Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday November 16 2019, @07:16AM   Printer-friendly
from the SawStop dept.

Submitted via IRC for soylent_fuschia

Vendor wants Congress to mandate something that only they can provide. Interesting business model.

Brave Urges Congress to Require Ad Blocking Browsers for Govt Employees

In a letter to the U.S. Congress, Brave urged Homeland Security Committee members to make it mandatory for all federal employees to use a browser that blocks advertising by default.

Brave states that without a browser that blocks ads by default, federal employees would be vulnerable to malvertising, which could allow foreign and domestic threat actors to gain access to government devices or a foothold in sensitive networks.

"I represent Brave, a rapidly growing Internet browser based in San Francisco. Brave’s CEO, Brendan Eich, is the inventor of JavaScript, and co-founded Mozilla/Firefox. Brave is headquartered in San Francisco. I write to urge action to protect federal agency and employee computers and devices from cyberattacks by foreign state actors and criminals through “malvertising”."

Brave's letter also includes letters from U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, who since 2017 has been urging the federal government to take a stronger stance regarding the blocking of malicious advertisements.

One year ago, on November 16, 2017, I wrote to then-White House Cybersecurity Coordinator, Rob Joyce, regarding the threat posed by foreign government hackers using online advertisements to deliver malware to the computers of federal workers. In that letter, I urged the administration to direct DHS to require federal agencies to block delivery of all internet ads containing executable computer code to employees computers. In its response on April 20, 2018, DHS stated that it was continuing to investigate these risks and working with representatives from the online advertising industry to address this threat.

In June 2018, the National Security Agency (NSA) issued public guidance related to the threat posed by malicious advertisements. In the attached document, which NSA published on its website, the agency observed that advertising has been a known malware distribution vector for over a decade and as such, the agency recommends that organizations address this risk by blocking potentially malicious, internet-based advertisements.

As Brave sent this letter on the same day they officially released Brave Browser 1.0, this can be seen as a clever marketing ploy by the browser developers.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Saturday November 16 2019, @02:15PM (1 child)

    by VLM (445) on Saturday November 16 2019, @02:15PM (#920970)

    One of the crazier ones is that without special permission, you can't use encryption.

    When I was in the military, they were disturbed by the idea that giant encrypted GPG file could be some whistleblower stuff, could be stolen files being sold to Russia, or it could be harmless pix of naked college cheerleaders but they have no idea how to determine what it is so they'd kind HAVE to freak out. And why would you encrypt perfectly legal pix of nude college chix so obviously anything encrypted is James Bond villain spy stuff...

    No foreigners were involved in the making of Windows.

    I think you're confusing safer with easier to raid and prosecute an office in SF than in India or China. Big enough target, you can assume you're gonna get hit, its all about ease of retribution at that point. MS can be squeezed, some randos in New Delhi not so much

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Saturday November 16 2019, @07:06PM

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Saturday November 16 2019, @07:06PM (#921043) Journal

    I think you're probably right about raiding and prosecuting. They want people they can hold accountable. The military is very big on personal responsibility and accountability, finding someone to blame no matter the circumstances. Like, if a navy ship runs aground or collides for any reason whatsoever, the captain takes the fall. Doesn't matter if there's all kinds of evidence it wasn't the captain's fault. And that's actually an improvement from the days of the expectation that the captain goes down with the ship.

    Shit rolls downhill.