Update on the
#ZPOS case:
Brief background:
Made dozens of attempts since 2020 to report critical
#security concerns to ZPOS, all ignored. A canary died with "someone is attempting to sign in to <redacted> with your ZPOS password". The password is 24 characters long, cryptographically random (from
@1password) and never re-used. Then, someone tried to use my card. It was becoming clear that someone knows the password and assumes I reuse them. In order to establish if ZPOS (and/or my account) has been breached, I SAR them.
--
Despite citing sections of
#GDPR which outline the right to compensation for breaches of legislation and providing irrefutable proof of each particular of claim, it was dismissed because I couldn't quantify the unquantifiable.
The particulars were:
1) Failure to reply to a legally submitted SAR in time.
Finding: *shrug* - They replied eventually, no tangible loss. No loss, no compensation. Fits with standard "make them whole" rules, but ignores GDPR rights.
2) Only supplying a partial SAR response
Finding: Despite showing proof that data was missing, this too was dismissed.
3) Failure to encrypt the SAR response sent by email, providing everything in a plain excel spreadsheet
Finding: "GDPR/ICO doesn't state it should be encrypted, you can't demonstrate it's been leaked, thus no damages. I don't find their response to be unsafe."
The irony... the court's own email warns that email isn't safe and could be read by anyone.
Ultimately, the defendant sought to & succeeded in benefiting from it's own non-compliance with
@ICOnews #GDPR. By failing to supply the evidence I need to bring action, it was held against me.
GDPR rights are only as effect as a court's willingness to apply them. In my case, they were meaningless and the service remains vulnerable. If someone in my position can't enforce their rights, the general public has virtually no chance.
#PHP5 #XSS #SQLi #iDOR #CSP