Featured Services

Best Practices and Lessons Learned

Although privacy testing is an input to risk management activities, it is important to distinguish between the two. Privacy testing discerns whether discrete system requirements have been properly built into a system, whereas risk management activities examine risks to make decisions about acceptable levels of overall system risk. Risk analyses such as PIA and SA&A are not equivalent to testing nor do they obviate the need for testing.

Privacy requirements definition and testing are not fundamentally different from other aspects of system requirements definition and testing. Some aspects are specific to privacy just as other aspects are particular to security, performance, etc. Privacy requirements based on the details of the system are incorporated into the design, implemented, and verified. These processes make use of the standard systems engineering tools, including requirements traceability matrices, design and code reviews, and executable test cases. Because privacy is so focused and dependent on data flows, successfully defining and verifying privacy requirements may necessitate more systematic and holistic representation and analysis of data flows (where the data is PII) than a project might otherwise require. Further, because privacy can be a somewhat diffuse property, multiple forms of verification may be necessary to provide sufficient assurance (a “preponderance of evidence” approach). However, the overall process should be familiar to any SE.

In principle, privacy requirements definition and testing should be incorporable into most life-cycle methodologies. This is relatively straightforward for traditional, waterfall life cycles, but it may be more complicated for other life cycles that are more iterative or incremental (see the articles under the SEG's Program Acquisition Strategy Formulation topic for a discussion of life-cycle models). In those cases, privacy requirements definition and testing activities will need to track the system functionality with which they are associated or on which they are dependent. Guidance relating to specific life cycles will need to include appropriate procedures for doing this, whereas general guidance will need to incorporate relevant elements as well. In particular, documentation standards and templates must explicitly capture information relevant to privacy requirements definition and testing.

See service page. Checkout on the left :)


Privacy Engineering: Access

Actions

Identity and Access Management is a fundamental and critical cybersecurity capability. Simply put, with its focus on foundational and applied research and standards, NIST seeks to ensure the right people and things have the right access to the right resources at the right time.

To advance the state of identity and access management, NIST

Conducts focused research to better understand new and emerging technologies, their impact on existing standards, and the implementation of identity and access management solutions;

Leads in the development of national and international identity and access management standards, guidance, best practices, profiles, and frameworks to create an enhanced, interoperable suite of secure, privacy-enhancing solutions, including authentication and authorization within the Internet of Things (IoT);

Evolves its identity and access management standards, guidelines and resources; and

Produces example solutions that bring together the identity management and cybersecurity requirements needed to address specific business cybersecurity challenges.

Through this Identity and Access Management Resource Center, we seek to share our efforts that strengthen the security, privacy, usability and interoperability of solutions that meet an organization’s identity and access management needs throughout the system lifecycle.


Privacy Engineering: Certification

Actions

CERTIFIED DATA PRIVACY SOLUTIONS ENGINEER (CDPSE) is focused on validating the technical skills and knowledge it takes to assess, build and implement a comprehensive privacy solutions. CDPSE holders can fill the technical privacy skills gap so that your organization has competent privacy technologists to build and implement solutions that mitigate risk and enhance efficiency.


Privacy Engineering: Quality Control

Actions

In engineering and manufacturing, quality control and quality engineering are involved in developing systems to ensure products or services are designed and produced to meet or exceed customer requirements and expectations. These systems are often developed in conjunction with other business and engineering disciplines using a cross-functional approach. They make sure everything is working correctly and is going to do great in the marketing buisness.


Privacy Engineering: Deposit

Actions

In principle, privacy requirements definition and testing should be incorporable into most life-cycle methodologies. This is relatively straightforward for traditional, waterfall life cycles, but it may be more complicated for other life cycles that are more iterative or incremental (see the articles under the SEG's Program Acquisition Strategy Formulation topic for a discussion of life-cycle models). In those cases, privacy requirements definition and testing activities will need to track the system functionality with which they are associated or on which they are dependent. Guidance relating to specific life cycles will need to include appropriate procedures for doing this, whereas general guidance will need to incorporate relevant elements as well. In particular, documentation standards and templates must explicitly capture information relevant to privacy requirements definition and testing.


Privacy Engineering: Enforcement

Actions

Overview The global section of our 2018 Privacy and Security Enforcement Tracker provides a synopsis of key privacy issues and trends in 36 countries - 18 in Europe (including the US) and 18 in the rest of the world. The content has been compiled from contributions from our data protection experts worldwide. Also included in this year’s tracker are summaries of a number of privacy regulatory enforcement cases.


Privacy Engineering: Impact Assessment

Actions

Basically, a data protection impact assessment must always be conducted when the processing could result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of natural persons. The assessment must be carried out especially if one of the rule examples set forth in Art. 35(3) of the GDPR is relevant. In order to specify the open-ended wording of the law regarding the basic obligation to perform a privacy impact assessment, the supervisory authorities are involved. In a first draft, the Article 29 Working Party created a catalogue of ten criteria which indicate that the processing bears a high risk to the rights and freedoms of a natural person. These are for example scoring/profiling, automatic decisions which lead to legal consequences for those impacted, systematic monitoring, processing of special personal data, data which is processed in a large scale, the merging or combining of data which was gathered by various processes, data about incapacitated persons or those with limited ability to act, use of newer technologies or biometric procedures, data transfer to countries outside the EU/EEC and data processing which hinders those involved in exercising their rights. A privacy impact assessment is not absolutely necessary if a processing operation only fulfils one of these criteria. However, if several criteria are met, the risk for the data subjects is expected to be high and a data protection impact assessment is always required. If there is doubt and it is difficult to determine a high risk, a DPIA should nevertheless be conducted. This process must be repeated at least every three years.


Privacy Engineering: Interaction and Auditing

Actions

In cloud computing, data owners host their data on cloud data servers and users can access the data from cloud servers. Due to the data outsourcing, however, this new paradigm of the data hosting service also introduces new security challenges for the data, which requires an independent data auditing service to check the data integrity in the cloud. In existing system is desired to convince data owners that the data are correctly stored in the cloud. In that system there is no security is provided when outsourcing data from TPA to server and does not concern is how to ensure the integrity of the outsourced data. So our proposed system is mainly concentrated on provide security between TPA to server and also user extend our system to check the integrity of failure in that file using Erasure Code technique. The original auditing protocol is vulnerable to the attack from an active adversary since it does not provide authentication of the response, so the user suggest employing a secure digital signature scheme to prevent the proof from being modified. The system present a novel family of erasure codes that are efficiently repairable and offer higher reliability. The proposed design allows users to audit the cloud storage with very lightweight communication and computation cost. The data auditing result not only ensures strong cloud data storage correctness , but also simultaneously achieves fast data error localization, that is the identification of misbehaving server.


Privacy Engineering: Infrastructure Design & Mapping

Actions

The goal here is to take the essential elements of a manufacturing process, and make them work better. Consider process engineers with a Six Sigma mindset to be “process hackers,” or maybe “machine whisperers” — they get completely under the hood to figure out how to gain both maximum efficiency and quality in a process. Here are a few ways how:

Data mining: The methodology of data tracking and measurement plays a huge role here, and the digital tools available make the process that much easier. By tracking every aspect of a process — in injection molding, for instance, hold time, cooling time, pressure, injection temperature and so on — a process engineer can potentially identify trends and thus root causes of errors and defects.

First pass yield: In Six Sigma, the goal is to have throughput reach maximum levels the very first time. A process engineer can play a role here by ensuring that machinery and process settings are correct at the outset of production — not after defects occur. The organization-wide nature of Six Sigma means that machine operators are encouraged (or required) to verify these settings and to speak up if something appears off. There are truly no “dumb questions” in Six Sigma.


Privacy Engineering: Security Compliance & Consultation

In principle, privacy requirements definition and testing should be incorporable into most life-cycle methodologies. This is relatively straightforward for traditional, waterfall life cycles, but it may be more complicated for other life cycles that are more iterative or incremental (see the articles under the SEG's Program Acquisition Strategy Formulation topic for a discussion of life-cycle models). In those cases, privacy requirements definition and testing activities will need to track the system functionality with which they are associated or on which they are dependent. Guidance relating to specific life cycles will need to include appropriate procedures for doing this, whereas general guidance will need to incorporate relevant elements as well. In particular, documentation standards and templates must explicitly capture information relevant to privacy requirements definition and testing.


Privacy Engineering: Privacy

Actions

In principle, privacy requirements definition and testing should be incorporable into most life-cycle methodologies. This is relatively straightforward for traditional, waterfall life cycles, but it may be more complicated for other life cycles that are more iterative or incremental (see the articles under the SEG's Program Acquisition Strategy Formulation topic for a discussion of life-cycle models). In those cases, privacy requirements definition and testing activities will need to track the system functionality with which they are associated or on which they are dependent. Guidance relating to specific life cycles will need to include appropriate procedures for doing this, whereas general guidance will need to incorporate relevant elements as well. In particular, documentation standards and templates must explicitly capture information relevant to privacy requirements definition and testing.


Privacy Engineering: Compliance Management

Actions

In principle, privacy requirements definition and testing should be incorporable into most life-cycle methodologies. This is relatively straightforward for traditional, waterfall life cycles, but it may be more complicated for other life cycles that are more iterative or incremental (see the articles under the SEG's Program Acquisition Strategy Formulation topic for a discussion of life-cycle models). In those cases, privacy requirements definition and testing activities will need to track the system functionality with which they are associated or on which they are dependent. Guidance relating to specific life cycles will need to include appropriate procedures for doing this, whereas general guidance will need to incorporate relevant elements as well. In particular, documentation standards and templates must explicitly capture information relevant to privacy requirements definition and testing.


Privacy Engineering: Compliance Benchmarking

Actions

In principle, privacy requirements definition and testing should be incorporable into most life-cycle methodologies. This is relatively straightforward for traditional, waterfall life cycles, but it may be more complicated for other life cycles that are more iterative or incremental (see the articles under the SEG's Program Acquisition Strategy Formulation topic for a discussion of life-cycle models). In those cases, privacy requirements definition and testing activities will need to track the system functionality with which they are associated or on which they are dependent. Guidance relating to specific life cycles will need to include appropriate procedures for doing this, whereas general guidance will need to incorporate relevant elements as well. In particular, documentation standards and templates must explicitly capture information relevant to privacy requirements definition and testing.


Privacy Engineering: Ethics and Auditing

Actions

In principle, privacy requirements definition and testing should be incorporable into most life-cycle methodologies. This is relatively straightforward for traditional, waterfall life cycles, but it may be more complicated for other life cycles that are more iterative or incremental (see the articles under the SEG's Program Acquisition Strategy Formulation topic for a discussion of life-cycle models). In those cases, privacy requirements definition and testing activities will need to track the system functionality with which they are associated or on which they are dependent. Guidance relating to specific life cycles will need to include appropriate procedures for doing this, whereas general guidance will need to incorporate relevant elements as well. In particular, documentation standards and templates must explicitly capture information relevant to privacy requirements definition and testing.


Privacy Engineering: Integrated Services

Actions

In principle, privacy requirements definition and testing should be incorporable into most life-cycle methodologies. This is relatively straightforward for traditional, waterfall life cycles, but it may be more complicated for other life cycles that are more iterative or incremental (see the articles under the SEG's Program Acquisition Strategy Formulation topic for a discussion of life-cycle models). In those cases, privacy requirements definition and testing activities will need to track the system functionality with which they are associated or on which they are dependent. Guidance relating to specific life cycles will need to include appropriate procedures for doing this, whereas general guidance will need to incorporate relevant elements as well. In particular, documentation standards and templates must explicitly capture information relevant to privacy requirements definition and testing.


Privacy Engineering Services

Actions

In principle, privacy requirements definition and testing should be incorporable into most life-cycle methodologies. This is relatively straightforward for traditional, waterfall life cycles, but it may be more complicated for other life cycles that are more iterative or incremental (see the articles under the SEG's Program Acquisition Strategy Formulation topic for a discussion of life-cycle models). In those cases, privacy requirements definition and testing activities will need to track the system functionality with which they are associated or on which they are dependent. Guidance relating to specific life cycles will need to include appropriate procedures for doing this, whereas general guidance will need to incorporate relevant elements as well. In particular, documentation standards and templates must explicitly capture information relevant to privacy requirements definition and testing.

Privacy

The process for conducting privacy requirements definition and testing takes advantage of the fact that the key privacy objectives (e.g., FIPPs) and associated top-level system requirements and test/verification methods are fairly universal and readily adaptable to the specifics of most systems. System owners can tailor these general privacy objectives, requirements, and tests to their system's purpose and characteristics.


Refund Policy

Privacy requirements definition and testing are not fundamentally different from other aspects of system requirements definition and testing. Some aspects are specific to privacy just as other aspects are particular to security, performance, etc. Privacy requirements based on the details of the system are incorporated into the design, implemented, and verified. These processes make use of the standard systems engineering tools, including requirements traceability matrices, design and code reviews, and executable test cases. Because privacy is so focused and dependent on data flows, successfully defining and verifying privacy requirements may necessitate more systematic and holistic representation and analysis of data flows (where the data is PII) than a project might otherwise require. Further, because privacy can be a somewhat diffuse property, multiple forms of verification may be necessary to provide sufficient assurance (a “preponderance of evidence” approach). However, the overall process should be familiar to any SE.

In principle, privacy requirements definition and testing should be incorporable into most life-cycle methodologies. This is relatively straightforward for traditional, waterfall life cycles, but it may be more complicated for other life cycles that are more iterative or incremental (see the articles under the SEG's Program Acquisition Strategy Formulation topic for a discussion of life-cycle models). In those cases, privacy requirements definition and testing activities will need to track the system functionality with which they are associated or on which they are dependent. Guidance relating to specific life cycles will need to include appropriate procedures for doing this, whereas general guidance will need to incorporate relevant elements as well. In particular, documentation standards and templates must explicitly capture information relevant to privacy requirements definition and testing.