The August 2022 PDPC Incidents and Undertaking decision of the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) have been published on PDPC’s official website. For this month, four (4) cases have been issued covering the Direction given to Budgetcars and the Undertakings to be followed by “K” Line, “K” Line Ship Management (Singapore), and “K” Line (Singapore), Inmagine, and The National University of Singapore Society. For this month, no decisions cover a financial penalty for breaching the PDPA.
It should be noted that the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) aims to balance the organizations’ needs to use data for legitimate purposes with the protection of individual’s personal information as it is tasked with the administration and enforcement.
In doing so, the decisions conducted by PDPC are published on their website, which is open to all who want to read the latest data security standards set by the PDPC. With this, for the better observance of organizations with such standards, it is their duty to be kept updated with the latest PDPC incident and undertakings.
Let’s have a look at the August 2022 cases with the latest cybersecurity updates to date.
Our first case of PDPC Incidents and Undertaking involves Budgetcars. On August 25, 2021, the PDPC was notified that Budgetcar’s “Tracking Function Page” on its website could be used to get the personal data of other individuals by simply changing the Tracking ID used.
With this incident, a total of 44,357 individuals’ personal data are at risk of unauthorized access, including their names, addresses, contact numbers, and photographs of their own signatures.
The organisation admitted that it could have added a safeguard to protect the personal data by archiving it. With this incident, the organisation was found to be in breach of the Personal Data Protection (PDPA). Luckily, the PDPC only gave directions for Budgetcars to follow:
Our next case of PDPC Incidents and Undertaking involves Undertaking by “K” Line, “K” Line Ship Management (Singapore), and “K” Line (Singapore). On April 3, 2021, the PDPC was notified by “K” Line, “K” Line Ship Management (Singapore), and “K” Line (Singapore) that they had been subjected to malware attacks.
These three related organisations are all registered in Singapore as subsidiaries of Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, a holding company that is registered outside of Singapore. On March 18, 2021, an overseas affiliate that is also a subsidiary of Kawasaki told the organizations about a cyber incident.
During the incident, the affiliate’s account, which had a lot of privileges and access rights, was hacked. After the account was hacked, it was used to attack the Organization’s IT system in Singapore with malware and affected the personal data of 2,148 individuals.
With this incident, the organisation had set up remedial actions to be undertaken and was accepted by the PDPC. This is to improve its data protection practices and its compliance with the PDPA:
Also Read: Why cybersecurity is important for businesses in Singapore
Our next case of PDPC Incidents and Undertaking involves Inmagine. On November 13, 2020, and January 26, 2021, the organisation notified the PDPC that there had been unauthorised access to two of its websites, and the personal data from these websites had been exfiltrated, affecting the names, addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers of individuals.
It was found that:
With this incident, the organisation had set up remedial actions to be undertaken and was accepted by the PDPC. This is to improve its data protection practices and its compliance with the PDPA:
Our last case of PDPC Incidents and Undertaking involves The National University of Singapore Society. On October 8, 2021, NUSS notified the PDPC that its website had been subjected to a SQL injection attack. This affected the personal data of 3,725 individuals.
The affected datasets comprised the affected individuals’ names, addresses, emails, NRIC numbers, contact numbers, gender, date of birth, membership number, marital status, education details, and motor vehicle registration numbers.
It was established that NUSS had (a) inadequate knowledge of the web server hosting its website, (b) inadequate security reviews to identify vulnerabilities within its website, (c) lack of clauses within its contract with its vendors to ensure compliance with the PDPA and (d) there had been an overreliance on its IT vendor to maintain the security of the web server hosting its website.
With this incident, the organisation had set up remedial actions to be undertaken and was accepted by the PDPC. This is to improve its data protection practices and its compliance with the PDPA:
Also Read: Data governance framework: What organisations in Singapore should know