to stop it? How cryptojackers compromise your servers and devices To use your processing power, cryptojackers must sneak mining malware into your systems. They may enter your equipment thanks to leaked login details, brute force or through unpatched vulnerabilities in your operating system and other software. They may also get crypto-mining malware in through USB flash drives or network storage. Once inside, it spreads in a worm-like way. What cryptojacking costs business We've all seen news reports of falling cryptocurrency values, but it's still worthwhile for cybercriminals to mine cryptocurrency if they get electricity and processing power for free. But it takes a lot of electricity and processing power to make little gain – a hefty 53 US dollars of system resources for 1 US dollar in crypto earnings. And it's common. In 2022, Kaspersky research found cryptojacking accounted for more than 5 percent of attacks on internet-connected computers. In the same year, Kaspersky software detected nearly 30 million cryptojacking attempts aimed at business systems. Environmental impact of cryptojacking Its sky-high energy use should make preventing cryptojacking part of your corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategy. What to ask your IT director about While cryptojacking's high computational power requirements reduce device performance, the reduction isn't always obvious to users, so preventing cryptojacking requires work on multiple fronts. IT should regularly audit the corporate network looking for anomalies across every endpoint, including easily overlooked queue management systems, point-of-sale terminals and vending machines, which cryptojackers have been known to target. Your business should use proven endpoint security that gives multi-level, comprehensive protection, including behavioral detection that can roll back  malicious actions. Cybersecurity education for all employees (not just IT) is paramount, making sure staff follow best practice so they don't unwittingly give away system access. Cryptojacking is a damaging and wasteful threat leading to unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions and high electricity bills for businesses already challenged by high energy costs. With widespread staff cybersecurity education and the right solutions protecting your business, cybercriminals won't be able to exploit your precious processing power.
blockchain disinformation

How one high-tech solution is helping fight fake news

  • min read
    • As ways to create and disseminate disinformation get more sophisticated and widely available, it's getting harder to tell fact and fiction. But the next version of the internet, Web3, might offer a 'force field' that could protect citizens from this troubling phenomenon. Start-ups and established media companies are using blockchain as part of solutions that aim to verify information and filter out false news. Is this what the world needs now, or could it open the door to even more disinformation? Fakes harder to tell from reality "There's huge money and huge power in fake news. We've seen it here in the US and around the world," says Jim Nasr, CEO of blockchain developer Acoer. Acoer created blockchain-based news platform NewsHash. Disinformation can have far-reaching and sometimes dangerous impacts. We saw this over the pandemic years especially, with rampant covid-related medical disinformation. Tommaso Canetta, vice director of Italian fact-checking agency Pagella Politica, says how false news spreads is "ever-changing. It can [come from] and go in every direction – from traditional to online media to politicians, or the other way around." A 2020 Reuters report found over 56 percent of internet users are worried if they can tell fake from real online. And 'deepfakes' – highly realistic looking audio, video and photos created using AI – further muddy the waters. A technological solution for filtering out fakes? Blockchain could create a 'built-in truth index' for the internet, effectively labeling and verifying each piece of information, creating a sort of watermark for authenticity. Used the right way, this could help people be sure news and media they receive are real. But it's complicated. Using blockchain in journalism might solve some problems but create others. For example, it may trigger more sophisticated disinformation, poor transparency or a single company like Meta (formerly Facebook) dominating the industry. What is blockchain? Blockchain stores information as blocks added in chronological order to a virtual 'chain,' stored securely and permanently. Once added to the chain, blocks are hard to change. Well-known blockchain platforms like Bitcoin and Ethereum use it to store financial transaction information, but the technology can also store and distribute news. Blockchain-based news platforms provide a secure and decentralized way to store verified information, which cannot be changed – like putting a digital watermark on verified news stories. Initiatives like the now-defunct Civil for journalism, Steemit for social media and Truepic for photo and video let publishers permanently link verified information to content in a blockchain. New York Times is also developing a blockchain-news platform, News Provenance Project. Fighting a powerful form of disinformation, miscaptioning – real photos or videos described in misleading ways – the project uses blockchain to permanently attach context (like who shot the film or image, when and where) to media. Acoer's NewsHash works by giving an article an encrypted hash (a unique string of characters) containing metadata added by the publisher, like the author's name and a publication identification number. "If the article changes in any way – even the most minuscule change – we can tell," says CEO Nasr. "And all in real-time." Readers can scan a QR code, which consults the blockchain to check whether an article or video is real. Nasr's company also assigns 'confidence scores,' rating information's authenticity. But while blockchain-based platforms can help protect against doctored images or false news pretending to be from a reputed source, they may also create new problems. But what's further up the chain? Technologies chasing a disinformation-free internet can backfire by encouraging more sophisticated disinformation or offering different versions of 'the truth.' Nasr says there are blind spots when publishing a completed news article on the blockchain because there are many places data can come from. The immutable nature of blockchain also means it may become harder to correct inadvertent errors in published material, making journalism as a whole seem like a less trustworthy source. Another issue is the potential for centralization – a single platform or business may start to dominate the news. "It's easy for an AI algorithm or company to become a centralized location for everything. It's like the internet – the idea is great, but we now have four companies [Meta, Amazon, Apple and Google] dominating it," says Nasr. "That's why we use a public ledger, instead of specific tools or proprietary algorithms, to [let readers] interrogate how we're getting there." The first and second lines of defense aren't technology With advances in AI, video and image editing software, tools for spreading disinformation will improve. Deepfake videos have already fooled internet users many times. "With the progress of fact-checking and technological tools to fight disinformation, we'll also see more complex disinformation," says Canetta. There's also a paradox in journalism requiring trust, while blockchain seeks to eliminate the need for trust. "Journalism is built around gatekeeping. You need someone to approve a story before it goes online – a hierarchy or system in place to ensure quality," says Walid Al-Saqaf, former journalist and senior lecturer in media technology and journalism at Södertörn University, Sweden. "But the notion of Bitcoin and the original blockchain was that you don't need trust." Canetta believes awareness and media literacy are the first and second lines of defense in fighting disinformation. He feels blockchain journalism isn't a silver bullet because "misinformation is not just an online phenomenon. We must teach school children that while they have access to unlimited information, not all of it is true or accurate." Using blockchain to secure other information Decentralized platforms like blockchain have many applications, like more secure communication between organizations, facilitating payroll and making auditing easier. Start-ups are working on blockchain systems that authenticate supply chains, enable digital voting, create and implement smart contracts and more. Within companies, blockchain can help secure data and make sure digital communications aren't altered. But it's not failsafe. For example, an unauthorized user can access a blockchain with a stolen password. And although it would require significant resources, it's possible to take over a whole blockchain and force a change. As blockchain evolves, so will ways to hack into it. Keeping systems updated and secure, and following security best practice will remain crucial to safer business.
cryptocurrency regulation

Regulating cryptocurrency needn’t kill the Bitcoin buzz

  • min read
    • There are more cryptocurrency users worldwide than people living in Canada. As of mid-2020, there were 40 million. That's not surprising, given cryptocurrency's many attractions, but projected market growth between 2019 and 2025 – at 50 percent – seems modest. An indication of why might be found in an October 2020 report, in which global financial services giant PwC (formerly known as PricewaterhouseCoopers) implores businesses to look seriously at blockchain while all but dismissing cryptocurrencies. They're bothered by the state of cryptocurrency regulation: Regulation may be one of the main showstoppers in cryptocurrency. While blockchain-based startups and crypto-related companies are in their heyday, it's hard for government agencies to keep up with their speed, and some countries are taking a conservative approach. Let's look at crypto regulation today, the risks and what can be done about them. Cryptocurrency regulation around the world More countries now realize cryptocurrencies are an inevitable part of their financial system. So they're starting to regulate rather than restrict. Europe The European Union is on the progressive side in regulation, but the regulations in Europe also vary among member countries. In 2015 the European Court of Justice ruled cryptocurrency exchanges exempt from value-added tax. When it comes to anti-money laundering and safety, all European countries follow the 2019 Financial Action Task Force standards. These say crypto sites must comply with 'know your customer' and anti-money laundering rules, and share data with the regulator. USA In the US, cryptocurrencies are not integrated into the country's financial structure, mostly thanks to their Securities and Exchange Commission regulation and suspension of crypto trading in 2020. While federal and state governments have engaged with the issue, there's been little formal rulemaking. Regulation is different state to state. For example, Wyoming passed a bill exempting cryptocurrencies from property tax, and New York brought in restrictive rules that saw many crypto-related companies leaving the state. Russia While Russians, in general, are rather crypto-friendly, the Russian government hasn't yet decided what Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are and seem mostly hostile toward them. In July 2020, Russian authorities accepted a bill, On Digital Financial Assets, expected to be adopted in early 2021. It legitimizes cryptocurrency trading but bans cryptocurrencies as a payment method. India In 2020 the Indian crypto community won a two-year-long battle with the Reserve Bank of India. Cryptocurrency exchanges in India rushed to re-integrate banking solutions supporting the Indian Rupee. A few months later, the government's focus changed. India now plans to introduce a law banning cryptocurrency trading. What are the risks of working with cryptocurrencies? When working with crypto, the biggest risk is the unknown. Many gray zones could be harmful to crypto companies, especially those providing coin and wallet exchanging services or accounts for storing them. Entrepreneurs in crypto have a hard task to ensure customer funds and data are secure, prevent fraud and meet all legal requirements, but it doesn't stop thousands of companies operating in the crypto field. For example, Google Pay enables crypto payments. Aside from extra attention to constantly changing legislation, many risks are covered by know-your-customer procedures and multi-factor authentication. On fraud prevention, risks are like those every fintech company faces. Stolen or hacked cards, wallets and accounts are the most popular tidbit for scammers. In the crypto field, it's especially dangerous because blockchain transactions are irreversible. Crypto exchanges are also obliged to detect transactions that could be high risk, such as forex, gambling and unregulated pharmacies. The crypto field should focus mainly on preventing fraudulent or suspicious operations — such precedents can cost companies operating licenses in the blink of an eye. How could regulation around cryptocurrency help? Business often sees regulation negatively, but it can work. Having a certified, coordinated system, although it may reduce efficiency, is easier than running a business in total uncertainty. Regulation would probably also speed mass adoption of crypto assets by traditional financial institutions, legitimizing cryptocurrencies for many. Although it's a global currency, global regulation is unlikely. Even if there were something that glues all countries together, the currency might not handle it. Today, crypto assets don't even have a clear definition. Their legal status is up for discussion in many countries. It would be simpler for companies and clients to have one comprehensive regulation. The EU's requirements make it relatively easy to operate in its 27 countries. Ironically, enthusiasts believed blockchain would bring global accessibility and decentralization, but one of its main impediments is what they fought against. Crypto businesses can encourage regulation that will bring greater security for users without being overly restrictive. The main safety concern with cryptocurrency is how well users understand it before entering the market. Some platforms in the crypto field give misleading or confusing information, or use gambling, forex business models or scams. These practices cast a shadow over legitimate companies, forcing regulators to implement restrictions for investor safety. It's far from the prevailing wisdom among crypto enthusiasts to promote a "safety first" approach over reduced responsibility for crypto-related companies. But safety doesn't have to mean restrictions. Every reputable company should play their part in creating a safer crypto world.
provenance interview

Blockchain start-up is cleaning ‘greenwashing’ out of retail

  • min read
    • How often have you felt a prickle of guilt when you bought something because you didn't know if it had been ethically made? This conundrum made British tech entrepreneur Jessi Baker found Provenance, which uses blockchain to make supply chains transparent. They're taking on 'greenwashing:' When brands spout ethical claims without credible evidence to support them. It's a beautiful use for blockchain: A decentralized, open and permanent way to track information stored in virtual 'blocks' (transaction records) connected in a chain. Provenance uses blockchain to confirm statements brands make about their product's impact, from raw materials to the customer. The European Commission recently awarded the start-up's latest innovation, Proof Points, 1 million Euro as part of the EU Horizon Blockchains for Social Good award. Businesses can use Proof Points to verify claims. They attach documentation to support their claim and invite an independent third party to verify it. Once verified, the Proof Point earns a green tick, stored as a permanent, public record. Online retailer Cult Beauty uses Proof Points to categorize products in their "conscious edit." Product pages for their eco-friendly offerings feature icons such as 'organic,' 'clinically-tested' and 'vegan.' Verified claims show a green tick. Customers can have confidence in the item's ethical credentials, and Cult Beauty gains credibility in a competitive market. I asked Jessi how Provenance is shaking up retail using innovative tech. Angharad: Tell us about your vision for Provenance. Jessi: Businesses are getting away with greenwashing to grow their brands. They know people want to buy products that align with their values, but some don't want to put the work in to make sure their product lives up to the claims. Jessi Baker,  Provenance founder You'll see "powered by Provenance" at point-of-sale online, in-store and with QR codes on products. In August 2020, we launched QR codes on millions of cans of Napolina tinned tomatoes in supermarkets across the UK. Customers can pick products that match their values in the same way you see reviews "powered by Trustpilot." People can be more conscious and purposeful in their purchases, creating a greener and fairer world. Why choose blockchain for this? It's a new way to store and share information that's transparent and auditable – anyone can see all the records. It's also decentralized – the information is stored in a way that's not owned by one company. It's open for anyone to take part, and one person or organization can't control it for their gain. Finally, the data can't be changed, so there's trust in knowing everyone has the same, unaltered information. Blockchain's nature as an open, (largely) incorruptible and decentralized network means it empowers people across the supply chain. It fosters equality as it brings suppliers, people and practices out of the shadows in a format everyone can trust. How has Provenance made a positive impact? We've done some large pilots in the food and drink industry, now going beyond track and trace to focus on social impact. In a recent project with tinned tomato brand Napolina, we've addressed illegal labor in Italy's tomato industry, bringing proof of their responsible sourcing into the hands of shoppers. What did you do before founding Provenance? I studied manufacturing engineering at University of Cambridge. In my early 20s, I spent time working with supply chains. I was then a Creative Technologist at a leading advertising agency, working with large brands. I've always loved technology, so with Provenance as a side project, I began a Ph.D. in Computer Science at University College London, looking at how new technologies could give trustworthy transparency on the impact of products. You're an inspirational leader in tech. How important is seeing representation, diversity and inclusion among your peers? Provenance has been lucky to have fantastic women leaders. We received investment and support from two inspiring early board members, Alexsis de Raadt-St James and Chemain Sanan. Another woman who's been a great mentor and coach is Alicia Navarro, who built Skimlinks from nothing to a turnover of 50 million US dollars. The start-up journey has a million unknowns. To have her guiding me through launching my own company has been amazing. What does the future hold for Provenance? We're at an incredible juncture. The 1 million Euro award by the European Commission has given us much-needed confidence and support to super-charge our initiatives. We were early for the market when I launched Provenance, but we've now spent years working with pioneering brands and speaking to conscious shoppers. We're finally seeing it become more mainstream. Today, brands can still greenwash. Tomorrow, they'll have to prove it. Consistency and honesty about social impact will let brands of the future win.
blockchain business vulnerabilities

Blockchain security isn’t bullet-proof. Here’s how to not get hacked.

  • min read
    • According to a PwC survey (of 600 business executives in 15 countries,) 84 percent of respondents are actively involved with blockchain. Blockchain is just one example of a distributed ledger technology (DLT), a digital system for recording the transaction of assets (money or data) without a central data store or admin functionality. More companies are turning to DLTs like blockchain to help streamline their business, improve data transparency and reduce operational costs. From smart contracts that automate secure payments to managing customer interactions, blockchain can improve how we do business. But, like any emerging technology, new risks and vulnerabilities can cause damage. We'll get into that, but first, an important distinction. Public vs. private distributed ledgers Public ledgers mean an open network which anyone can join and contribute to. They work best for cryptocurrencies, due to anonymity features and allowing transactions across borders. Then there are private or enterprise DLTs. These identify and authorize users and determine their roles. Data is encrypted and only authorized users can operate it. Read more about both here. Let's explore private DLTs, which more companies are using for their benefits, from accelerated workflows to authenticating data. Joint ventures on blockchain DLTs are great for joint ventures – notably because they act as both a registry and a financial database for payments and transactions between partners, which are logged and approved by all participants on the blockchain. It's a trusted, transparent system – everyone authorized has access to data and knows how it's logged. Essential features are decentralization (for data transparency and trust), scalability (which enables adding new participants to the network) and the use of smart contracts. But centralization can create a security risk. Blockchain data is trusted when it's distributed, so the more nodes (those who have access to the blockchain system, either computer programs or authorized users) that can approve transactions, the more you can trust the data. That's why deploying blockchain within a single company or organization to secure data doesn't make much sense as "consensus" comes from a sole authority. Why one of the most successful enterprise blockchain platforms isn't as secure as you think One of the best known enterprise-grade platforms, Hyperledger Fabric, creates consensus using a permission voting algorithm. But how secure is it? Once the majority of nodes in the blockchain validate the transaction, we reach consensus and finality (a new block or sequence is added to the ledger.) Hyperledger Fabric provides channels – isolated "subnets" of data exchange between specific network members. It's useful for industrial and manufacturing scenarios where a blockchain may include potential competitors. The separate channels in Hyperledger Fabric can prevent data from being accessible to participants from outside of a designated channel. But the consensus mechanism could be misconfigured – this might happen at design and deployment stages, often revealed too late to fix easily because, for users, everything seems to be working fine. Then it can't validate nodes, even for transactions involving many participants across several channels. As a result, the consensus is limited to validators of a single channel who confirm adding the transaction to the blockchain. Beware of blockchain after a cyberattack Beware hacked user accounts. During a cyberattack, data could be tampered with and then submitted to the blockchain. For example, let's say a user is attacked while approving commercial purchase agreements in a joint venture, further executed by a smart contract. If the attacker gets access to the contract, they can tamper with the supplier's bank account and amount in the contract. The "correct" agreement will then trigger execution of a smart contract, meaning some or all of the money goes to the attacker. Due to blockchain's inherent immutability (i.e. it can't be changed), it's going to be very difficult (and expensive) to fix the incorrect data. What's more, if this data gets into smart contracts, the issue will snowball and subsequently cause big problems. In this purchase agreement example, to fix the incorrect transaction, payment needs to be reconciled. But that's not simple. They can try to stop and revert a bank transaction, but blockchain can't undo its immutable records. It will store information that a certain company (blockchain participant) has paid, whereas the supplier has not received the funds. It's a double loss: companies spent a fortune on the blockchain solution, then get their money stolen. Blockchain risks for large enterprises and corporate groups Similar blockchain technologies are used for transactions between banks or groups of banks. As the technologies are the same, they have the same vulnerabilities. This opens wide opportunities for an attacker: having performed a successful attack on one bank, they're more likely to be more successful and quicker with the same attack on another member of the group. If just one vulnerability of a single participant is exploited on the blockchain, there's a huge cybersecurity risk for other participants on the same system, running the risk of a mass leak of sensitive financial or private data across a group. Blockchain can cause a bottleneck Blockchain is designed for transactions, so it works well for trading and integrates with financial systems to support the supply of goods, automated pricing and using smart contracts to execute financial transactions. Smooth running in good times. But blockchain could also be a bottleneck. Lots of transactions are processed simultaneously, which a good platform should process rapidly. But if the system can't handle the load, it can fail. Getting blockchain right for your business There's no "one size fits all" with blockchain. Right now, given DLTs nascent maturity, it's difficult to know how well any individual solution will perform. It's unlikely we'll soon see a solution that works perfectly straight out of the box. You'll need to invest in customization to create the right process for your business needs. These steps can help plan your best-fit blockchain strategy. The right tools for the job Consider the process you want blockchain to automate. It should be iterative, involve many parties, and it shouldn't include data that needs to be modified or deleted. If it doesn't fit these criteria, blockchain and DLT isn't the right tech. Start the journey with small steps So you decide to launch on blockchain. Like other big IT projects, plan the rollout in stages to test and fine-tune. Keep in mind that DLT is most powerful at handling large-scale processes. You may not get immediate cost savings from a solution for one department, even if it works smoothly, but you can start small to test how it works. Then take the next step – scale to counterparties working with that department. Then get bigger by adding external suppliers. Even with blockchain, you still need to pay attention to cybersecurity Blockchain is more secure than many other enterprise data solutions, but it's not bullet-proof to cyberattacks. You'll need an endpoint cybersecurity solution on all corporate devices accessing the blockchain, which should be assessed with a third-party cybersecurity provider. Audit your smart contracts. A vulnerable or inconsistent contract may lead to an expensive problem to fix down the line. By deploying blockchain, you're establishing a new IT infrastructure in your organization. A vulnerability could lead to an attack and penetration of your corporate network. So new software and servers need protecting. Always use firewalls and install server cybersecurity tools to run scans, encrypt data and renew licenses. Finally, run a penetration test to reveal weak spots. All parties in your blockchain must apply the same level of security. Agree on common security policies with participants; it may be tricky due to different security practices but otherwise, your data and systems are at risk. There's no doubt; blockchain will revolutionize how companies collaborate for the better. But as with most new techs, pay attention to how you can best protect your data.
by Innovating leaders.
Innovative tech.
About Secure Futures

Secure Futures magazine is your go-to business guide for opinions, trends and insight into the world of technology and cybersecurity. We help your business to bring on the future. Brought to you by Kaspersky, the global cybersecurity experts.

  • For all other countries