pdpc_decisions_version_detail (view)
4 rows where "date" is on date 2022-07-14
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Suggested facets: decision, _commit_at (date), date (date), timestamp (date), tags (array), _changed_columns (array)
_commit_at | _commit_hash | _id | _item | _version | _commit | description | tags | date | pdf-url | nature | title | url | timestamp | pdf-content | decision | _item_full_hash | _changed_columns |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2023-10-01T11:02:10+08:00 | fbd32491db44d3d0c97aa12a99cefd61ec954264 | 23 | 23 | 1 | 952 | Directions were issued to Crawfort to conduct a security audit of its technical and administrative arrangements for its AWS S3 environment and rectify any security gaps identified in the audit report. This is pursuant to a data breach incident where Crawfort's customer database were offered for sale in the dark web. | [ "Protection", "Directions", "Finance and Insurance" ] |
2022-07-14 | https://www.pdpc.gov.sg/-/media/Files/PDPC/PDF-Files/Commissions-Decisions/Decision---Crawfort-Pte-Ltd---070622.pdf | Protection | Breach of the Protection Obligation by Crawfort | https://www.pdpc.gov.sg/all-commissions-decisions/2022/07/breach-of-the-protection-obligation-by-crawfort | 2022-07-14 | PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION COMMISSION Case No. DP-2106-B8446 In the matter of an investigation under section 50(1) of the Personal Data Protection Act 2012 And Crawfort Pte. Ltd. SUMMARY OF THE DECISION 1. On 9 June 2021, Crawfort Pte. Ltd. (the “Organisation”) notified the Personal Data Protection Commission (the “Commission”) of the sale of the Organisation’s customer data on the dark web (the “Incident”). 2. The personal data of 5,421 customers were affected. The datasets affected comprised NRIC images (front and back), PDF copies of loan contract (containing all the information in the NRIC, age, email address, contact number and loan amount) and PDF copies of income document (payslip, CPF statements or IRAS Notice of Assessment). 1 3. The Organisation engaged external cyber security teams to investigate the Incident. The investigation identified an opened S3 server port in the Organisation’s AWS environment as the cause of the Incident. 4. The Organisation explained that it had opened the S3 server port for one week during a data migration exercise sometime on or about 15 April 2020 for business continuity purposes. On 3 April 2020, the Singapore government had announced that the country will enter into a Circuit Breaker to contain the spread of COVID-19. All non-essential workplaces, including the Organisation, had to be closed from 7 April 2020. In order to continue its business, the Organisation had to pivot its operations so as to allow its staff to work from home and its customers to make loan applications remotely. Within a very short period, the Organisation had to carry out the data migration exercise and as a result, overlooked conducting a risk assessment prior to conducting the data migration exercise. 5. The opened S3 server port connected directly to the S3 server hosting the S3 buckets, which contained the affected personal data. The open remote port enabled attempts to connect to the Organisation’s AWS environment from the internet. Furthermore, the S3 bucket containing the affected p… | Directions | e2755a8249f833e1c234b8532991f2dc6896ee30 | [ "pdf-content", "timestamp", "decision", "pdf-url", "tags", "nature", "url", "title", "date", "description" ] |
2023-10-01T11:02:10+08:00 | fbd32491db44d3d0c97aa12a99cefd61ec954264 | 24 | 24 | 1 | 952 | A financial penalty of $10,000 was imposed on Audio House for failing to put in place reasonable security arrangements to protect the personal data in its possession from a ransomware attack. | [ "Protection", "Financial Penalty", "Wholesale and Retail Trade", "Ransomware" ] |
2022-07-14 | https://www.pdpc.gov.sg/-/media/Files/PDPC/PDF-Files/Commissions-Decisions/Decision---Audio-House-Marketing-Pte-Ltd---27052022.pdf | Protection | Breach of the Protection Obligation by Audio House | https://www.pdpc.gov.sg/all-commissions-decisions/2022/07/breach-of-the-protection-obligation-by-audio-house | 2022-07-14 | PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION COMMISSION Case No. DP-2106-B8421 In the matter of an investigation under section 50(1) of the Personal Data Protection Act 2012 And Audio House Marketing Pte Ltd SUMMARY OF THE DECISION 1. On 1 June 2021, Audio House Marketing Pte Ltd (the “Organisation”) notified the Personal Data Protection Commission (the “Commission”) of a ransomware affecting its customer database (the “Incident”). Approximately 98,000 individuals’ names, addresses, email addresses and telephone numbers, in the nature of contact information, were affected. 2. The Organisation subsequently requested for this matter to be handled under the Commission’s expedited breach decision procedure. This means that the Organisation voluntarily provided and unequivocally admitted to the facts set out in 1 this decision; and admitted that it was in breach of section 24 of the Personal Data Protection Act (the “PDPA”). 3. The Organisation’s internal investigations revealed that PHP files used to develop a web application on the Organisation’s website contained vulnerabilities that allowed the threat actor to carry out a SQL injection attack. The Organisation admitted that it is possible that the vulnerabilities in the PHP files had existed since April 2017, when its website was first launched. Further, even though the Organisation had conducted pre-launch tests prior to the launch of its website, the Organisation admitted that it failed to identify and detect the existing vulnerabilities in the PHP files. 4. SQL injection attacks are well-known vulnerabilities: see “Top Ten” list of the Open Web Application Security Project (OWASP). The Commission has consistently advised organisations to take the necessary precautions to guard against the risk of injection attacks (see para. 15.3 of the Commission’s Guide to Securing Personal Data in Electronic Medium, published on 8 May 2015, and revised on 20 January 2017). We note that apart from conducting functionality testing of features such as the shopping cart and payment on i… | Financial Penalty | 2506fbb092f33a10a99d72428ada09a55ade6c6b | [ "pdf-content", "timestamp", "decision", "pdf-url", "tags", "nature", "url", "title", "date", "description" ] |
2023-10-01T11:02:10+08:00 | fbd32491db44d3d0c97aa12a99cefd61ec954264 | 25 | 25 | 1 | 952 | A financial penalty of $12,000 was imposed on Terra Systems for failing to put in place reasonable security arrangements to protect the personal data of individuals in its customer relationship management portal in Re Terra Systems Pte Ltd [2021] SGPDPC 7. An application for reconsideration was filed against the decision in Re Terra Systems Pte Ltd [2021] SGPCPC 7. Upon review and careful consideration of the application, the Commissioner had decided to affirm the finding of the breach of section 24 of the PDPA as set out in the decision and the financial penalty in the Reconsideration Decision. | [ "Protection", "Financial Penalty", "Information and Communications" ] |
2022-07-14 | https://www.pdpc.gov.sg/-/media/Files/PDPC/PDF-Files/Commissions-Decisions/Decision---Terra-Systems-Pte-Ltd----06082021.pdf | Protection | Breach of the Protection Obligation by Terra Systems | https://www.pdpc.gov.sg/all-commissions-decisions/2022/07/breach-of-the-protection-obligation-by-terra-systems | 2022-07-14 | PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION COMMISSION [2021] SGPDPC 7 Case No DP-2007-B6670 In the matter of an investigation under section 50(1) of the Personal Data Protection Act 2012 And Terra Systems Pte. Ltd. … Organisation DECISION Terra Systems Pte. Ltd. [2021] SGPDPC 7 Lew Chuen Hong, Commissioner — Case No. DP-2007-B6670 6 August 2021 Introduction 1 On 14 July 2020 and 21 July 2020, a customer relationship management portal (“the Portal”) owned and operated by Terra Systems Pte Ltd (the “Organisation”) containing the personal data of persons served with “Stay-Home Notices” 1 (“SHNs”) was accessed and modified without the Organisation’s authorisation (the “Incident”). 2 On 27 July 2020, the Singapore Police Force notified the Personal Data Protection Commission (“Commission”) of the Incident, and the Commission commenced its own investigations thereafter. Background 3 The Organisation is in the business of providing communication solutions and services, including call centre services, to businesses in Singapore and the region. On 17 June 2020, the Organisation was awarded a government contract to provide call centre services to help verify the whereabouts of persons serving SHNs (“the Call Centre”). 4 To facilitate the operations of the Call Centre, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (“ICA”) provided the Organisation with a daily spreadsheet containing the personal data of persons serving SHNs, including their: (a) Name (b) Last 4 digits of NRIC; 1 Legal notices issued under the Infectious Diseases Act (Cap 137) requiring a person to remain at their place of residence or at a Stay-Home Notice Dedicated Facility at all times for a stipulated period 1 (c) Gender; (d) Contact Number; (e) Last Day of SHN; (f) Address where SHN was served; and (g) COVID-19 Test Appointment dates (collectively, the “SHN Data”) 5 The Organisation created the Portal for the purposes of its internal administration of the Call Centre. On account of the movement restrictions in force at the time owing to th… | Financial Penalty | 72732e0dda0822fd38160244a8fdf6eca77d9bca | [ "pdf-content", "timestamp", "decision", "pdf-url", "tags", "nature", "url", "title", "date", "description" ] |
2023-10-01T11:02:10+08:00 | fbd32491db44d3d0c97aa12a99cefd61ec954264 | 26 | 26 | 1 | 952 | A financial penalty of $67,000 was imposed on Quoine for failing to put in place reasonable security arrangements to protect the personal data in its possession. | [ "Protection", "Financial Penalty", "Finance and Insurance" ] |
2022-07-14 | https://www.pdpc.gov.sg/-/media/Files/PDPC/PDF-Files/Commissions-Decisions/Decision---Quoine-Pte-Ltd---08022022.pdf | Protection | Breach of the Protection Obligation by Quoine | https://www.pdpc.gov.sg/all-commissions-decisions/2022/07/breach-of-the-protection-obligation-by-quoine | 2022-07-14 | PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION COMMISSION [2022] SGPDPC 2 Case No. DP-2011-B7409 / DP-2011-B7421 In the matter of an investigation under section 50(1) of the Personal Data Protection Act 2012 And Quoine Pte Ltd … Organisation DECISION Quoine Pte Ltd [2022] SGPDPC 2 Lew Chuen Hong, Commissioner — Case Nos. DP-2011-B7409 / DP-2011-B7421 8 February 2022 Introduction 1 On 17 November 2020, Quoine Pte Ltd (“the Organisation”) informed the Personal Data Protection Commission (“the Commission”) that its domain manager had transferred control of its domain hosting account to an external actor, who accessed and exfiltrated the personal data of 652,564 of its customers (“the Incident”). The Commission subsequently received a complaint from an individual believed to have been affected in the Incident. 2 The Organisation requested for the investigation to be handled under the Commission’s Expedited Breach Decision procedure. In this regard, the Organisation voluntarily provided and admitted to the facts set out below, and admitted that it had failed to implement reasonable security arrangements to protect the personal data accessed and exfiltrated in the Incident in breach of Section 24 of the Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (“PDPA”). Facts of the Case 3 The Organisation is a company incorporated and based in Singapore, and a subsidiary of Liquid Group Inc., which is incorporated in Japan. The Organisation operates a global cryptocurrency exchange under the “Liquid” brand, and has customers around the world. 4 At the time of the Incident, the Organisation’s back-end IT infrastructure included the following: (a) Its vendor-procured cloud computing platform (“Cloud Platform”) which it used to run its cryptocurrency exchange platform, and which hosted its cloud computing database; and (b) Its additional cloud computing storage procured from another vendor, which it used to store documents such as Know-Your-Client (“KYC”) documents. 5 The Organisation also engaged a third party domain name registrar (“the D… | Financial Penalty | 050d292466354174c1fddecc90ae2ad45a68f635 | [ "pdf-content", "timestamp", "decision", "pdf-url", "tags", "nature", "url", "title", "date", "description" ] |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited
CREATE VIEW pdpc_decisions_version_detail AS select commits.commit_at as _commit_at, commits.hash as _commit_hash, pdpc_decisions_version.*, ( select json_group_array(name) from columns where id in ( select column from pdpc_decisions_changed where item_version = pdpc_decisions_version._id ) ) as _changed_columns from pdpc_decisions_version join commits on commits.id = pdpc_decisions_version._commit;