# data[].attributes.body
james parkhurst 😩

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
*Chinese Surveillance Database Leak with CIA Triad:*

1. Confidentiality 

Typically confidentiality is implemented with a method such as **Access control** *(Role-based access control, passwords and multi-factor authentication)*, **Encryption** (using algorithms such as AES-256 etc in transit and rest), **Data masking/anonymization** (Hiding personally identifiable information/replacing certain letters with symbols so a person can not be identified) and using the **Least privileged principle** (Ensuring only those who need access get access). However, during this leak the database with publicly accessible with no password, as well as with no encryption was used therefore the data was easily accessible.


2. Integrity

Integrity ensures that the data remains accurate, consistent and trustworthy. This is done in certain implementation methods such as **Hashing & checksums** to verify files haven't been modified/altered, **Digital signatures** to help prove authenticity, **Audit logs** to record all access/modification attempts and finally **Database constraints & validation** to prevent corrupt or malicious input. This factor was failed during the Chinese surveillance leak due to the fact that the database could be edited/added to/deleted from by anyone due to the lack of password. They also failed to include measures such as Audit logs to track unauthorized changes and didn't include digital signatures/hashes to ensure validity. 

3. Availability

The goal of this factor is to ensure data and systems are accessible to authorized users when needed and it can be implemented using methods such as:

- **Redundancy** -> *backups, failover servers, distributed systems*
- **Uptime guarantees** -> *Service Level Agreements (SLAs), monitoring systems*
- **DDoS protection** -> *Firewalls, rate limiting, intrusion detection/prevention systems*
- **Access management** -> *Ensure only authorized users have availability* 

During the surveillance leak the database and systems were too available as it was due to the entire internet.

# data[].attributes.body
Fatima Yasir

# data[].attributes.body
Ion Nedelcu

# data[].attributes.body
Write something beautiful...

# data[].attributes.body
Mollie

# data[].attributes.body
Joe Rolfe

# data[].attributes.body
Dragos Cimpeanu

# data[].attributes.body
lily calkowski

# data[].attributes.body
Daniel Briza stephens

# data[].attributes.body
Alfie Brown

# data[].attributes.body
i cannot think of any more

# data[].attributes.body
Fatima Yasir

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text

Incident 1: US Democratic party (2016)
This incident was caused by Russian hackers utilising phishing to get into the systems of the US Democratic Party as well as their emails.
This had allowed the hackers to have unauthorised access and use it to commit data theft.
This attack had the employees of the campaign have their personal information stolen, as well as information relating to the campaign stolen. However this did not effect many outside of this.
What could be learnt is to double check who you're getting the email and files from.

Incident 2: 4chan (2025)
Likely due to the outdated PHP stack that 4chan uses as a result in not having a backend update in many years, the website was taken control of by a malicious party.
Not much data could've been taken due to the nature of 4chan, but the admins do have linked accounts, this information was then taken, the information would include the names of the admins, as well as the linked emails to their accounts.
The website was taken down for about a week or 2 before being brought back online.
Having an outdated website backend really isn't a great idea.

Incident 3: Ukraine (2017)
This incident was a ransomware attack that had crippled Ukraine's systems, as this malware encrypted thousands upon thousands of files, rendering them unusable, unless they had paid bitcoin to decrypt it. The malware was "NotPetya" a stronger variant of Petya that would encrypt one's entire hard drive. It was purely destructive however, with the ransom part being fake, possibly a cover up for the attacker's actions.

This had impacted roughly 2000 organisations, which ranged from travel to food. It was deemed a "Warlike" attack.
There really wasn't much that could be done to prevent it because of how it spread.

# data[].attributes.body
Lily Calkowski

# data[].attributes.body
Joseph Rolfe

# data[].attributes.headline
Importance of Cybersecurity Extension Task

# data[].attributes.subject
Importance of Cybersecurity Extension Task

# data[].attributes.headline
Importance of Cybersecurity Creative Task

# data[].attributes.subject
Importance of Cybersecurity Creative Task

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pre-release materials January 2026 (Unit 03) Cyber