DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

Victorian Auditor-General slams public sector privacy

Posted on November 26, 2009 by Dissent

Tim Lohman reports:

The confidentiality of personal information collected and used by the public sector can be, and has been, easily compromised, a Victorian Auditor-General report has found.

The Maintaining the Integrity and Confidentiality of Personal Information report, which examined information security in three Victorian government departments, found that the ability to penetrate databases, the consistency of its findings and the lack of effective oversight and coordination of information security practices strongly indicate that this phenomenon is widespread.

“This situation has arisen partly because information security policy, standards and guidance for the sector are incomplete and too narrowly focused on ICT security,” the report reads.

Read more on Computerworld (AU).

The full report can be found here (pdf). From the audit summary:

Databases that stored personal information could be accessed by unauthorised people, quickly and easily. This was because the information was not appropriately classified and the necessary controls were either missing, or were not operating as required.

Departments could not be sure their systems had not previously been breached and personal information accessed by unauthorised parties or stolen, because logs of access and changes were either not maintained or not reviewed on a timely basis.

Since the audit the departments have acted to improve security over the databases examined.

Data was transmitted from the three departments by emails in formats that were easily read. This means they could be accessed by someone other than the intended recipient.

Personal information was stored on portable storage devices, CDs and DVDs that are vulnerable to loss, in easily-read formats. Personal information was exchanged via personal email accounts, some of which were particularly vulnerable to unauthorised access. Extracts or whole copies of personal information from the selected databases were stored in unsecured shared drives on departmental networks accessible by unauthorised staff. Compliance by staff with information security requirements was not monitored by any of the three departments.

All three departments provide personal information to third parties—organisations that provide services on their behalf; that provide ICT services; or that host their information systems. Departments did not require independent certification, or carry out their own assessment, that the security third parties had in place met the required public sector security standards. There was little assurance that information was adequately
protected by third parties to whom the information was legitimately provided.

No related posts.

Category: Commentaries and AnalysesNon-U.S.Of Note

Post navigation

← UK: Action taken after details of 110,000 individuals are stolen
UK: Officers who passed on data details are named →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • Mississippi Law Firm Sues Cyber Insurer Over Coverage for Scam
  • Ukrainian Hackers Wipe 47TB of Data from Top Russian Military Drone Supplier
  • Computer Whiz Gets Suspended Sentence over 2019 Revenue Agency Data Breach
  • Ministry of Defence data breach timeline
  • Hackers Can Remotely Trigger the Brakes on American Trains and the Problem Has Been Ignored for Years
  • Ransomware in Italy, strike at the Diskstation gang: hacker group leader arrested in Milan
  • A year after cyber attack, Columbus could invest $23M in cybersecurity upgrades
  • Gravity Forms Breach Hits 1M WordPress Sites
  • Stormous claims to have protected health info on 600,000 patients of North Country Healthcare. The patient data appears fake. (2)
  • Back from the Brink: District Court Clears Air Regarding Individualized Damages Assessment in Data Breach Cases

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • The EU’s Plan To Ban Private Messaging Could Have a Global Impact (Plus: What To Do About It)
  • A Balancing Act: Privacy Issues And Responding to A Federal Subpoena Investigating Transgender Care
  • Here’s What a Reproductive Police State Looks Like
  • Meta investors, Zuckerberg to square off at $8 billion trial over alleged privacy violations
  • Australian law is now clearer about clinicians’ discretion to tell our patients’ relatives about their genetic risk
  • The ICO’s AI and biometrics strategy
  • Trump Border Czar Boasts ICE Can ‘Briefly Detain’ People Based On ‘Physical Appearance’

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.