skip to main content
10.1145/3326365.3326411acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicegovConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Data Security and Trustworthiness in Online Public Services: An Assessment of Portuguese Institutions

Published:03 April 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

Providing public services through the internet is an effective approach towards an encompassing number of citizens being covered by them and for cost reduction. However, the fast development of this area has fostered discussion and legislation regarding information security and trustworthiness. In addition to security mechanisms for data processed and stored internally, service providers must ensure that data exchanged between their servers and citizens are not intercepted or modified when traversing heterogeneous and uncontrolled networks. Moreover, such institutions should provide means enabling the citizen to verify the authenticity of the services offered. In this way, the present work provides a comprehensive overview regarding the security posture of Portuguese public institutions in their online services. It consists of non-invasive robustness evaluation of the deployed solutions for end-to-end data encryption and the correct use of digital certificates. As a result, we provide some recommendations aiming to enhance the current panorama in the majority of the 111 online services considered in this study.

References

  1. OECD. 2018. Internet access (indicator). Technical Report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2016. Regulation (EU) 2016/679of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Da. Official Journal of the European Union L119 (may 2016), 1--88.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Tim Dierks and Eric Rescorla. 2008. The transport layer security (TLS) protocol version 1.2 - RFC 5246. Technical Report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Benjamin Vander Sloot, Johanna Amann, Matthew Bernhard, Zakir Durumeric, Michael Bailey, and J Alex Halderman. 2016. Towards a Complete View of the Certificate Ecosystem. In Proceedings of the 2016 Internet Measurement Conference (IMC '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 543--549. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Michael E. Whitman and Herbert J. Mattord.2011. Principles of information security. Cengage Learning. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Zakir Durumeric, James Kasten, Michael Bailey, and J Alex Halderman. 2013. Analysis of the HTTPS certificate ecosystem. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Internet measurement conference. ACM, 291--304. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Jon Callas, Lutz Donnerhacke, Hal Finney, David Shaw, and Rodney Thayer.2007. OpenPGP message format. Technical Report. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Stefan Santesson, Magnus Nystrom, and Tim Polk. 2004. Internet x. 509 public key infrastructure: Qualified certificates profile (RFC 3739 IETF). Technical Report. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Tim Dierks and Eric Rescorla. 2008. The transport layer security (TLS) protocol version 1.2 - RFC 5246. Technical Report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Eric Rescorla. 2018. The transport layer security (TLS) protocol version 1.3 - RFC 8446. Technical Report. RFC - Proposed Standard (IETF Stream).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Eric Rescorla and Brian Korver. 2003. Guidelines for writing RFC text on security considerations - RFC 3552. Technical Report. RFC - Proposed Standard (IETF Stream). Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Andrew S Tanenbaum and David J Wetherall. 2010. Computer Networks (5th ed.). Prentice Hall Press, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Daniel A Menascé. 2003. Security performance. IEEE Internet Computing 7, 3 (2003), 84--87. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. C S Team. 2015. Common Vulnerability Scoring System v3.0: Specification Document. First. org (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Peter Mell, Karen Scarfone, and Sasha Romanosky. 2007. A complete guide to the common vulnerability scoring system version 2.0. In Published by FIRST-Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams, Vol. 1. 23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Paul Kirchner. 2011. Improved Generalized Birthday Attack. IACR Cryptology ePrint Archive 2011 (2011), 377.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Data Security and Trustworthiness in Online Public Services: An Assessment of Portuguese Institutions

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Other conferences
          ICEGOV '19: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance
          April 2019
          538 pages
          ISBN:9781450366441
          DOI:10.1145/3326365

          Copyright © 2019 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 3 April 2019

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed limited

          Acceptance Rates

          ICEGOV '19 Paper Acceptance Rate81of171submissions,47%Overall Acceptance Rate350of865submissions,40%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader