Author: Robert Broxup

Avoiding the need to spend money in the future isn’t always something to write home about. This software licence audit illustrates how we saved £250,000 in future expenditure_, but resulted in an overall lack of enthusiasm.  

• A software package costs £200 per licence. An audit shows that there are 2000 installations—a total cost of £400,000 in software licences

• An audit of purchasing records show the purchase of only 500 licences

• The business has already spent £100,000 on licences and to be fully compliant an additional £300,000 of expenditure is required

• An audit of software usage shows that only 750 need to use this software package

• After removing software no longer needed, the business needs an additional 250 licences – reducing the additional licence cost from £300,000 to £50,000

• Removal of 1250 software installations has reduced future expenditure by £250,000

As auditors, we can be enthusiastic about:

• Saving the company £250,000

• Reducing the commercial risks associated with unlicensed software

However, other’s enthusiasm wanes because:

• An immediate expense of £50,000 is required

• The £250,000 was never actually spent so is not returning into a budget

• Nobody knew about the £250,000 risk exposure so easily forgotten

• No further action is required on the £250,000 saving, whereas the £50,000 expenditure will no doubt require approval and be visible at c-suite and director level

• When considering the cost benefits associated with the audit, the identified need to spend £50,000 is something memorable, not the £250,000 saving

Don’t make bank transfers for purchases if:

• You don’t know the seller

• You are making a first-time purchase

• You have potential trust issues with the vendor

That said, there are cases when you want to pay for goods and services using banks transfers, and this article outlines a countermeasure to reduce loss from accidents or fraud.

Here are the steps:

• Request bank details – during the purchase, the vendor will provide the bank details, including the Account Name, Sort Code and Account Number. No change here.

• Set up as a payee – Add the recipient as a payee in the usual way

• Send a random micropayment – make a tiny payment as a test to ensure you have the correct bank details set up as a payee.

• Ask the recipient to confirm the amount received – notification of the exact amount received is confirmation that you have set up the payee correctly. The amount is essential, not just “yes, got it”.

• Pay the outstanding balance

This process:

• Avoids accidentally sending a large sum of money to the wrong account

• It prevents a vendor from denying receipt of a large payment

Banks have improved security by confirming the payee to provide greater assurance that you are sending payments to the intended recipient. This extra layer of protection helps avoid misdirecting funds to the wrong account and reduces fraud as you need to know the recipient’s name to make a payment to them. Without the name or the correct name, it will not be possible to confirm the payee, and the transaction will show up as a red flag before payment. You should be suspicious if a vendor volunteers an explanation in advance as to why the confirmation of payee will not sure a match against bank records.

The ‘NHS Test and Trace’ system is up and running in England. I didn’t expect to receive a fake telephone call informing me that I needed to self-isolate for 14 days. Luckily, the countermeasures to protect oneself against such calls are straight forward.

During the daily press briefing over the weekend, Dr Jenny Harries, deputy chief medical officer for England, said “it will be very obvious” when asked how people would know if the call was genuine. However, I don’t believe this will be true for all fake telephone calls of this nature. The level of fear surrounding the coronavirus is off the scale, and people respond differently to fear. Fraudulent coronavirus telephone calls will exploit the anxiety people are experiencing.

• The caller didn’t introduce themself by name, but rather brushed over the introduction quickly into wanting me to confirm my date of birth for identification purposes

• The caller wanted to know who I had spent time with recently – the caller refused to tell me who I had been in contact with on the grounds of patient confidentiality

• The caller wanted to know where I had been while outside my home – the caller refused to tell me where or when I had contact with a Covid-19 carrier

• The caller evaded question from me, by asking more questions; which all required me to provide personal details. It felt like an attempt to drown out my thinking on the matter so that I would respond from panic and fear rather than rational thought.

• The call came through to my phone as an unknown number – official information states that the incoming call should be from 0300 013 5000. It is worth noting that caller-IDs are easy to spoof, so the correct number could still be a fake call.

• The tone of voice had more in common with professional sales staff working the streets to sign people up for monthly charity contribution or those that want you to change your Gas, Electricity or Broadband provider. Nothing said gave me the impression that the call was genuine, or that the caller had any health services experience.

These factors collectively supported my quickly formulated opinion that the call was fake. Although initially, thoughts raced through my mind about who I had been in contact with over the last week. Then onto who else I could have passed the virus on to — then compounded by the death rate over 38,000 people in the UK and 350,000+ globally. Then within a few seconds, my thoughts changed from potential consequences to one of scepticism about the call itself. Instead of thinking about family and friends, I found myself wearing my information security hat again, and everything about the telephone call felt wrong.

Very quickly, it became apparent that it was a tactic to get me to provide the information, which they could confirm as the reason for me needing to self-isolate. The caller wanted information from me but failed to demonstrate any credibility that they were genuinely acting on behalf of our National Health Service. I ended the call. The caller has not yet called again. I can speculate as to the direction of the telephone call had I answered questions without thinking, but will reserve that for a follow-up article.

The problem is that too many organisations call their customers, and expect people to identify themselves, so people are used to the idea of answer security questions whenever an organisation calls them. There is no way to know for sure if these types of calls are 100% genuine, and the only real defence is to politely inform the caller that you will call the NHS Track and Trace helpline to discuss the matter in detail. Using the official contact telephone number is something that I always recommend when financial institutions contact their customers. The same applies in this case. The contact telephone number, along with additional information is available at:

• https://www.gov.uk/guidance/nhs-test-and-trace-how-it-works

Conclusion

Contact tracers should ask people to call the official contact telephone number to discuss the matter; this will allow proper dialogue to take place. As this is unlikely to happen, the security measure is as follows:

1. Accept the call. The caller will identify themself as calling from the NHS Test & Trace team
2. Thank the caller for making contact
3. Inform the caller that you will contact the NHS Test & Trace team directly on the official contact telephone number
4. End the call and obtain the correct telephone number from an authoritative source.
5. Contact the NHS Test & Trace team directly

If we are going to self-isolate for 14 days, the least we should expect is to know and understand the conditions in which we potentially became infected with Covid-19.

This article is one that I wish I never needed to write. However, it was inevitable that with something so life-changing as coronavirus, widespread fear and anxiety would be open to exploitation for malicious purposes

Updated – 2^nd June 2020

Thirty hours have elapsed since I received this call, and I have not received any further contact on this matter. If this were genuine, someone would have attempted to contact me again by now given the importance of the test and trace programme.

Numerous commentators are reporting on what the “new normal” will look like as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, and one thing is sure, things will not return to how they were in 2019. People and businesses are quickly adapting to new circumstances. Although many of these will revert to a pre-COVID-19 status, many more will either change back gradually over a long time or remain the new normal and move forward.

The positive approach is to treat the current predicament as an opportunity for improvement rather than treating adaptations as a temporary band-aid. We don’t know how long this crisis will last, and even if it ends this year, we have no way to tell if a new and more significant disaster will be waiting for us around the corner. Digital transformation is at the heart of change. There are many exceptions, as not all work can happen remotely. Still, if we perform everything we can remotely, it will offer a wide range of benefits on a broader scale and permanently change the working culture. Unfortunately, this does pose a significant risk for businesses that depend on office worker footfall.

The “work from home” culture has come forward in leaps and bounds. Thinking about this as a more long-term solution, it has many things to offer in terms of personal and business benefits:

• Large offices with 1000s of people – could be replaced with smaller offices if staff are working from home most of the time. Far less expenditure maintaining commercial premises. There is no need to have allocated desk space and settle for hot desks when people need to be in the office.

• Daily travel based on 9:00 to 17:00 – can be replaced with journeys when there is a genuine need to be in the office, rather than standard office hours being a routine that has been around for a long time. Consequently, reducing stress on public transport at specific times of the day. Less travelling and improved quality of life for the workforce.

• Hotel accommodation – elimination of all the costs associated with travel and overnight accommodation required for face to face working. The cost difference between working 40 hours from home or a local office, and being away from family for up to 120 hours per week to deliver 40 hours of work is significant.

Most of this is the way it is because it started this way, and very few had the foresight or interest in making changes to their working culture. In response to the pandemic, businesses are making significant changes to adapt and stay in business. The critical question is, when this is over, is there a genuine business need to revert, and in many cases, the answer will be NO.

Permanent change to working culture can have significant long-term benefits to society, including:

• Great long-term business and personal benefits

• Reduce the stress on roads and public transport

• Reduce the need to expand airports and build additional runways

• Reduce the need to add additional lanes to major roads and motorways in favour of reallocating budgets towards the repair of existing damaged roads – includes avoiding the idea of switching motorway hard-shoulders into extra lanes

Unfortunately, there are wide-ranging risks to other businesses, such as cafes and restaurants, that depend on office worker footfall and commuting. Many chains and small businesses could quickly become unsustainable and close or need a subsidy to remain operational.