If you use certain Windows 10 Microsoft Office programs often, you can pin them to the taskbar and then open them quickly and easily with keyboard shortcuts.  Here’s how:

– If you have a program open e.g., Word, hover your mouse over it (in the taskbar), right mouse click and select ‘Pin to taskbar’. Do this for any other programs you also want to pin to the taskbar for easy access.

– If, for example you have pinned 5 programs to the taskbar, to open the second program, press “windows+2“.

– To open any of the other pinned programs, follow the same pattern i.e., hit “windows+number-in-sequence”.

In this article, we look at how a surprisingly large proportion of Internet traffic is made up of bots, how many of these can be ‘bad bots’, and what businesses can do to keep enjoying the benefits of good bots while guarding against the threats of bad bots.

Two-Thirds of Internet Traffic is Bots

The recent Barracuda Networks ‘Top Threats and Trends’ report found that Bots make up nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of internet traffic although other surveys have put this number closer to 50 percent.  ‘Bots’ generally refers to the software apps that run automated tasks (scripts) over the Internet, performing tasks that are simple, repetitive, and that wouldn’t be viable for humans to perform.  For example, popular bots include search engine crawlers, social network bots, aggregator crawlers, shop bots, and monitoring bots.  These could be regarded as ‘good bots’ because they serve a practical (rather than a deliberately malicious) purpose and are helpful to businesses and other Internet users.  Good bots obey the website owner’s rules (e.g. as specified in the robots.txt file to dictate what is indexed). They also publish the methods of validating them so it’s clear they’re what they say they are, and they don’t overload the websites and apps they visit.

Bad/malicious bots include, for example, Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS)/ botnets which use other malware-infected devices (zombies) to bombard a server with bots to the point where it becomes overwhelmed and is rendered out-of-action. Other ways in which bots are used for nefarious purposes include web and price scraping, inventory hoarding, account takeover attacks, Intelligence harvesting (for fraud), auction sniping (for last-minute bids), spam relay, click fraud, fake vulnerability scanners, and more.  Most ‘bad bot’ traffic comes from the US (67 percent) and mostly from two large public clouds (AWS and Microsoft Azure).

Percentage of Good/Bad Bots

The Barracuda Networks report, for example, suggests that 25 percent of Internet traffic is made up of good bots, but 39 percent of Internet traffic is made up of bad bots.

Worst Hit Industries

Those industries worst hit by bad bots (Imperva figures, 2020) are Telecom & ISPs (45.7 percent, Computing & IT (41.1 percent), Sports (33.7 percent), News (33 percent), and Business Services (29.7 percent).

The Challenges

One of the key challenges that all website owners have is ensuring protection is in place that can distinguish between good and bad bots (bad bots are often disguised as good) and filter out the bad ones. Also, bad bots are now increasingly prevalent because they are easily built and can be purchased for very little money.

Cost, Threats, and Damage

Bad bots can be a real threat to businesses as they can exploit vulnerabilities in (often outdated) software in your system, be used to deliver malware in a number of ways (trojans, software, email attachments), or in concentrated attacks such as DDoS.  The damage caused can be very costly to businesses in terms of damage to networks/systems, disruption of the business/business continuity, reputational damage and worse. The growth of the IoT and its vulnerabilities such as default passwords have further fuelled the popularity of bad bots.

Beating The Bad Bots

With nearly 40 percent of your web traffic being made up of bad bots, it’s important to know how to protect your business from them.  Examples of ways to keep bad bots at bay include:

– Investing in WAF/WAF-as-a-Service offerings / Web Application and API Protection (WAAP) technology. WAF means web application firewall.

– Check and make sure that chosen company security solution offers anti-bot protection.

– Use ‘machine learning’ security solutions.

– Make sure credential stuffing protection is in place.

Upstream and Downstream Traffic

Computer and Internet traffic is often categorised in different ways and the terms upstream or downstream are often used. Broadly speaking (as a basic definition), upstream traffic is that data sent from a computer or network (e.g. sending e-mails, uploading files), while downstream traffic is data received by a computer or network (e.g. traffic that’s downloaded onto your PC). For example, this could be receiving e-mail messages, downloading files, visiting Web pages, Zoom calls (data, video, and audio) and more.

One Third Human Traffic, or More?

According to the Barracuda Networks report, bots/automated traffic makes up two-thirds of Internet traffic.  This suggests that human traffic makes up the remaining third.  Other surveys provide different figures.  For example, the 8th Annual Bad Bot Report from Imperva suggests that human traffic actually made up 60 percent of all website traffic in 2020.

Monitoring and Measuring

If we accept that one-third to around one-half of Internet traffic is automated/bots, this has implications for how accurate your web analytics program and paid ad stats are.  Stats/analytic programs, therefore, tend to have known bot filtering options. For example, Google Analytics has an automatic filter for known bots and spiders (a check box in the settings). You can also set up filters for certain host-names if you notice spikes from certain sources (spikes can be a sign of bots).

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Good bots undoubtedly save overheads and time and help to make the Internet work as smoothly as it does. However, realising that anywhere between one-third and one half of web traffic is automated (bots) and that the majority of these bots are malicious, and furthermore that this appears to be an upward trend, should make businesses want to take a closer look at just how their cyber-security defences are set up to tackle the threat of bad bots. The risk and potential costs of ignoring the fact that automated threats are likely to be constant, more sophisticated, and are being fuelled by the seemingly unstoppable growth of a less than secure IoT, and the ease by which attackers can obtain and execute bot-based attack methods should motivate businesses to make security a top priority. AI and machine learning provide some hope in identifying potential bot threats but for most businesses, as outlined above in this article, there are basic precautions that can and should be taken to protect the business right now.

In this tech-insight, we look at what hyperloop technology is, how it has been tested and used to date, and whether it could be a viable form of carbon-free travel for the future.

What Is Hyperloop Technology?

First invented by mechanical engineer George Medhurst in the 18^th century, the idea which became the ‘atmospheric railway’, envisioned conveying people in a vehicle along the inside of pressurised, evacuated tubes using uses differential air pressure to provide power for propulsion. This ‘hyperloop’ idea of almost frictionless travel (not touching rails) inside a tube, where huge speeds could be reached and travel times dramatically cut was the dream that formed the basis of the 1960s and 1970s ‘Hovertrain’. Although the project ended in 1975, a test version of this ‘hyperloop’ train managed to reach 104 mph in 1973, but the ‘Hypertrain’ was never put into production.

How The ‘Hovertrain’ Hyperloop Worked

The 70s Hypertrain acted rather like a land-based hovercraft that hovered on a cushion of air above a monorail-type concrete track and was propelled along by a linear induction motor (LIM) which used magnetic fields to produce thrust and, therefore, contactless (and frictionless) propulsion.

Although the focus today may be on developing a hyperloop transport method that is carbon-free as well as fast, this early Hypertrain had to use large, bulky induction motors and fans that needed to be permanently running to keep the Hypertrain in the air, therefore, making it rather environmentally unfriendly.

The Airlink Shuttle – Maglev Technology

The next use of hyperloop of note was in the Birmingham Airport AirLink shuttle (1984 to 1995) which was a train floating on magnets (known as ‘maglev’ technology), propelled along by a LIM.

Other hyperloop maglev trains have been used to connect JFK International Airport to Queens in New York City, in Shanghai, China, and in Japan in 2015, where a manned test train reached 370mph.

Elon Musk’s Hyperloop

Fast forward, and PayPal / Tesla founder, and SpaceX boss Elon musk wrote a much-publicised paper in 2013 about his idea for a “Hyperloop Alpha” travel system which could use magnetic pods levitating (using maglev) inside a tube and travelling at more than 1,000 km per hour, making it faster than a Boeing 747 jet aircraft!

Virgin Hyperloop Test

Fast forward yet further and, in November 2020, a two-seat Virgin Hyperloop prototype is reported to have travelled 500 metres, reaching 172 km per hour in only 6.25 seconds.

Challenges

There are, of course, many challenges to testing, building, and creating a new hyperloop infrastructure (underground or overground tubes, stations and more) and it could take decades to introduce a system across a country at scale.

Would Hyperloop Bring Carbon-Free Travel?

With a world climate crisis, environmental targets to reach, and the need to find a way to drastically reduce carbon emissions from industry, transport systems and more, would hyperloop offer carbon-free travel?

A recent US Department of Transportation (DOT) study, for example, estimated that Hyperloop routes could be up to six times more energy efficient than air travel (on short routes).  Also, researchers at Hamburg’s Helmut Schmidt University looked at the effects of building a 300km, (mainly solar-powered) hyperloop route for freight in Northern Germany.  They concluded that replacing thousands of road-based trucks with a hyperloop could reduce air and noise pollution, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the knock-on benefits of reducing congestion and road accidents.

Unfortunately, the linear induction motors are used (LIM) for powering hyperloop tend to have high power consumption and are less efficient than permanent magnet linear motors.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

The idea of creating an incredibly fast transport system for freight and passengers that could use electric motors and solar power would, of course, be hugely attractive to businesses in terms of time and cost savings (e.g. for supplies and distribution), as well as in reducing environmental impact. Fast, clean transport/travel by hyperloop could also have huge benefits for many other industries (e.g. travel and leisure) and could benefit city businesses of all kinds as cities and transport hubs would most likely be the first ones linked together. That said, there is a long way to go and many challenges to overcome before mainstream hyperloop travel becomes a reality.

It has been reported that the Justice Department (DOJ) may soon issue a second monopoly lawsuit against Alphabet Inc (Google) over its giant’s digital advertising business.

Other Lawsuit

Back in July, Google was issued with an antitrust lawsuit by 38 US states over allegations relating to how it may have been abusing its position of power in relation to Android app distribution and competition, and for (allegedly) abusing its market power to make its search engine as dominant inside cars, TVs, and speakers as it has been in phones.

This Possible New Lawsuit

Reports that a new DOJ lawsuit may be on the way seems credible since Google was sued under former Attorney General William Barr over its search business, and then faced another antitrust complaint filed with many state attorneys alleging that Google had illegally monopolised the digital advertising market.  It is claimed that Google (allegedly) reached an illegal agreement with Facebook Inc., the purpose of which was to manipulate online auctions where advertisers and website publishers buy and sell ad space.

More Lawsuits

Google has faced other lawsuits in recent times, such as when Epic Games sued the $1 trillion tech giant over the removal of Fortnite from the Play Store last year (it was also removed from the iOS App Store).

Joe Biden Big Tech Crackdown

In more potentially bad news for Google (and other tech giants), in July this year, US President Joe Biden signed a new executive order to try and crack-down on anti-competitive practices in big tech. The executive order highlights how big players in the tech sector may be using their market power to box out smaller competitors and exploit consumers’ personal information.

Criticism Over Plans To Block Cookies

Back in March, U.S. Justice Department investigators were reported to have been concerned that Google’s plans to ban some cookies in its Chrome browser (which Google said would increase user privacy) could be a way for Google to hobble its smaller rival ad companies by stopping them from tracking users.

Although Google said that it planned not to simply remove third-party cookies but to phase them out over two years (to allow time to develop workarounds that address the needs of users), businesses, publishers, advertisers and critics noted that this may give Google a couple of years in which to be in control and to dominate other advertisers even more.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Clearly, following on from the Trump administration’s attacks on big tech, it seems that Joe Biden is also keen to tackle the tech giants, particularly on matters relating to competition and how they may be using their market power, and how this may be adversely affecting their smaller competitors. Google, Facebook and other big advertising platforms (particularly Google), are very much in the investigation (and lawsuit) firing lines. For Google, legislation, government regulation, and lawsuits are clearly something it would like to delay and avoid, but it looks as though Joe Biden’s administration intends to keep the pressure on. For business advertisers, being able to reach as many members of their target markets in the best and cheapest way possible (maximising ROI) is the key concern, and it remains to be seen how this would be affected if anti-competition action could be and was taken. For the time being, however, using lawsuits (and the bad publicity they generate) plus the threat of regulation are likley to be the only main leverage that governments have for bringing the very powerful, wealthy tech giants to account.

Following an investigation into WhatsApp Ireland Ltd, the Irish data regulator (DPC) has issued Facebook’s popular WhatsApp chat app with the second-largest GDPR fine of €225m.

Long Investigation

The eye-watering fine of €225 million follows an investigation that started way back on 10 December 2018.

Big Fine

The DPC had submitted a draft decision to all Concerned Supervisory Authorities (CSAs) under Article 60 GDPR in December 2020. After objections from eight CSAs, the DPC was able to start the dispute resolution process (Article 65 GDPR) on 3 June 2021 and on 28 July 2021, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) decided to impose the fine on WhatsApp under Article 65(1)(a) GDPR.

..And a Reprimand

In addition to the fine, the DPC has imposed a reprimand along with an order for WhatsApp to bring its processing into compliance by taking a range of specified remedial actions.

Transparency

The DPC has said that the investigation, which led to the fine, related to WhatsApp’s GDPR transparency obligations regarding the provision of information and the transparency of that information to both users and non-users of WhatsApp’s service. This included information provided to data subjects about the processing of information between WhatsApp and other Facebook companies.

The problem with WhatsApp’s consumer services (not WhatsApp for Business), which is ‘explained’ in an 89-page document, appears to be that the descriptions of who ‘interests’ are, in relation to other business services and partners, are that they are not described in a transparent and intelligible form. In other words, it seems that the EDPB thought that WhatsApp may not have supplied enough information to users about how their data is processed, and that its privacy policies (which have been subject to several updates), may not be clear enough.

WhatsApp Says…

WhatsApp has said that it disagrees with the decision about the transparency it provided to users in 2018 and has described the penalties as “entirely disproportionate”.

Not The Only One

Even though this is a bad-break for WhatsApp, it is not the only big tech company to have found itself in trouble with data regulators.  For example, in July, Amazon received a staggering $885 million fine over data privacy, and in 2020, Twitter was fined €450,000 after a GDPR infringement.

Data Sharing For EU Users

Back in January, WhatsApp announced that in a change to its privacy policy (from February 8, 2021), users outside of Europe would have to agree to share their personal information with WhatsApp’s owner Facebook or leave the app.

An in-app notice is informing WhatsApp users of the terms of service and privacy policy changes, which were an extension of changes announced in July last year and were the result of discussions with the Irish Data Protection Commission and other Data Protection Authorities in Europe.

What Does This Mean For Your Business?

Even though one of the attractions of WhatsApp is its security and privacy, due to its end-to-end encryption, this fine indicates that there appears to have been, in 2018, a bit of grey area in terms of how user-data is processed and some of the meaning in the app’s privacy policies.  The problem appears to have been serious enough to warrant (according to the EDPB) the second biggest GDPR fine ever.  The news comes on the back of EU WhatsApp users having to accept their data being shared with Facebook (from February this year).  All this may be making WhatsApp users, particularly those who use WhatsApp for business, nervous about their privacy on the app in terms of details about their business and the passing on of their data (for targeted advertising).  Also, Facebook has faced significant trust issues with users since the Cambridge Analytica unauthorised data-sharing scandal plus having to share data with Facebook may be off-putting and may make them think about looking around for other possible secure comms apps. This fine represents some very poor publicity for WhatsApp at a time when it has been trying to compete with the likes of Snapchat and Apple, while nevertheless getting some good headlines too by announcing new features like its ‘View Once’ feature for photos and videos, and its ‘disappearing messages’ feature.

With so many browser-based security threats, here’s a fast and easy way to activate 2 settings in Google Chrome browser to protect you from the popular threats of phishing and untrusted browser extensions:

– Open the Chrome browser, click on the 3 dots (top-right) and select ‘Settings’.

– Click on ‘privacy and security’ (left hand-side).

– Click on ‘Security and Privacy Centre’.

– Turn the toggles to the ‘on’ position for ‘Extension Guard’ and ‘Anti Phishing’.