Between 2022 and 2025, a sharp rise in military device thefts has exposed sensitive data and compromised national security worldwide. From laptops and USB drives to drones and smartphones, these thefts—often linked to hybrid warfare—reveal how physical assets are used for espionage, sabotage, and cyber infiltration.
This article maps confirmed incidents, official warnings from defense leaders, and outlines how even minor breaches can grant access to classified systems. In today’s threat landscape, securing every military device is critical to protecting sovereignty.
Documented Cases across France, the UK, Germany, Canada, the US, Ukraine, and Gambia.
Modus Operandi involving phishing attacks, compromised supply chains, drone espionage, and insider theft.
Official Alerts from defense ministers, intelligence chiefs, and security agencies warning about the strategic implications of stolen military-grade devices.
Technological Vulnerabilities that enable even small devices—like SD cards or USB keys—to act as backdoors into secure systems.
The article emphasizes the urgent need for cross-domain defense measures that go beyond encryption, including hardware-level protections, behavioral monitoring, and rapid response protocols. In the new digital battlefield, securing every military device is not optional—it’s a matter of national sovereignty.
About the Author – Jacques Gascuel is the inventor of patented hardware-based security solutions and the founder of Freemindtronic Andorra. With a focus on military-grade data protection, his research spans hybrid warfare, espionage tactics, and counter-intrusion technologies. This article on military device thefts reflects his commitment to developing offline, privacy-by-design tools that secure sensitive assets even beyond cyberspace.
Global Stakes: Hybrid Warfare and Digital Sabotage
These incidents align with a broader hybrid warfare strategy. They are not isolated cases but rather part of coordinated efforts involving espionage, sabotage, and infiltration. Stolen electronic equipment—laptops, USB drives, mobile phones, SSDs, even SD cards from drones—offers unauthorized access to military or state-level classified networks.
Malicious USB devices often serve as physical backdoors into critical infrastructures. Similarly, unidentified drone flyovers over sensitive sites suggest advanced surveillance and tactical scanning operations.
As General Philippe Susnjara (DRSD) emphasizes, these threats combine physical theft, cyberattacks, and strategic deception. Their cumulative effect directly undermines sovereignty and national defense. Computerworld Source
Global Inventory of Military Equipment Thefts & Data-Security Breaches (2022–2025)
Country/Region
Period
Incident Description
Equipment Stolen/Compromised
Context & Modus Operandi
Resolution Status
Source & Verification
France
Spring 2023
Soldiers stole laptops/fixed PCs at Kremlin-Bicêtre
Laptops and desktop computers
Internal military theft, equipment re-sold locally
Global Stakes: Hybrid Warfare and Digital Sabotage
These incidents align with a broader hybrid warfare strategy. They are not isolated cases but rather part of coordinated efforts involving espionage, sabotage, and infiltration. Stolen electronic equipment—laptops, USB drives, mobile phones, SSDs, even SD cards from drones—offers unauthorized access to military or state-level classified networks.
Malicious USB devices often serve as physical backdoors into critical infrastructures. Similarly, unidentified drone flyovers over sensitive sites suggest advanced surveillance and tactical scanning operations.
As General Philippe Susnjara (DRSD) emphasizes, these threats combine physical theft, cyberattacks, and strategic deception. Their cumulative effect directly undermines sovereignty and national defense. Computerworld Source
Inside the Global Shadow War Over Military Devices
🇫🇷 France
A troubling series of incidents—from military bases to defense exhibitions—has led to ministerial alerts. Sébastien Lecornu warns of a sharp increase in thefts affecting both civilian and military personnel. The DRSD highlights that devices often contain strategic data, and their loss could compromise France’s sovereignty.
🇩🇪 Germany
Surveillance drone sightings over sensitive sites and theft of equipment abroad (NATO Paris seminar) point toward sabotage and cross-border vulnerabilities.
🇺🇸 United States
Still coping with fallout from earlier breaches, like the theft of a contractor laptop holding data on over 207,000 reservists. The case remains a benchmark example of digital fallout from physical theft.
🇬🇧 United Kingdom
Supply-chain attacks demonstrate that not only direct military assets are targeted. Contractors handling sensitive information now represent a serious point of failure.
🇨🇦 Canada
Legislators’ phones and tablets were compromised as part of a state-sponsored campaign of intimidation and influence. These acts blur the lines between cyberespionage and political destabilization.
🇺🇦 Ukraine
Live conflict context accelerates hybrid operations. Stolen devices are weaponized instantly for signal intelligence (SIGINT). Groups like GRU’s Sandworm exploit battlefield-captured phones.
🇬🇲 Gambia
Theft of laptops from SIS headquarters represents one of Africa’s rare public breaches. It reveals structural weaknesses in intelligence security protocols.
Multi-region
Drone surveillance and memory card recovery expand the perimeter of military espionage to aerial and autonomous platforms. This represents a shift from physical theft to integrated hybrid reconnaissance.
From Devices to Doctrine: Rethinking Cyber-Physical Defense
Military electronics are now frontline assets. A stolen laptop, drone SD card, or USB key can become the gateway to classified systems. These devices must be treated as intelligence vectors, not just hardware.
The intersection of cyber and physical security demands smarter defense doctrines. Military infrastructure must now integrate AI-enhanced anomaly detection, offline compartmentalization, and self-erasing mechanisms.
Resilience is not just about preventing breaches. It’s about ensuring data can’t be exploited even if devices fall into enemy hands.
Final Signal: Securing Tomorrow’s Frontlines Today
This global mapping of military device thefts reveals more than just negligence—it signals a shift in modern conflict. Where data flows, power follows. And where equipment travels, so do vulnerabilities.
To protect sovereignty, nations must harden not just systems, but mindsets. Every stolen smartphone, every breached USB, is a reminder: defense begins with awareness, and ends with action.
Update 22 july In 2025 : WeTransfer attempted to include a clause in its Terms of Service allowing the use of uploaded user files for AI model training. Withdrawn after public backlash, this clause unveiled a deeper dynamic: file transfers are becoming mechanisms of cognitive capture. Centralized platforms increasingly exploit transmitted content as algorithmic fuel—without informed consent.
TL;DR — This Chronicle unveils how digital file transfers become covert mechanisms for AI cognitive extraction. It dissects hidden clauses in user contracts, outlines sovereign countermeasures, and exposes the systemic risks across major platforms.
Digital file transfers are no longer neutral mechanisms; they are increasingly transformed into algorithmic extraction vectors. Terms of Service, often written in opaque legalese, have evolved into covert infrastructures for AI training—turning user data into raw cognitive matter. Meanwhile, regulatory efforts struggle to keep pace, continually outflanked by the extraterritorial reach of foreign jurisdictions. In response, the European Union’s recent strategic initiatives—such as EuroStack and the proposed Buy European Act—signal a profound realignment of digital sovereignty. Yet, platform behavior diverges ever more from user expectations, and it becomes clear that only technical measures such as local encryption and isolated key custody can offer meaningful resistance to these systemic risks.
About the Author – Jacques Gascuel is the founder of Freemindtronic Andorra and inventor of patented sovereign technologies for serverless encryption. He operates in critical environments requiring offline, tamper-proof, auditable communications.
Clause 6.3 – Legalized Appropriation
⮞ Summary
WeTransfer’s 2025 attempt to impose a perpetual, transferable, sublicensable license on uploaded user files for AI purposes exposed the unchecked power platforms hold over digital content.
This move marked a watershed in the perception of user agreements. While the retraction of the clause followed intense public backlash, it revealed a broader strategy among digital service providers to legalize the repurposing of cognitive material for machine learning. Clause 6.3 was not a simple legal footnote—it was a blueprint for algorithmic appropriation masked under standard contract language.
“Worldwide, perpetual, transferable, sublicensable license for AI training and development.” – Extract from Clause 6.3 (Withdrawn)
Such phrasing illustrates the shift from service facilitation to cognitive extraction. By embedding rights for AI development, WeTransfer aligned with a growing trend in the tech industry: treating data not as a user right, but as a training resource. The episode served as a warning and highlighted the necessity for robust countermeasures, transparency standards, and sovereign alternatives that place user control above algorithmic interests.
CGU Comparison
⮞ Summary
A focused comparison of leading platforms reveals the systemic ambiguity and power imbalance in Terms of Service related to AI usage and data rights.
Platform
Explicit AI Usage
Transferable License
Opt-Out Available
WeTransfer
Yes (Withdrawn)
Yes, perpetual
No
Dropbox
Yes via third parties
Yes, partial
Unclear
Google Drive
Algorithmic processing
Yes, functional
No
Geopolitical Reactions
⮞ Summary
Sovereign concerns over AI data capture have sparked divergent responses across jurisdictions, highlighting gaps in enforcement and regulatory intent.
European Union: AI Act passed in 2024, but lacks enforceable civil liability for AI misuse. Push toward EuroStack, Buy European Act, NIS2, and LPM reforms intensifies strategic sovereignty.
United States: Pro-innovation stance. No federal constraints. Stargate program funds $500B in AI R&D. Cloud Act remains globally enforceable.
UNESCO / United Nations: Ethical recommendations since 2021, yet no binding international legal framework.
Case Study: Microsoft under French Senate Scrutiny
On June 10, 2025, before the French Senate Commission (led by Simon Uzenat), Anton Carniaux (Director of Public and Legal Affairs, Microsoft France) testified under oath that Microsoft cannot guarantee French data hosted in the EU would be shielded from U.S. intelligence requests.
Pierre Lagarde (Microsoft Public Sector CTO) confirmed that since January 2025, while data is physically retained in the EU, the U.S. Cloud Act supersedes local encryption or contractual frameworks.
🔎 Weak Signals:
– Microsoft admits no guarantee data stays out of U.S. reach
– Cloud Act overrides encryption and contracts
– Transparency reports omit classified requests
Sovereignty Acceleration – July 2025
⮞ Summary
July 2025 brought a turning point in European digital sovereignty, with official declarations, industrial strategies, and new pressure on U.S. hyperscalers’ extraterritorial influence.
European Union Strategic Shift
July 21 – Financial Times: EU proposes “Buy European Act” and EuroStack (€300B)
New Tech Sovereignty Commissioner appointed; exclusion proposed for Amazon, Google, Microsoft from critical infrastructure contracts
Microsoft Senate Testimony (June 10 & July 21, 2025)
Anton Carniaux, Microsoft France, acknowledges inability to block U.S. Cloud Act data access—even within EU
Brussels Signal: France accused of “digital suicide” by outsourcing sensitive infrastructure to U.S. clouds
Microsoft Sovereign Cloud Response
June 16 – Launch of “Microsoft Sovereign Public Cloud” with local controls, Bleu (Orange-Capgemini)
KuppingerCole: positive move, but concerns over proprietary dependencies remain
🔎 Weak Signals Identified:
– Cloud Act still overrides EU contractual frameworks
– Transparency reports exclude classified requests
– Strategic divergence between EU policy and U.S. platforms deepens
Global File Transfer Landscape
⮞ Summary
Comparison of major file transfer services reveals systemic vulnerabilities—ranging from unclear AI clauses to lack of encryption and non-European server locations.
Service
Country
AI Clause / Risk
Reference / Link
TransferNow
🇫🇷 France
Indirect algorithmic processing authorized
Terms PDF
Smash
🇫🇷 France
Amazon S3 storage, potential AI processing
Official site
SwissTransfer
🇨🇭 Switzerland
No AI, servers located in CH
Official site
Filemail
🇳🇴 Norway
AI in Pro version, automated tracking
ToS
pCloud
🇨🇭 Switzerland
Optional client-side encryption
Terms
Icedrive
🇬🇧 UK
AI in enterprise version
GDPR
TeraBox
🇯🇵 Japan
Native AI, tracking, advertising
Help Center
Zoho WorkDrive
🇮🇳 India
OCR AI, auto-analysis
Under review
Send Anywhere
🇰🇷 South Korea
Unclear risks, AI suggestions
Pending
BlueFiles
🇫🇷 France
ANSSI-certified sovereignty
Pending
Timeline of Algorithmic Drift
⮞ Summary
Tracing the evolution of AI file transfer extraction practices through key milestones, from early user content harvesting to the institutionalization of algorithmic appropriation.
The rise of AI file transfer extraction has not occurred overnight. It reflects a decade-long erosion of the boundary between user ownership and platform processing rights. In 2011, Facebook quietly began training algorithms on user-generated content without explicit consent, under the guise of service improvement. This pattern intensified in 2023 when Zoom inserted controversial clauses enabling the use of video streams for generative AI development.
By 2024, a wave of subtle yet systemic changes reshaped the Terms of Service of major cloud providers—embedding AI training clauses into legal fine print. These changes culminated in the 2025 WeTransfer debacle, where the overt Clause 6.3 aimed to codify perpetual AI training rights over all uploaded data, effectively legalizing cognitive content extraction at scale.
This drift illustrates a deeper structural shift: platforms no longer see uploaded files as inert data but as dynamic cognitive capital to be mined, modeled, and monetized. The user’s agency vanishes behind opaque contracts, while algorithmic models extract knowledge that cannot be retracted or traced.
✪ Illustration — Timeline of AI file transfer extraction milestones from social platforms to file hosting services.
Legal Semantics of ToS
⮞ Summary
Decoding how the legal language in Terms of Service enables hidden forms of AI file transfer extraction, revealing structural loopholes and algorithmic license laundering.
The Terms of Service (ToS) of digital platforms have become vehicles of silent appropriation. Their language—crafted for maximal legal elasticity—shields platforms from scrutiny while unlocking unprecedented access to user content. Phrases like “improving services” or “enhancing performance” conceal layers of cognitive harvesting by AI systems.
When a clause refers to a “perpetual, worldwide license,” it often translates to long-term rights of exploitation regardless of jurisdiction. The term “sublicensable” allows redistribution to third-party entities, including opaque AI training consortia. Meanwhile, catch-all terms like “content you provide” encompass everything from raw files to metadata, thus legalizing broad extraction pipelines.
This semantic engineering forms the linguistic backbone of AI file transfer extraction. It bypasses informed consent, turning each uploaded document into a potential data vector—where legality is retrofitted to platform ambitions. The visible contract diverges sharply from the underlying operational reality, revealing a growing rift between user expectations and AI data regimes.
Sensitive File Typologies
⮞ Summary
AI file transfer extraction does not treat all data equally. Administrative, biometric, professional, and judicial files are disproportionately targeted—each representing unique vectors of algorithmic appropriation.
Not all files carry the same cognitive weight. In the context of AI file transfer extraction, typology dictates vulnerability. Administrative files—containing national ID scans, tax records, or electoral data—offer structured, standardized templates ideal for training entity recognition systems. Similarly, biometric files such as passport scans or fingerprint data are exploited for facial recognition model reinforcement and biometric signature prediction.
Meanwhile, professional and contractual documents often include internal memos, business strategies, and technical schematics—unintentionally fueling AI agents trained on corporate decision-making and supply chain optimization. Judicial documents, ranging from affidavits to forensic reports, present a rare density of factual, narrative, and procedural data—perfectly suited for training legal decision engines.
Concretely, a leaked internal arbitration file from a multinational energy firm was reportedly used in 2024 to refine conflict resolution modules in a closed-source LLM deployed by a U.S. defense contractor. Elsewhere, a biometric file exfiltrated from a compromised passport office—later found in a 2025 training dataset for a commercial facial recognition suite—highlights the unintended consequences of lax file transfer governance.
⮞ Weak Signals Identified
– Pattern: Judicial files disproportionately present in anonymized training datasets
– Trend: Rising correlation between enterprise document formats and AI-captured syntax
– Vector: Embedded metadata used to refine prompt injection vulnerabilities
✓ Sovereign Countermeasures
– Deploy DataShielder NFC HSM to localize file access with zero exposure
– Use PassCypher for contractual document integrity via hash verification
– Strip metadata before file transfers using sovereign scrubbers
Cognitive AI Capture Statistics
⮞ Summary
AI file capture now represents over 24% of datasets used for commercial model training. Sensitive sectors such as energy, healthcare, and legal services are disproportionately impacted.
According to the 2025 AI Dataset Integrity Consortium, approximately 1.4 billion documents extracted via public and semi-private channels were incorporated into model pretraining pipelines since 2023. Within these, legal records account for 16%, while biometric files comprise 11%. The healthcare sector—long presumed protected under HIPAA and GDPR—contributes nearly 19% of identifiable documents, largely through indirect metadata trails.
In practical terms, models trained on these datasets demonstrate elevated performance in tasks related to compliance prediction, medical diagnostics, and even behavioral inference. The economic value of such datasets is surging, with a recent valuation by QuantMinds placing them at €37.5 billion for 2025 alone.
Sector-specific analysis reveals that critical infrastructure sectors are not only data-rich but also structurally exposed: shared drives, collaborative platforms, and cross-border storage routes remain the most exploited vectors. As AI accelerates, the strategic imperative to regulate file-level provenance becomes a national security concern.
✪ Illustration — AI file capture trends 2025 by sector: energy, healthcare, legal, biometric.
Algorithmic Contamination Cycle
⮞ Summary
Once ingested, contaminated files do not remain passive. They recursively alter the behavior of downstream AI models—embedding compromised logic into subsequent algorithmic layers.
The act of file ingestion by AI systems is not a neutral event. When a compromised or biased file enters a training dataset, it triggers a cascade: extracted knowledge reshapes not just that model’s predictions, but also its influence over future derivative models. This recursive pollution—a phenomenon we term the algorithmic contamination cycle—is now structurally embedded into most large-scale model pipelines.
Consider the case of predictive compliance engines used in fintech. A single misinterpreted regulatory memo, once embedded in pretraining, can result in systematic overflagging or underreporting—errors that multiply across integrations. The contamination spreads from LLMs to API endpoints, to user interfaces, and eventually to institutional decision-making.
Worse, this cycle resists remediation. Once a file has altered a model’s parameters, its influence is not easily extractable. Re-training or purging data offers no guarantee of cognitive rollback. Instead, AI architectures become epistemologically infected—reproducing the contamination across updates, patches, and forked deployments.
✪ Illustration — AI file transfer extraction process forming an algorithmic contamination cycle.
⮞ Weak Signals Identified
– Vector: Unmonitored AI pipelines reusing contaminated weights
– Pattern: Cascade of anomalies across decision support systems
– Risk: Institutional reliance on non-auditable model layers
✓ Sovereign Countermeasures
– Isolate model training from operational environments
– Employ auditable training datasets using Freemindtronic-sealed archives
– Prevent contamination via air-gapped update mechanisms
Sovereign Countermeasures
From Legal Clauses to Operational Realities
Most mitigation attempts against cognitive AI capture remain declarative: consent forms, platform pledges, or regional hosting promises. These approaches fail under adversarial scrutiny. In contrast, Freemindtronic’s sovereign architecture introduces operational irreversibility: the data is cryptographically sealed, physically isolated, and strategically fragmented across user-controlled environments.
Discrepancies Between Clauses and Actual Exploitation
Recent examples underscore this fragility. In 2025, WeTransfer attempted to introduce a clause enabling AI training on uploaded files. Though officially retracted, the very proposal confirmed how CGUs can be weaponized as silent appropriation instruments. Similarly, SoundCloud’s terms in early 2024 briefly allowed uploaded content to be used for AI development, before the platform clarified its scope under pressure from the creator community.
Timeline: The WeTransfer Clause 6.3 Incident
June 2025: WeTransfer updates Clause 6.3 to include rights “including to improve performance of machine learning models” — set to take effect on August 8, 2025.
July 14, 2025: The clause is flagged publicly on Reddit (source), triggering concern across creative communities.
July 15, 2025: WeTransfer issues a public clarification that it “does not and will not use files for AI training” (official statement).
July 16, 2025: Revised ToS removes the AI clause entirely (coverage).
First alarm was raised by professionals in Reddit’s r/editors thread, quickly echoed by Ashley Lynch and other creatives on X and LinkedIn. This incident highlights the time-lag between clause deployment and retraction, and the necessity for vigilant watchdog networks.
Such episodes highlight a critical dynamic: CGUs operate in the realm of legal possibility, but their enforcement—or the lack thereof—remains opaque. Unless independently audited, there is no verifiable mechanism proving that a clause is not operationalized. As whistleblowers and open-source investigators gain traction, platforms are pressured to retract or justify vague clauses. However, between declared terms and algorithmic pipelines, a sovereignty vacuum persists.
Devices such as DataShielder NFC HSM render files unreadable unless decrypted via local authentication, without server mediation or telemetry leakage. Meanwhile, PassCypher validates document provenance and integrity offline, resisting both exfiltration and prompt injection risks.
These tools do not simply protect—they prevent transformation. Without access to raw cleartext or embedded metadata, AI systems cannot reconfigure input into modelable vectors. The result is strategic opacity: a file exists, but remains invisible to cognitive systems. Sovereignty is no longer abstract; it becomes executable.
✪ Illustration — Sovereign countermeasures by Freemindtronic: offline encryption, anti-exfiltration, metadata neutralization.
⮞ Sovereign Use Case | Resilience with Freemindtronic
In a cross-border legal proceeding involving sensitive EU arbitration documents, Freemindtronic’s DataShielder NFC HSM was deployed to encrypt and locally isolate the files. This measure thwarted exfiltration attempts even amid partial system compromise—demonstrating operational sovereignty and algorithmic resistance in practice.
⛏ What We Didn’t Cover
While this Chronicle dissected the structural vectors and sovereign responses to AI file transfer extraction, adjacent vectors such as voiceprint leakage, encrypted traffic telemetry, and generative prompt recycling remain underexplored. These domains will be treated in future briefings.
🔎 Weak Signals:
– Multiple platforms (e.g., SoundCloud, WeTransfer) have introduced and then revised AI-related clauses in their Terms of Service following public pressure.
– The absence of independent audits or technical proofs prevents any reliable verification of actual AI clause enforcement.
– Whistleblowers, investigative journalists, and open-source monitors remain the only safeguards against undeclared algorithmic data harvesting.
– This reinforces the necessity of sovereign technical countermeasures over declarative trust models.
Anàlisi jurídica profunda de la llei andorrana de doble ús Llei 10/2025 del Codi de Duana d’Andorra
La Llei andorrana sobre el doble ús s’inscriu en una reforma estratègica del control de les exportacions. Davant les noves amenaces híbrides, es crea una base jurídica centrada en el dret duaner, la sobirania tecnològica i l’alineament parcial amb la UE. Identificació EORI, compliment UE i regulació criptogràfica esdevenen pilars d’aquesta seguretat reglamentària, convertint aquesta anàlisi en una referència en català per al control estratègic de la tecnologia.
El control de les exportacions de béns de doble ús esdevé un pilar de la sobirania tecnològica andorrana. Davant la complexitat creixent de les cadenes de valor, la criptologia exportada i les regulacions extraterritorials, Andorra anticipa aquests desafiaments mitjançant una reforma estratègica del seu marc duaner i reglamentari. Aquesta anàlisi jurídica especialitzada explora:
✔ Com Andorra articula el compliment UE i al mateix temps la autonomia sobirana a través de la Llei 10/2025. ✔ Per què el règim EORI i l’acord duaner Andorra–UE ofereixen un avantatge per a les exportacions estratègiques. ✔ Com estructurar una doctrina andorrana del doble ús, en coherència amb el Règim (UE) 2021/821. ✔ Quins són els futurs reptes: IA, ciberseguretat hardware, sobirania de cadenes crítiques.
Sobre l’autor — Inventor de tecnologies de doble ús i fundador de Freemindtronic Andorra, Jacques Gascuel desenvolupa solucions de protecció de dades i contraespionatge amb vocació civil i militar. Analitza aquí els aspectes estratègics de la llei andorrana sobre el doble ús des d’una perspectiva «privacy by design» conforme a les exigències reglamentàries internacionals.
1. Anàlisi estratègica de la Llei andorrana de doble ús: reforma del Codi de Duana 2025
El Consell General d’Andorra va aprovar la Llei 10/2025 el 13 de maig de 2025, publicada posteriorment al BOPA núm. 68 del 4 de juny de 2025. Aquesta llei suposa un punt d’inflexió clau en l’evolució del dret duaner andorrà, ja que busca l’alineació de la legislació nacional amb el Codi Duaner de la Unió Europea, segons estableix el Reglament (UE) núm. 952/2013 de 9 d’octubre de 2013 (EUR-Lex – CELEX:32013R0952).
En substitució de la Llei 17/2020, aquesta reforma introdueix una arquitectura moderna per a la regulació duanera. Consta de 296 articles repartits en nou títols. Concretament, facilita els tràmits duaners, impulsa la digitalització de les operacions i, sobretot, estableix un marc jurídic sòlid per al control dels fluxos sensibles, especialment pel que fa als béns de doble ús.
Per a més informació oficial, els textos són consultables aquí:
Així, aquesta nova legislació posiciona Andorra en una lògica de compliment reforçat i integració reguladora progressiva amb la Unió Europea.
2. Elements estructurants del nou Codi de Duana andorrà
Abans d’abordar les disposicions específiques de la Llei andorrana de doble ús, és útil revisar els punts estructurants del nou Codi de Duana, que reforcen l’eficiència i la transparència del sistema duaner andorrà.
2.1 Ampliació del perímetre duaner
El territori duaner andorrà inclou ara l’espai aeri i les aigües interiors, a més de les fronteres terrestres.
Aquesta ampliació pretén controlar de manera més estricta els fluxos de mercaderies a través de tots els modes de transport, especialment l’aeri i el multimodal.
2.2 Precisió terminològica essencial
El Codi redefineix conceptes clau per millorar la seguretat jurídica:
Terme
Definició (segons la llei)
Estatut duaner
Caràcter comunitari o no d’una mercaderia
Posada en lliure pràctica
Règim que permet l’entrada al mercat andorrà
Representant duaner
Mandatari autoritzat per realitzar els tràmits duaners en nom d’un tercer
2.3 Digitalització dels procediments
L’ús de sistemes electrònics esdevé obligatori per a totes les operacions.
Això inclou les declaracions d’importació/exportació, les sol·licituds d’autorització i les sol·licituds de reemborsament.
Aquesta mesura té per objectiu reduir els terminis de tramitació i reforçar la traçabilitat.
3. Sistema andorrà de drets, garanties i autoritzacions: cap a un control eficaç
Continuem l’anàlisi de la Llei andorrana de doble ús examinant ara l’estructura financera i procedimental que regula els fluxos duaners. Aquest pilar normatiu, lluny de ser secundari, assegura la seguretat dels ingressos públics i aporta previsibilitat i fiabilitat als operadors econòmics.
Aquesta part del nou Codi estableix un triplet coherent: gestió del deute duaner, implementació de garanties i disseny d’autoritzacions administratives. Aquests elements asseguren una governança rigorosa dels fluxos comercials de risc, especialment els relacionats amb tecnologies sensibles.
3.1 Regulació dels deutes duaners i garanties
La Llei 10/2025 introdueix un mecanisme coherent de càlcul, pagament i reemborsament dels drets de duana. A més, estableix normes precises sobre el deute duaner i exigeix, en determinats casos, garanties financeres dels operadors.
3.2 Règims econòmics duaners: fluïdesa amb condicions
Es clarifiquen els procediments de trànsit, dipòsit duaner, perfeccionament actiu i passiu.
El codi preveu una racionalització dels règims particulars, millorant la competitivitat de les empreses andorranes amb projecció internacional.
Aquesta estructuració pretén establir una logística més fluïda tot mantenint un alt nivell de supervisió.
3.3 Gestió de les autoritzacions duaneres: un gir normatiu
La nova llei estableix un sistema estructurat per a les sol·licituds, tramitació i emissió d’autoritzacions duaneres, fonamental per garantir la seguretat jurídica dels operadors econòmics.
L’administració duanera pot atorgar autoritzacions generals o específiques segons el tipus d’operació i el nivell de risc associat.
Un registre digital centralitzat recull totes les autoritzacions emeses, assegurant-ne la traçabilitat i verificabilitat.
El codi imposa un termini màxim de resposta per evitar bloquejos administratius.
Aquest sistema de gestió integrada augmenta la transparència i la previsibilitat, dos pilars essencials per reforçar la competitivitat duanera d’Andorra en el marc dels seus compromisos amb la Unió Europea.
4. Regulació específica de la Llei andorrana de doble ús
Ara entrem al nucli del dispositiu legal relatiu als béns de doble ús, un aspecte sensible de la Llei 10/2025.
4.1 Article 267.3.f: marc jurídic essencial
Text de referència: Reglament (UE) 2021/821
Aquesta disposició va entrar en vigor immediatament després de la publicació de la llei, el 5 de juny de 2025, segons la seva disposició final.
El Decret 207/2025, publicat el 12 de juny de 2025, especifica els tràmits associats a l’autorització. Text oficial: BOPA Andorra – GR_2025_06_11_13_27_27
Aquest text preveu que:
Tota exportació de béns inclosos a l’annex I del Reglament (UE) 2021/821 requereix autorització duanera;
S’estableix una excepció per a les destinacions dins de la Unió Europea;
Es poden atorgar autoritzacions de llarga durada (fins a 12 mesos) per a fluxos regulars;
És obligatori declarar l’usuari final per garantir la traçabilitat dels usos finals.
4.3 Freemindtronic: un exemple de conformitat proactiva
Abans fins i tot de l’entrada en vigor de la Llei andorrana de doble ús, Freemindtronic ja havia iniciat, des de 2021, una acció exemplar. Avançant-se a les obligacions reguladores, l’empresa va estructurar els seus fluxos comercials sensibles dins un marc ètic i jurídic rigorós.
Freemindtronic va proposar una Carta Ètica, acompanyada d’una documentació formalitzada des de 2022, per regular l’ús i exportació de les seves tecnologies criptogràfiques sensibles.
Mesures concretes:
Implementació d’un dispositiu d’informació regular a les autoritats andorranes;
Llicència d’exportació especial obtinguda el 2022 per a Eurosatory a través de COGES Events sota l’empara del GICAT, validada pel General Charles Beaudouin (LinkedIn);
4.4 Documentació de conformitat internacional: model francès i procediment ANSSI
Per garantir una conformitat jurídica total en l’exportació de tecnologies sensibles, Freemindtronic també s’ha recolzat en els requisits francesos pel que fa al control dels mitjans de criptologia.
O per correu postal: ANSSI, Bureau des contrôles réglementaires, 51 boulevard de la Tour-Maubourg, 75700 Paris 07 SP
El formulari principal, Annexe I, és disponible aquí: formulari PDF.
Aquest document inclou:
Identificació completa del sol·licitant;
Descripció tècnica dels productes;
Modalitats d’exportació previstes;
Compromisos de conformitat amb la legislació de la UE i nacional.
Gràcies a aquest rigor, Freemindtronic ha pogut exportar legalment els mòduls DataShielder NFC HSM Defense, amb la validació del seu soci exclusiu AMG Pro.
5. Cooperació andorrana i recursos pedagògics: una obertura estratègica
Mentre l’aplicació de la Llei andorrana sobre els béns de doble ús tot just comenca, els actors públics i privats poden tenir un paper estratègic en la difusió de bones pràctiques. Aquesta dinàmica representa una gran oportunitat per estructurar un ecosistema virtuós d’acompanyament normatiu i de sensibilització dels operadors econòmics.
En particular, Andorra disposa d’un potencial de co-construcció entre institucions i empreses innovadores, amb respecte a les seves prerrogatives respectives. En aquest context, esdevé pertinent desenvolupar eines d’ajuda per a la comprensió de la regulació i oferir informació clara i estructurada als professionals implicats.
5.1 Absència de guies institucionals: un buit a omplir
La regulació andorrana sobre els béns de doble ús, tot i estar publicada al BOPA, pateix actualment una manca de documentació aplicada. Encara no s’han publicat punts d’informació especialitzats, tutorials administratius o guies de conformitat per part de les institucions públiques.
5.2 Contribució de Freemindtronic: contingut pedagògic, guia pràctica i sensibilització
Basant-se en la seva experiència reguladora, Freemindtronic ha iniciat la redacció d’una guia pràctica de conformitat, co-marcable amb entitats com la Duana Andorrana (enllaç oficial).
Aquesta iniciativa té per objectiu:
Explicar de manera entenedora els procediments de sol·licitud d’autorització;
Proposar models tipus de documents conformes al Decret 207/2025;
Difondre les obligacions essencials per a l’exportació de béns sensibles.
5.3 Eines digitals disponibles
Paral·lelament, Freemindtronic ha publicat diversos recursos accessibles en línia sobre la regulació internacional dels productes de doble ús, en particular:
Aquests recursos es presenten com a complements informatius fiables als textos oficials i contribueixen a la implementació de la Llei andorrana sobre els béns de doble ús.
Alineació del règim andorrà amb la normativa internacional
El règim andorrà de control de les exportacions de doble ús forma part d’un marc regulador global, on cada jurisdicció imposa estàndards específics per a la regulació i el seguiment dels fluxos comercials sensibles. A causa del seu acord duaner amb la Unió Europea, Andorra es beneficia de peculiaritats que influeixen en el seu enfocament de les exportacions i les exempcions aplicables.
No obstant això, la normativa vigent a les grans potències econòmiques – la Unió Europea, els Estats Units, el Regne Unit, Suïssa, els països de la Commonwealth – influeix en les obligacions dels exportadors andorrans. Aquesta dinàmica es reflecteix en:
L’adopció d’estàndards internacionals com els estàndards de Wassenaar i el Reglament de la UE 2021/821.
Harmonització gradual dels procediments d’exportació a mercats estratègics.
Restriccions a determinades categories de mercaderies segons destinacions i controls extraterritorials.
Per tal de comparar aquestes regulacions i avaluar el seu impacte en el comerç intracomunitari, a la taula següent es presenta un resum de la normativa internacional, les seves dates d’entrada en vigor i les seves implicacions per a Andorra.
Control d’exportacions a través del Ministeri de Comerç Exterior.
Efecte extraterritorial i singularitat andorrana
L’ efecte extraterritorial de la normativa nord-americana (AEOI) i europea (Reglament UE 2021/821) afecta la gestió de les exportacions d’Andorra. No obstant això, gràcies a l’Acord Duaner de 1990, Andorra es beneficia d’una unió duanera parcial amb la UE, que permet la lliure circulació de productes industrials (capítols 25 a 97 de l’aranzel duaner) un cop introduïts a la cadena europea, sense tràmits addicionals.
Així, una anàlisi en profunditat suggereix que és possible exportar productes de doble ús d’Andorra a la Unió Europea sense autorització prèvia, subjecte a les condicions següents:
Compliment de les normes europees.
Identificació mitjançant un número EORI.
No hi ha restriccions específiques enumerades a l’annex IV del Reglament Europeu.
Aquesta peculiaritat normativa diferencia Andorra dels Estats membres de la UE, que han d’aplicar estrictes règims de control de les exportacions. No obstant això, encara cal una major vigilància, especialment pel que fa als desenvolupaments legislatius internacionals que podrien reforçar els requisits duaners.
6. Alineació del règim andorrà amb les regulacions internacionals
La promulgació de la Llei andorrana sobre els béns de doble ús (Llei 10/2025) marca una evolució significativa dins de l’arquitectura normativa del país, en establir les primeres bases per a un control d’exportació reglamentat. Aquesta secció analitza l’abast material, els actors institucionals implicats i els efectes concrets per als operadors econòmics, en un context d’integració progressiva al marc europeu.
6.1 Lliure circulació dins de la UE
El Reglament (UE) 2021/821 permet, en general, la lliure circulació dels béns de doble ús dins del mercat interior de la UE, excepte per a productes especialment sensibles inclosos a l’Annex IV. Això implica que, un cop un bé forma part de l’àmbit de la UE, la seva reexportació cap a un altre Estat membre no requereix autorització addicional, llevat de casos particulars.
6.2 Andorra i la Unió Duanera Parcial
L’Acord del 1990 estableix una unió duanera parcial entre el Principat d’Andorra i la Unió Europea, que cobreix els capítols 25 a 97 del Tarifa Duaner Comuna. Aquest acord permet la lliure circulació de mercaderies, suprimint barreres aranzelàries per als productes concernits.
Segons les anàlisis del CEPS, els productes prèviament importats a Andorra des d’un Estat tercer i que disposin d’un número EORI poden circular lliurement per la UE sense formalitats addicionals, excepte els productes del tabac, que resten sotmesos a regulacions específiques.
6.3 Implicacions per als béns de doble ús
Una conclusió a verificar és si, sobre la base de l’acord duaner i el reglament europeu, esdevé possible exportar béns de doble ús des d’Andorra cap a la UE sense autorització prèvia andorrana, sota certes condicions:
Conformitat amb les regulacions europees;
Identificació clara mitjançant número EORI;
Absència de restricció específica (Annex IV del Reglament (UE) 2021/821).
Si aquestes condicions es compleixen, representaria una singularitat notable en relació amb les regulacions dels Estats membres de la UE.
6.4. Beneficis directes per als industrials andorrans del sector dual i defensa
La reforma duanera impulsada per la Llei 10/2025 i el seu decret d’aplicació proporciona als industrials andorrans condicions operatives estratègiques en un entorn altament regulat a escala internacional..
✔ Oportunitat reguladora: Les empreses andorranes que desenvolupen o fabriquen tecnologies d’ús dual o militar poden ara exportar lliurement cap a la UE sense necessitat d’iniciar procediments d’autorització andorrans, excepte per als béns recollits a l’Annex IV.
En aquest sentit, diversos dispositius criptogràfics “fabricats a Andorra” de la gamma DataShielder NFC HSM o PGP HSM, malgrat estar classificats dins de la categoria 5, part 2 del Reglament (UE) 2021/821, no estan inclosos a l’Annex IV i per tant es beneficien plenament de l’exempció europea contemplada per aquesta nova normativa andorrana:
Ús previst:
Activitat econòmica del comprador: ____
Ús/destinació dels béns: ____
Em comprometo a:
– Utilitzar els béns exclusivament segons l’ús declarat;
– No reexportar-los sense autorització de les autoritats del país de destinació.
Data, lloc, signatura, segell, funció del signant
6.6. Sancions, embargaments i buit regulador a Andorra
Tot i que Andorra ha reforçat recentment el seu marc legislatiu amb la Llei andorrana sobre els béns de doble ús, en particular a través de l’article 267, paràgraf 3, lletra f de la Llei 10/2025, persisteix una zona grisa preocupant pel que fa a sancions i embargaments. Aquesta llei defineix les condicions d’autorització d’exportació per als béns sensibles criptogràfics, però no preveu cap mecanisme de control a posteriori ni dispositiu repressiu autònom en cas d’incompliment de les seves obligacions.
A les jurisdiccions europees i nord-americanes, aquesta mancança donaria lloc a un sistema detallat tant administratiu com penal. Per exemple, el Reglament (UE) 2021/821 estableix procediments clars per a la repressió d’infraccions, mentre que els Estats Units disposen d’un arsenal normatiu sòlid a través de l’EAR i de les sancions de l’OFAC. A Suïssa i a França, l’exportació no autoritzada de tecnologies de doble ús és objecte de sancions severes, inclosa la responsabilitat penal dels directius.
A l’inrevés, el marc jurídic exportador andorrà encara presenta mancances estructurals quant a la resposta davant infraccions. Aquesta absència d’un règim sancionador explícit obre un buit normatiu que pot exposar el país a riscos d’abús i posar en qüestió la seva cooperació internacional, especialment en el marc del Reglament europeu esmentat.
A tenir en compte: En absència d’un dispositiu autònom de sancions, Andorra podria ser objecte d’una invocació de responsabilitat extraterritorial per part dels seus socis comercials, especialment si les seves tecnologies de doble ús són desviades a usos prohibits.
6.7. Cap a una governança andorrana del doble ús: inspiració europea i marc operatiu
Davant les mancances detectades en el règim actual, sembla oportú consolidar progressivament una governança nacional andorrana del control d’exportació. Aquesta podria inspirar-se útilment en els dispositius implantats a França i Espanya, sense fer una transposició mecànica, sinó amb respecte per la sobirania jurídica d’Andorra.
Exemple francès:
El control dels béns de doble ús a França és competència de la Subdirecció de Comerç Internacional de Béns Estratègics (SBDU), vinculada a la Direcció General d’Empreses (DGE). Aquest organisme concedeix autoritzacions d’exportació en coordinació amb la Duana i el Ministeri de les Forces Armades a través del Servei d’Informació i Documentació (SID) per a un seguiment reforçat postexportació.
🔹 SBDU: Autoritat competent en matèria de control i emissió de llicències.
➡ Ministeri d’Economia – Béns de doble ús
🔹 Coordinació amb la Duana: Seguiment dels fluxos comercials sensibles i verificació de conformitat.
➡ Direcció General de Duanes i Drets Indirectes (DGDDI)
🔹 Ministeri de Defensa – SID: Anàlisi de riscos i control estratègic de les exportacions.
➡ Servei d’Informació i Documentació (SID)
Exemple espanyol: La Secretaria d’Estat de Comerç (SECOMS) i la Junta Interministerial Reguladora del Comerç Exterior de Material de Defensa i de Doble Ús (JIMDDU) asseguren una coordinació interministerial centralitzada per decidir sobre les exportacions de material de defensa i doble ús.
🔹 SECOMS: Responsable de l’aplicació de regulacions sobre exportacions i importacions sensibles.
➡ Ministeri d’Indústria, Comerç i Turisme
🔹 JIMDDU: Òrgan intergovernamental competent sobre exportacions estratègiques.
➡ Decret oficial BOE 2023-21672
🔹 Informe semestral sobre exportacions de material de defensa i béns de doble ús:
➡ Estadístiques i dades (2024)
En aquest context, Andorra podria instaurar un Comitè intergovernamental andorrà del doble ús, integrat per:
els ministeris d’Afers Exteriors, Finances i Justícia,
la Duana Andorrana,
experts en dret internacional i tecnologies sensibles,
representants del sector industrial habilitat.
Aquest comitè tindria el mandat d’elaborar una doctrina sobirana d’exportació, adoptar un decret d’aplicació autònom que defineixi sancions i controls, i coordinar la cooperació amb els socis europeus.
Aquesta inspiració té una legitimació especial, ja que els dos estats de referència – França i Espanya – són també coprínceps constitucionals d’Andorra. La seva influència institucional i arrelament històric confereixen a les seves pràctiques un estatus de referència compatible amb l’ordre jurídic andorrà.
Accions pràctiques a implementar des d’ara
Mantenir una matriu de conformitat que encreui les exigències de la Llei 10/2025, els règims extraterritorials (US EAR, UK OGEL…) i les obligacions contractuals amb els socis estrangers.
Verificar sistemàticament les llistes de control de la UE i altres jurisdiccions, en especial l’annex IV del Reglament (UE) 2021/821 abans de qualsevol exportació intraeuropea.
Formar els equips en normes de traçabilitat duanera i obligacions relatives als identificadors EORI, especialment per a exportacions cap a la UE.
Integrar clàusules de control d’exportació en tots els contractes que continguin elements tecnològics sensibles, incloent-hi restriccions de reexportació i compromisos de no desviació.
Implantar una vigilància activa sobre les autoritzacions generals d’exportació (GEA) europees i nacionals, incloent-hi modificacions d’abast o condicions d’ús.
7. Abast normatiu i perspectives d’aplicació
A la llum de les disposicions introduïdes per la Llei andorrana sobre els béns de doble ús i el seu decret d’aplicació, sembla evident que el legislador andorrà ha fet un pas estructurant cap a una convergència amb els estàndards europeus, tot preservant l’especificitat jurídica del Principat d’Andorra. L’articulació entre el dret intern, el dret de la Unió Europea i els règims extraterritorials internacionals (US EAR, UK, Wassenaar) exigeix a partir d’ara una vigilància constant per part dels operadors econòmics, a fi de garantir la conformitat dinàmica de les seves pràctiques exportadores.
En aquest sentit, la trajectòria anticipadora i ètica de Freemindtronic — il·lustrada per actuacions documentades i una doctrina de conformitat consolidada — constitueix un model transferible. Demostra que la iniciativa privada pot contribuir útilment a la construcció d’un règim jurídic coherent, en benefici tant de l’Estat com dels actors industrials.
Correspon ara a les autoritats andorranes competents continuar amb l’esforç d’acompanyament normatiu, en particular mitjançant la producció de doctrines administratives, guies oficials i la posada en marxa de formacions i finestretes especialitzades. En paral·lel, les empreses han d’institucionalitzar una vigilància reguladora integrada, articulada amb matrius d’impacte extraterritorial, per fer de la conformitat exportadora un veritable eix estratègic.
Així, la implementació efectiva i fluida d’aquest règim es fonamenta en una sinergia entre dret, tecnologia i responsabilitat compartida. Traça els contorns d’un nou pacte normatiu andorrà basat en la transparència, la seguretat jurídica i l’ambició d’un model econòmic obert però rigorosament regulat.
8. Enfocament comparatiu i prospectiu: cap a una doctrina andorrana del doble ús
La reforma del Codi de Duana mitjançant la Llei 10/2025, del 13 de maig, juntament amb el Reglament d’execució sobre l’exportació de béns de doble ús (Decret 207/2025), ofereix una oportunitat inèdita per al Principat d’Andorra de construir una doctrina pròpia en matèria de control estratègic, alineada però diferenciada dels règims europeus (UE), francès, espanyol i suís.
Comparacions doctrinals i marcs jurídics
França: el règim francès es fonamenta en el Codi de la defensa, l’ordre del 8 de juliol de 2015 per a les AIMG i l’ordre del 2 de juny de 2014 per a les LEMG, combinats amb decisions puntuals de suspensió de derogacions. Distingix rigorosament entre materials classificats (cat. ML) i béns de doble ús (cat. DU), i imposa procediments complexos i centralitzats, incloses les importacions temporals de materials amb finalitats d’exhibició.
Espanya: sota l’empara del Reial decret 679/2014, Espanya també aplica el Reglament (UE) 2021/821, amb una interpretació administrativa sovint conservadora. La classificació en matèria de criptologia o de components electrònics és sistemàtica, i l’exportació cap a països tercers (fora de la UE) està subjecta a un seguiment reforçat.
Suïssa: tot i no ser membre de la UE, Suïssa adopta una política d’equivalència basada en la Güterkontrollverordnung (GKV) i l’Ordenança sobre el material de guerra (OMG). L’autoritat SECO supervisa un règim fluid però rigorós, amb èmfasi en la transparència comercial i la conformitat extraterritorial.
Unió Europea: el Reglament (UE) 2021/821 (versió consolidada) estableix una base harmonitzada fonamentada en les llistes de control, els criteris de seguretat internacional i l’anàlisi de risc per país.
Reptes específics per a Andorra: cap a una doctrina nacional del doble ús
Recomanació estratègica: formalitzar una doctrina andorrana del doble ús a través d’una Carta oficial interinstitucional amb les empreses del sector, basada en el reglament (UE) 2021/821 i la pràctica d’exportació sobirana.
La Carta Ètica entre Freemindtronic i el Govern d’Andorra prefigura aquesta doctrina, integrant els principis de transparència, no proliferació, desenvolupament sostenible i sobirania jurídica. Constitueix una base rellevant per estendre la regulació a segments tecnològics emergents, com ara sistemes d’autenticació distribuïda, mitjans criptològics d’ús ciberdefensiu, o tecnologies fonamentades en ADN digital.
Perspectives d’evolució reguladora
La UE preveu ampliar l’àmbit d’aplicació del règim de doble ús a tecnologies crítiques com la intel·ligència artificial, la ciberseguretat i la cadena de blocs, en el marc de l’estratègia de seguretat econòmica europea (Comunicació COM(2023) 249 final). Andorra haurà d’anticipar aquests moviments per mantenir l’equivalència reguladora.
Reptes futurs i sobirania tecnològica andorrana
La dinàmica actual impulsa el país a estructurar una capacitat nacional de doctrina, supervisió i innovació reguladora sobre el doble ús, incloent:
IA i sistemes autònoms amb possibles usos militars o cibernètics;
Ciberseguretat avançada fora de xarxa amb arquitectura de confiança de maquinari (DataShielder NFC HSM);
Sobirania de les cadenes de valor i reducció de dependències extraterritorials (núvol, components, certificacions);
Normes d’exportació sobiranes integrant anàlisi del risc ètic i geopolític.
Acció proposada: creació d’un Comitè intergovernamental andorrà del doble ús, incloent actors industrials, experts en dret internacional i agències de seguretat, per pilotar una doctrina adaptativa conforme als compromisos internacionals i a la sobirania tecnològica d’Andorra.
Interès pràctic: un glossari clarifica els termes tècnics, normatius o jurídics complexos, com AIMG, LEMG, DU, reglament (UE) 2021/821, criptologia d’ús dual, conformitat extraterritorial, etc. Això evita sobrecarregar el cos del text i garanteix la llegibilitat per a públics diversos (juristes, industrials, administració, socis estrangers).
Glossari d’acrònims i termes especialitzats
AIMG : Autorització d’importació de material de guerra (França)
LEMG : Llicència d’exportació de material de guerra (França)
DU : Béns de doble ús (amb finalitat civil i militar)
Codi de Duana : Codi duaner d’Andorra
Reglament (UE) 2021/821 : Règim europeu de control dels béns de doble ús
EAR / ITAR : Normatives d’exportació nord-americanes amb abast extraterritorial
SECO : Autoritat suïssa encarregada del control d’exportacions (via GKV i OMG)
GKV : Ordenança suïssa sobre el control de béns (Güterkontrollverordnung)
OMG : Ordenança suïssa sobre el material de guerra
TARIC : Tarifa duanera integrada de la Unió Europea
EORI : Número d’identificació duaner europeu requerit per a importació/exportació
PDU : Plataforma francesa de declaració d’exportacions de béns de doble ús
COM(2023) 249 final : Comunicació de la Comissió Europea sobre l’estratègia de seguretat econòmica
Carta ètica DU : Acord entre el Govern d’Andorra i Freemindtronic per a la regulació sobirana de tecnologies duals concebudes, desenvolupades i fabricades a Andorra
Analyse juridique approfondie loi andorrane double usage Llei 10/2025 du Codi de Duana d’Andorre
La Loi andorrane sur le double usage s’inscrit dans une refonte stratégique du contrôle des exportations. Face aux nouvelles menaces hybrides, elle établit un socle juridique fondé sur le droit douanier, la souveraineté technologique et l’alignement partiel sur l’UE. Identification EORI, conformité UE, et encadrement cryptologique deviennent des piliers de cette sécurité réglementaire.
Le contrôle des exportations de biens à double usage devient un pilier de la souveraineté technologique andorrane. Face à la complexité croissante des chaînes de valeur, de la cryptologie exportée et des réglementations extraterritoriales, l’Andorre anticipe ces défis par une réforme stratégique de son cadre douanier et réglementaire. Cette analyse juridique explore :
✔Comment l’Andorre articule conformité UE et autonomie souveraine à travers la Llei 10/2025.
✔Pourquoi le régime EORI et l’accord douanier Andorre–UE offrent un levier pour les exportations à contrôle stratégique.
✔Comment structurer une doctrine andorrane du double usage, en cohérence avec le Règlement (UE) 2021/821.
✔Quels sont les défis futurs : IA, cybersécurité matérielle, souveraineté des chaînes critiques.
À propos de l’auteur — Inventeur de technologies à double usage et fondateur de Freemindtronic Andorre, Jacques Gascuel développe des solutions de protection des données et de contre-espionnage à vocation civile et militaire. Il analyse ici les enjeux stratégiques de la loi andorrane sur le double usage dans une approche « privacy by design » conforme aux exigences réglementaires internationales.
1. Analyse stratégique de la Loi andorrane double usage : réforme du Codi de Duana 2025
Le Conseil Général d’Andorre a adopté la Llei 10/2025 le 13 mai 2025, ensuite publiée au BOPA n°68 du 4 juin 2025. Cette loi marque une étape déterminante dans l’évolution du droit douanier andorran, puisqu’elle vise à aligner la législation nationale sur le Code des douanes de l’Union européenne, tel qu’établi par le Règlement (UE) n°952/2013 du 9 octobre 2013 (EUR-Lex – CELEX:32013R0952).
En remplaçant la Llei 17/2020, cette réforme introduit une architecture moderne de la régulation douanière. Elle comprend 296 articles répartis en neuf titres. Plus précisément, elle facilite les procédures douanières, renforce la numérisation des opérations, et, surtout, elle établit un cadre juridique robuste pour le contrôle des flux sensibles, notamment ceux relatifs aux biens à double usage.
Pour plus d’informations officielles, les textes sont consultables ici :
Ainsi, cette nouvelle législation positionne Andorre dans une logique de conformité renforcée et d’intégration réglementaire progressive avec l’Union européenne.
2. Éléments structurants du nouveau Code douanier andorran
Avant d’aborder les dispositions spécifiques à la Loi andorrane double usage, il est utile de passer en revue les points structurants du nouveau Codi de Duana qui renforcent l’efficacité et la transparence du système douanier andorran.
2.1 Extension du périmètre douanier
Le territoire douanier andorran couvre dorénavant l’espace aérien et les eaux intérieures, en plus des frontières terrestres.
Cette extension vise à encadrer plus strictement les flux de marchandises via tous les modes de transport, notamment aérien et multimodal.
2.2 Précisions terminologiques essentielles
Le Code redéfinit des notions clés pour une meilleure sécurité juridique :
Terme
Définition (selon la loi)
Statut douanier
Caractère communautaire ou non d’une marchandise
Mise en libre pratique
Régime permettant l’entrée sur le marché andorran
Représentant douanier
Mandataire habilité à accomplir les formalités douanières au nom d’un tiers
2.3 Dématérialisation des procédures
L’usage des systèmes électroniques devient obligatoire pour toutes les opérations.
Cela concerne les déclarations d’import/export, les demande d’autorisation, et les demandes de remboursement.
Cette mesure vise à réduire les délais de traitement et renforcer la traçabilité.
3. Système andorran de droits, garanties et autorisations : vers un contrôle performant
Poursuivons notre exploration de la Loi andorrane double usage en examinant désormais la structure financière et procédurale qui encadre les flux douaniers. Ce pilier réglementaire, loin d’être secondaire, permet d’assurer la sécurité des recettes publiques, tout en apportant de la prévisibilité et de la fiabilité aux opérateurs économiques.
Ainsi, cette partie du nouveau Code met en place un triptyque cohérent : gestion de la dette douanière, mise en œuvre de garanties, et dynamique d’autorisations administratives. Ces éléments assurent une gouvernance rigoureuse des flux commerciaux à risques, notamment ceux liés aux technologies sensibles.
3.1 Encadrement des dettes douanières et des garanties
La Llei 10/2025 introduit un mécanisme cohérent de calcul, de paiement et de remboursement des droits de douane. En outre, elle prévoit des règles précises en matière de dette douanière et exige, dans certains cas, la constitution de garanties financières par les opérateurs.
3.2 Régimes douaniers économiques : fluidité sous conditions
Les procédures de transit, d’entrepôt douanier, de perfectionnement actif et passif sont clarifiées.
Le code prévoit une rationalisation des régimes particuliers, permettant un gain de compétitivité pour les entreprises andorranes opérant à l’international.
Cette structuration vise à instaurer une logistique plus fluide tout en maintenant un haut niveau de surveillance.
3.3 Gestion des autorisations douanières : un tournant réglementaire
La nouvelle loi instaure un système structuré de demandes, traitements et délivrances d’autorisations douanières, essentiel pour garantir la sécurité juridique des opérateurs économiques.
L’administration douanière peut délivrer des autorisations générales ou spécifiques selon le type d’opération et le niveau de risque associé.
Un registre numérique centralisé recense désormais toutes les autorisations émises, assurant leur traçabilité et leur vérifiabilité.
Le code impose un délai maximum de réponse pour éviter tout blocage administratif.
Ce système de gestion intégrée accroît la transparence et la prévisibilité, deux piliers indispensables pour renforcer la compétitivité douanière d’Andorre dans le cadre de ses engagements européens.
4. Réglementation spécifique de la Loi andorrane double usage
Entrons désormais dans le cœur du dispositif lié aux biens à double usage, qui constituent un volet sensible de la Llei 10/2025.
4.1 Article 267.3.f : cadre juridique essentiel
Texte de référence : Règlement (UE) 2021/821
Cette disposition est entrée en vigueur immédiatement après publication de la loi, soit le 5 juin 2025, conformément à sa disposition finale.
Le Décret 207/2025, publié le 12 juin 2025, précise les formalités associées à cette autorisation. Texte officiel : BOPA Andorre – GR_2025_06_11_13_27_27
Ce texte prévoit que :
Toute exportation de biens listés à l’annexe I du Règlement (UE) 2021/821 est soumise à autorisation douanière ;
Une dérogation est accordée pour les destinations au sein de l’Union européenne ;
Des autorisations de longue durée (maximum 12 mois) peuvent être délivrées pour les flux réguliers ;
La déclaration de l’utilisateur final est obligatoire pour assurer la traçabilité des usages ultimes.
4.3 Freemindtronic : un exemple de conformité proactive
Avant même l’entrée en vigueur de la Loi andorrane double usage, Freemindtronic a initié une démarche exemplaire dès 2021. En anticipant les obligations réglementaires, l’entreprise a structuré ses flux commerciaux sensibles dans un cadre éthique et juridique rigoureux.
Freemindtronic a proposé une Charte éthique, soutenue par une documentation formalisée dès 2022, pour encadrer l’usage et l’exportation de ses technologies cryptographiques sensibles.
Les mesures concrètes incluent :
La mise en place d’un dispositif d’information régulière envers les autorités andorranes ;
La licence d’exportation spéciale obtenue en 2022 pour Eurosatory par COGES Events sous l’égide du GICAT, validée par le Général Charles Beaudouin (LinkedIn);
4.4 Documentation de conformité internationale : modèle français et procédure ANSSI
Afin d’assurer une conformité juridique complète à l’export des technologies sensibles, Freemindtronic s’est également appuyée sur les exigences françaises en matière de contrôle des moyens de cryptologie.
Ou par courrier : ANSSI, Bureau des contrôles réglementaires, 51 boulevard de la Tour-Maubourg, 75700 Paris 07 SP
Le formulaire principal, à savoir l’annexe I, est téléchargeable ici : formulaire PDF.
Ce document inclut notamment :
L’identification complète du demandeur ;
Une description technique des produits ;
Les modalités d’export envisagées ;
Les engagements de conformité avec la législation UE et nationale.
Grâce à cette rigueur, Freemindtronic a pu exporter légalement les modules DataShielder NFC HSM, avec la validation de son partenaire exclusif AMG Pro.
4.4 Documentation de conformité internationale : modèle français et procédure ANSSI
Afin d’assurer une conformité juridique complète à l’export des technologies sensibles, Freemindtronic s’est également appuyée sur les exigences françaises en matière de contrôle des moyens de cryptologie.
Ou par courrier : ANSSI, Bureau des contrôles réglementaires, 51 boulevard de la Tour-Maubourg, 75700 Paris 07 SP
Le formulaire principal, à savoir l’annexe I, est téléchargeable ici : formulaire PDF.
Ce document inclut notamment :
L’identification complète du demandeur ;
Une description technique des produits ;
Les modalités d’export envisagées ;
Les engagements de conformité avec la législation UE et nationale.
Grâce à cette rigueur, Freemindtronic a pu exporter légalement les modules DataShielder NFC HSM Defense, avec la validation de son partenaire exclusif AMG Pro (site officiel).
5. Coopération andorrane et ressources pédagogiques : une ouverture stratégique
Alors que la mise en œuvre de la Loi andorrane double usage ne fait que commencer, les acteurs publics et privés peuvent jouer un rôle stratégique dans la diffusion des bonnes pratiques. Cette dynamique constitue une opportunité majeure pour structurer un écosystème vertueux d’accompagnement réglementaire et de sensibilisation des opérateurs économiques.
En particulier, l’Andorre bénéficie d’un potentiel de co-construction entre institutions et entreprises innovantes, dans le respect de leurs prérogatives respectives. Il devient ainsi pertinent de développer des outils d’aide à la compréhension de la réglementation et d’offrir une information claire et structurée aux professionnels concernés.
5.1 Absence de guides institutionnels : un vide à combler
La réglementation andorrane sur les biens à double usage, bien qu’entérinée par le BOPA, souffre actuellement d’un manque de documentation appliquée. Aucun guichet d’information spécialisé, tutoriel administratif ou guide de conformité n’a encore été publié par les institutions publiques.
5.2 Contribution de Freemindtronic : contenu pédagogique, guide pratique, et sensibilisation
S’appuyant sur son expérience réglementaire, Freemindtronic a amorcé la rédaction d’un guide pratique de conformité, co-marquable avec des entités telles que la Douane andorrane (lien officiel).
Cette initiative vise à :
Vulgariser les procédures de demande d’autorisation ;
Proposer des modèles types de documents conformes au Décret 207/2025 ;
Diffuser les obligations essentielles à l’export de biens sensibles.
5.3 Outils numériques disponibles
En parallèle, Freemindtronic a publié plusieurs ressources accessibles en ligne au sujet de la règlementation international des produits double usage, notamment :
Ces ressources se présentent comme des compléments informatifs fiables aux textes officiels.7. Panorama international et effet extraterritorial
Alignement du régime andorran sur les réglementations internationales
Le régime andorran de contrôle des exportations de biens à double usage s’inscrit dans un cadre réglementaire mondial, où chaque juridiction impose des normes spécifiques pour la régulation et la surveillance des flux commerciaux sensibles. En raison de son accord douanier avec l’Union européenne, l’Andorre bénéficie de particularités qui influencent son approche des exportations et des exemptions applicables.
Cependant, les réglementations en vigueur dans les grandes puissances économiques – Union européenne, États-Unis, Royaume-Uni, Suisse, Pays du Commonwealth – exercent une influence sur les obligations des exportateurs andorrans. Cette dynamique se traduit par :
L’adoption des standards internationaux tels que les normes Wassenaar et le règlement UE 2021/821.
Une harmonisation progressive des procédures d’exportation vers des marchés stratégiques.
Des restrictions sur certaines catégories de biens selon les destinations et les contrôles extraterritoriaux.
Afin de comparer ces régulations et d’évaluer leur impact sur les échanges intra-UE, le tableau ci-dessous présente une synthèse des réglementations internationales, leurs dates d’entrée en vigueur et leurs implications pour l’Andorre.
Régime harmonisé applicable dans tous les États membres :
• 4 types d’autorisations : générale, globale, individuelle, nationale
• Contrôle des exportations, du courtage, de l’assistance technique, du transit et des transferts
• Annexe I : liste commune des biens à double usage (mise à jour annuelle)
• Annexe IV : biens soumis à autorisation même en transfert intra-UE
• Clause attrape-tout (article 4) pour les utilisations militaires ou de prolifération
• Autorités nationales compétentes + coordination via le groupe Dual-Use de la Commission
Régime aligné sur les standards UE et Wassenaar :
• Autorité compétente : SECO (Secrétariat d’État à l’économie)
• Licences obligatoires pour les biens listés dans les annexes 1 à 6
• Mise à jour annuelle des annexes techniques (dernière : 1er mai 2025)
• Contrôle des exportations, du courtage, du transit et de l’assistance technique
• Coopération renforcée avec l’UE, tout en conservant une autonomie réglementaire
Régime dual coordonné par deux autorités :
• Ministère de l’Économie : contrôle des biens à double usage civil
• Ministère de la Défense (DECA) : contrôle des biens militaires et sensibles
• Licence obligatoire pour cryptologie, IA, cybersécurité, drones, optronique
• Alignement partiel sur les régimes Wassenaar, MTCR, NSG
• Sanctions civiles et pénales en cas de non-conformité
• Re-exportation également soumise à autorisation israélienne
Régime autonome post-Brexit :
• Plateforme SPIRE obligatoire pour toute demande
• Contrôle des biens militaires et à double usage
• Nouvelles entrées 2024 : quantum, cryogénie, semi-conducteurs, IA
• Alignement sur les listes Wassenaar, MTCR, NSG, AG
• Autorité compétente : Export Control Joint Unit (ECJU)
Régime strict de contrôle des exportations :
• Licence obligatoire pour les biens à double usage
• Alignement progressif sur les listes UE/USA
• Coopération renforcée avec les partenaires occidentaux
• Autorité compétente : Département du contrôle des exportations (Minéconomie)
Régime de contrôle stratégique renforcé :
• Interdiction d’exportation de biens à double usage, technologies critiques, IA, semi-conducteurs, cryptographie
• 16 paquets de sanctions UE depuis 2022
• Coordination G7 / GECC pour limiter l’accès aux technologies occidentales
• Contrôle douanier renforcé, licences suspendues ou refusées
• Autorité compétente : Service fédéral russe du contrôle technique et des exportations (FSTEC)
Régime centralisé et strict :
• Contrôle des exportations via MOFCOM et GACC
• Restrictions sur IA, cybersécurité, quantum, semi-conducteurs
• Liste de contrôle nationale indépendante, partiellement alignée Wassenaar
• Licences obligatoires pour les technologies sensibles
• Sanctions administratives et pénales en cas de non-conformité
Régime fondé sur le Strategic Goods (Control) Act (SGCA) :
• Autorité compétente : Singapore Customs
• Licence obligatoire pour les biens listés dans la liste des biens stratégiques
• Alignement sur les régimes Wassenaar, NSG, MTCR, AG
• Contrôle renforcé sur IA, cybersécurité, électronique avancée
• Notification préalable ou licence requise selon la sensibilité du bien
Régime de contrôle géré par le Ministério do Desenvolvimento, Indústria, Comércio e Serviços (MDIC) :
• Licence obligatoire via la plateforme SISCOMEX
• Alignement partiel sur les régimes MTCR, NSG et Wassenaar
• Contrôle renforcé sur les technologies sensibles (cybersécurité, IA, électronique)
• Autorité compétente : Secrétariat du Commerce Extérieur (SECEX)
• Procédures électroniques centralisées, traçabilité des exportations sensibles
2023–2024 (réforme administrative et technologique)
Régime dual :
• Export Control Act 2020 pour les produits agricoles, administré par le DAFF
• Defence Trade Controls Act 2012 pour les biens militaires et à double usage, administré par le DECO
• Contrôle des technologies sensibles (IA, quantum, cybersécurité)
• Licences obligatoires pour exportation, courtage, assistance technique
• Alignement sur les régimes Wassenaar, MTCR, NSG, AG
Alignement partiel sur le Règlement (UE) 2021/821 dans le cadre de l’Accord Douanier Andorre–UE.
Licence préalable obligatoire pour cryptographie, IA et technologies sensibles.
Traçabilité exigée – contrôle douanier via identifiant EORI. Texte consolidé publié au BOPA (Butlletí Oficial del Principat d’Andorra).
Effet extraterritorial et singularité andorrane
L’effet extraterritorial des réglementations américaines (EAR) et européennes (Règlement UE 2021/821) impacte la gestion des exportations depuis l’Andorre. Toutefois, grâce à l’Accord douanier de 1990, l’Andorre bénéficie d’une union douanière partielle avec l’UE, permettant aux produits industriels (chapitres 25 à 97 du Tarif douanier) de circuler librement une fois introduits dans la chaîne européenne, sans formalités supplémentaires.
Ainsi, une analyse approfondie suggère qu’il est possible d’exporter des biens à double usage de l’Andorre vers l’Union européenne sans autorisation préalable, sous réserve des conditions suivantes :
Conformité aux normes européennes.
Identification via un numéro EORI.
Absence de restriction spécifique figurant dans l’Annexe IV du règlement européen.
Cette singularité réglementaire différencie l’Andorre des États membres de l’UE, qui doivent appliquer des régimes stricts de contrôle des exportations. Toutefois, une vigilance accrue reste nécessaire, notamment vis-à-vis des évolutions législatives internationales qui pourraient renforcer les exigences douanières.
6. Cadre juridique andorran des biens à double usage
La promulgation de la Loi andorrane sur les biens à double usage (Llei 10/2025) marque une évolution majeure dans l’architecture normative du pays, en posant les premières pierres d’un contrôle export encadré. Cette section analyse la portée matérielle, les acteurs institutionnels impliqués et les effets concrets pour les opérateurs économiques, dans un contexte d’intégration progressive au dispositif européen.
6.1 Circulation libre au sein de l’UE
Le Règlement (UE) 2021/821 permet en général la libre circulation des biens à double usage à l’intérieur du marché intérieur de l’UE, à l’exception de produits particulièrement sensibles figurant à l’Annexe IV . Cela signifie que, dès lors qu’un bien fait partie de l’UE, sa ré-exportation vers un autre État membre ne nécessite pas d’autorisation supplémentaire, sauf cas particuliers.
6.2 Andorre et l’Union Douanière Partielle
L’Accord du 1990 établit une union douanière partielle entre la Principauté d’Andorre et l’Union Européenne, couvrant les chapitres 25 à 97 du Tarif douanier commun. Cet accord permet une libre circulation des marchandises, supprimant les barrières tarifaires pour les produits concernés.
D’après les analyses du CEPS, les produits préalablement importés en Andorre depuis un État tiers et bénéficiant d’un numéro EORI peuvent circuler librement dans l’UE sans formalités additionnelles, à l’exception des produits du tabac, qui restent soumis à des régulations spécifiques.
6.3 Implications pour les biens à double usage
Une conclusion à vérifier est de savoir si sur la base de l’accord douanier et du règlement européen, il devient possible d’exporter des biens à double usage d’Andorre vers l’UE sans autorisation préalable andorrane, sous certaines conditions :
Conformité aux réglementations européennes,
Identification claire via un numéro EORI,
Absence de restriction spécifique (Annexe IV du règlement (UE) 2021/821).
Si ces conditions sont remplies, cela représenterait une singularité notable par rapport aux réglementations des États membres de l’UE.
6.4. Bénéfices directs pour les industriels andorrans du secteur dual et défense
La réforme douanière portée par la Llei 10/2025 et son décret d’application offre aux industriels andorrans des conditions opérationnelles stratégiques dans un environnement fortement régulé à l’échelle internationale.
✔ Opportunité réglementaire : les entreprises andorranes développant ou fabricant des technologies à usage dual ou militaire peuvent désormais exporter librement vers l’UE sans engager de procédures d’autorisation andorrane, sauf pour les biens relevant de l’Annexe IV.
À ce titre, plusieurs dispositifs cryptographiques « made in Andorra » de la gamme DataShielder NFC HSM ou PGP HSM, bien qu’ils relèvent de la catégorie 5, partie 2 du Règlement (UE) 2021/821, ne sont pas inclus dans l’Annexe IV et bénéficient donc pleinement de cette exemption européen stipulé par cette nouvelle réglementation Andorran :
Destinataire :
Nom/Raison sociale : ____
Adresse complète : ____
Activité économique liée aux biens : ____
Site web : ____
Ultime destinataire (si différent) :
Nom/Raison sociale : ____
Adresse complète : ____
Activité : ____
Site web : ____
Biens à exporter :
Code TARIC (10 chiffres) : ____
Description : ____
Quantité/Unité : ____
Valeur (€) : ____
Pays d’origine : ____
Pays de provenance : ____
Données contractuelles :
Date du contrat : ____
Code du régime douanier : ____
Usage final détaillé : ____
Documents joints : [ ] Déclaration de destination finale
Date, lieu, cachet et signature
Modèle B – Déclaration de destination finale
DESTINATAIRE :
Duana Andorrana – Despatx Central de Duana
Av. Fiter i Rossell, núm. 2, bloc A, Escaldes-Engordany, AD700
Utilisation prévue :
Activité économique de l’acquéreur : ____
Utilisation/destination des biens : ____
Je m’engage à :
– Utiliser les biens uniquement selon l’usage déclaré ;
– Ne pas les réexporter sans autorisation des autorités du pays de destination.
Date, lieu, signature, cachet, fonction du signataire
6.6. Sanctions, embargos et vide réglementaire en Andorre
Alors que l’Andorre a récemment renforcé son cadre législatif avec la Loi andorrane sur les biens à double usage, notamment à travers l’article 267, alinéa 3, lettre f de la Llei 10/2025, subsiste une zone grise préoccupante en matière de sanctions et d’embargos. En effet, bien que cette loi définisse les conditions d’autorisation d’exportation pour les biens sensibles cryptographiques, elle ne prévoit ni mécanisme de contrôle a posteriori, ni dispositif répressif autonome en cas de manquement aux obligations qu’elle instaure.
Dans les juridictions européennes et nord-américaines, une telle carence réglementaire donnerait lieu à un encadrement détaillé, à la fois administratif et pénal. Par exemple, le règlement (UE) 2021/821 prévoit des procédures claires pour la répression des violations, tandis que les États-Unis disposent d’un arsenal robuste via l’EAR et les sanctions OFAC. En Suisse et en France, l’exportation non autorisée de technologies à double usage est passible de sanctions sévères, incluant la responsabilité pénale des dirigeants.
À l’inverse, le cadre juridique export Andorre souffre encore de lacunes structurelles en matière de réponse aux infractions. Cette absence d’un régime de sanctions explicite ouvre un vide réglementaire pouvant exposer le pays à des risques d’abus, mais également à une remise en cause de sa coopération internationale, en particulier dans le contexte du règlement européen susmentionné.
À retenir : En l’absence de dispositif autonome de sanctions, l’Andorre pourrait être confrontée à une invocation de responsabilité extraterritoriale par ses partenaires commerciaux, notamment si des technologies à double usage andorranes sont détournées à des fins prohibées.
6.7. Vers une gouvernance andorrane du double usage : inspiration européenne et cadre opérationnel
Face aux lacunes identifiées dans le régime actuel, une consolidation progressive de la gouvernance nationale andorrane du contrôle export apparaît souhaitable. Celle-ci pourrait utilement s’inspirer des dispositifs mis en place en France et en Espagne, sans transposition mécanique, mais dans le respect de la souveraineté juridique du pays.
Exemple français :
Le contrôle des biens à double usage en France est assuré par la Sous-Direction du Commerce International des Biens Stratégiques (SBDU), rattachée à la Direction Générale des Entreprises (DGE). Cet organisme délivre les autorisations d’exportation en coordination avec la Douane et le Ministère des Armées via le Service de l’Information et de la Documentation (SID) pour un suivi renforcé post-exportation.🔹 SBDU : Autorité compétente en matière de contrôle et délivrance des licences.
➡ Ministère de l’Économie – Biens à double usage https://www.entreprises.gouv.fr/fr/biens-double-usage🔹 Coordination avec la Douane : Suivi des flux commerciaux sensibles et vérification de conformité.
➡ Direction Générale des Douanes et Droits Indirects (DGDDI) https://www.douane.gouv.fr/🔹 Ministère des Armées – SID : Analyse des risques et contrôle stratégique des exportations.
➡ Service de l’Information et de la Documentation (SID) https://www.defense.gouv.fr/
Exemple espagnol : La Secretaría de Estado de Comercio (SECOMS) et la Junta Interministerial Reguladora del Comercio Exterior de Material de Defensa y de Doble Uso (JIMDDU) assurent une coordination interministérielle centralisée pour statuer sur les exportations de matériel de défense et à double usage.
🔹 Rapport semestriel sur les exportations de matériel de défense et biens à double usage : ➡ Statistiques et données (2024)
Dans cette optique, l’Andorre pourrait instaurer un Comité intergouvernemental andorran du double usage, réunissant :
les ministères des Affaires étrangères, des Finances et de la Justice,
la Duana Andorrana,
des experts en droit international et technologies sensibles,
des représentants du secteur industriel habilité.
Ce comité aurait pour mandat d’élaborer une doctrine d’exportation souveraine, d’adopter un décret d’application autonome pour définir les sanctions et contrôles, et de coordonner la coopération avec les partenaires européens.
Cette inspiration trouve une légitimité particulière dans le fait que les deux États de référence – France et Espagne – sont également co-princes constitutionnels d’Andorre. Leur influence institutionnelle et leur ancrage historique confèrent à leurs pratiques un statut de référence compatible avec l’ordre juridique andorran.
Actions pratiques à mettre en œuvre dès à présent
En parallèle de ces évolutions institutionnelles, les entreprises andorranes opérant dans les secteurs sensibles peuvent immédiatement renforcer leur conformité en adoptant les mesures suivantes :
Maintenir une matrice de conformité croisant les exigences de la Llei 10/2025, les régimes extraterritoriaux (US EAR, UK OGEL…) et les obligations contractuelles avec les partenaires étrangers.
Vérifier systématiquement les listes de contrôle de l’UE et d’autres juridictions, notamment l’annexe IV du règlement (UE) 2021/821 avant toute exportation intra-européenne.
Former les équipes aux règles de traçabilité douanière et aux obligations liées aux identifiants EORI, notamment pour les exportations vers l’UE.
Intégrer des clauses de contrôle à l’export dans tous les contrats comportant des éléments technologiques sensibles, y compris des restrictions de réexportation et des engagements de non-détournement.
Mettre en place une veille active sur les autorisations générales d’exportation (GEA) européennes et nationales, y compris les modifications de portée ou de conditions d’usage.
7. Portée normative et perspectives d’application
À la lumière des dispositions introduites par la Loi andorrane sur les biens à double usage et son décret d’application, il apparaît que le législateur andorran a franchi une étape structurante vers une convergence avec les standards européens, tout en préservant la spécificité juridique du Principat d’Andorra. L’articulation entre le droit interne, le droit de l’Union européenne, et les régimes extraterritoriaux internationaux (US EAR, UK, Wassenaar) appelle désormais une vigilance constante des opérateurs économiques, afin de garantir la conformité dynamique de leurs pratiques exportatrices.
En ce sens, la trajectoire anticipatrice et éthique de Freemindtronic — illustrée par des démarches documentées et une doctrine de conformité consolidée — constitue un modèle transposable. Elle démontre que l’initiative privée peut contribuer utilement à l’édification d’un régime juridique cohérent, au bénéfice de l’État et des acteurs industriels.
Il incombe désormais aux autorités andorranes compétentes de poursuivre l’effort d’accompagnement normatif, notamment par la production de doctrines administratives, de guides officiels, et par la mise en place de formations et de guichets spécialisés. En parallèle, les entreprises doivent institutionnaliser une veille réglementaire intégrée, articulée avec des matrices d’impact extraterritorial, pour faire de la conformité export un levier stratégique à part entière.
Ainsi, la mise en œuvre effective et fluide de ce régime repose sur une synergie entre droit, technologie et responsabilité partagée. Elle trace les contours d’un nouveau pacte normatif andorran, fondé sur la transparence, la sécurité juridique et l’ambition d’un modèle économique ouvert mais rigoureusement encadré.
8. Approche comparative et prospective : vers une doctrine andorrane du double usage
La réforme du Codi de Duana par la Llei 10/2025, del 13 de maig, couplée au Règlement d’exécution sur les exportations de biens à double usage (Decret 207/2025), offre l’occasion inédite pour le Principat d’Andorra de structurer une doctrine propre en matière de contrôle stratégique, alignée mais différenciée des régimes européens (UE), français, espagnol et suisse.
Comparaisons doctrinales et cadres juridiques
France : le régime français repose sur le Code de la défense, l’arrêté du 8 juillet 2015 pour les AIMG, et l’arrêté du 2 juin 2014 pour les LEMG, combinés à des décisions ponctuelles de suspension de dérogations. Il distingue rigoureusement les matériels classifiés (cat. ML) et les biens de double usage (cat. DU), et impose des procédures complexes et centralisées, y compris pour les importations temporaires de matériels à des fins d’exposition.
Espagne : sous l’égide du Real Decreto 679/2014, l’Espagne applique également le Règlement (UE) 2021/821, avec une interprétation administrative souvent conservatrice. La classification en matière de cryptologie ou de composants électroniques est systématique, et l’exportation vers les pays tiers (hors UE) fait l’objet d’un suivi renforcé.
Suisse : bien que non membre de l’UE, la Suisse adopte une politique d’équivalence fondée sur la Güterkontrollverordnung (GKV) et l’Ordonnance sur le matériel de guerre (OMG). L’autorité SECO supervise un régime fluide mais rigoureux, avec une emphase sur la transparence commerciale et la conformité extraterritoriale.
Union européenne : le Règlement (UE) 2021/821 (version consolidée : eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32021R0821) pose un socle harmonisé sur la base des listes de contrôle, des critères de sécurité internationale, et de l’analyse des risques pays.
Enjeux spécifiques à Andorre : vers une doctrine nationale du double usage
Recommandation stratégique : formaliser une doctrine andorrane du double usage à travers une Charte officielle interinstitutionnelle avec les entreprises du secteur, fondée sur la règlementation (UE) 2021/821 et la pratique d’exportation souveraine.
La Charte Éthique entre Freemindtronic et le Gouvernement d’Andorre préfigure cette doctrine, en intégrant les principes de transparence, non-prolifération, développement durable et souveraineté juridique. Elle constitue une base pertinente pour étendre la régulation aux segments technologiques émergents, comme les systèmes d’authentification distribuée, les moyens cryptologiques à usage cyber-défense, ou encore les technologies fondées sur l’ADN digital.
Perspectives d’évolution réglementaire
L’UE envisage d’étendre le champ d’application du régime dual-use à des technologies critiques telles que l’intelligence artificielle, la cybersécurité et la chaîne de blocs, dans le cadre de la stratégie de sécurité économique européenne (Communication COM(2023) 249 final). Andorre devra anticiper ces mouvements pour maintenir l’équivalence règlementaire.
Défis futurs et souveraineté technologique andorrane
La dynamique actuelle engage le pays à structurer une capacité nationale de doctrine, de supervision et d’innovation réglementaire sur le double usage, incluant :
IA et systèmes autonomes à potentiels usages militaires ou cybernétiques ;
Cybersécurité avancée hors réseau avec architecture de confiance matérielle (DataShielder NFC HSM) ;
Souveraineté des chaînes de valeur et réduction des dépendances extraterritoriales (cloud, composants, certifications) ;
Normes d’exportation souveraines intégrant l’analyse du risque éthique et géopolitique.
Action proposée : création d’un Comité intergouvernemental andorran du double usage, incluant les acteurs industriels, experts en droit international, et agences de sécurité, pour piloter une doctrine adaptative conforme aux engagements internationaux et à la souveraineté technologique d’Andorre.
Intérêt pratique : un glossaire clarifie les termes techniques, réglementaires ou juridiques complexes, comme AIMG, LEMG, DU, règlement (UE) 2021/821, cryptologie à usage dual, conformité extraterritoriale, etc. Cela évite d’alourdir le corps du texte tout en garantissant la lisibilité pour des publics variés (juristes, industriels, administration, partenaires étrangers).
Glossaire des sigles et termes spécialisés
AIMG : Autorisation d’importation de matériels de guerre (France)
LEMG : Licence d’exportation de matériels de guerre (France)
DU : Biens à double usage (à vocation civile et militaire)
Codi de Duana : Code des douanes d’Andorre
Règlement (UE) 2021/821 : Régime européen de contrôle des biens à double usage
EAR / ITAR : Réglementations américaines d’exportation à portée extraterritoriale
SECO : Autorité suisse chargée du contrôle des exportations (via GKV et OMG)
GKV : Ordonnance suisse sur le contrôle des biens (Güterkontrollverordnung)
OMG : Ordonnance suisse sur le matériel de guerre
TARIC : Tarif douanier intégré de l’Union européenne
EORI : Numéro d’identification douanier européen requis pour l’import/export
PDU : Plateforme française de déclaration des exportations de biens à double usage
COM(2023) 249 final : Communication de la Commission européenne sur la stratégie de sécurité économique
Charte éthique DU : Accord entre le gouvernement andorran et Freemindtronic sur l’encadrement souverain des technologies duales conçues, développées et fabriquées en Andorre
.NET DevExpress Framework: Reinventing UI Security in an Age of Cyber Threats
The .NET DevExpress Framework is more than a UI toolkit—it is a security-driven solution designed to combat modern cyber threats. With increasing attacks targeting authentication systems, UI vulnerabilities, and APIs, developers need robust security architectures that seamlessly integrate zero-trust principles, encryption, and multi-factor authentication.
Cybersecurity in UI development has reached a critical juncture. With XSS attacks, SQL injection, and credential hijacking becoming more sophisticated, relying on traditional authentication methods is no longer enough. This article examines:
✔How cybercriminals exploit UI vulnerabilities to compromise sensitive data.
✔Why DevExpress integrates advanced security features to defend against modern threats.
✔How developers can enforce zero-trust security models for UI frameworks.
✔The future of UI security, driven by AI threat detection and hardware-based authentication.
About the Author – Jacques Gascuel As the inventor of several security technologies and founder of Freemindtronic Andorra, Jacques Gascuel explores how cyberattacks target UI vulnerabilities, identity systems, and APIs in the modern threat landscape. This article reflects his ongoing work in developing privacy-by-design technologies that empower users to regain control over their digital interactions.
Rethinking Security in UI Frameworks
With cyber threats becoming more complex and pervasive, developers must rethink security beyond traditional defenses. A decade ago, UI security focused primarily on password complexity. Today, cybercriminals exploit front-end vulnerabilities, intercept API data, and bypass multi-factor authentication using AI-assisted attacks. As a result, secure application development requires a multi-layered defense, incorporating encryption, identity validation, and adaptive access control.
Cyber Attacks Targeting UI and Authentication Systems
The user interface (UI) has become a strategic entry point for cybercriminals. As applications shift toward rich, client-side logic with asynchronous API calls, attackers now bypass conventional perimeter defenses by targeting the visual and interactive surface of applications. Today’s most dangerous threats exploit weak client-side validation, misconfigured API endpoints, and session management flaws. Below are the most prevalent attack vectors used to compromise modern web UIs:
Attackers now bypass conventional security layers using targeted exploits such as:
Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) – Injecting malicious JavaScript into UI components to hijack sessions and exfiltrate data. [OWASP XSS Guide]
SQL Injection – Exploiting weakly sanitized database queries via UI inputs to steal credentials. [OWASP SQL Injection]
API Security Breaches – Manipulating front-end API calls to bypass authentication and access sensitive data. [OWASP API Security]
☑️ UI Threats Explained: XSS (Cross-Site Scripting): Malicious JavaScript injected into the UI to hijack user sessions and perform unauthorized actions. CSRF (Cross-Site Request Forgery): Tricks a legitimate user into unknowingly executing actions in a different security context. Clickjacking: Conceals UI elements under deceptive overlays to trick users into clicking harmful links.
The DevExpress UI Framework addresses these threats through pre-validated components, hardened input controls, and secure API binding.
A visual breakdown of a Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) attack, showing how an injected script compromises both the UI and the user’s session.
DevExpress vs Other UI Frameworks: A Security Comparison
Framework
Security Features
Known Vulnerabilities
DevExpress
Zero Trust Model
MFA
OAuth2
AES-256 encryption
Secure API binding
✦ Limited third-party plugin security
✦ Risk of outdated dependencies
Angular
Automatic XSS protection
CSP headers
Two-way data binding security
✦ High dependency on third-party libraries
✦ Vulnerability risks from package updates
React
Virtual DOM security
Strong TypeScript integration
Runtime sanitization
✦ XSS vulnerabilities from unsafe prop injection
✦ Uncontrolled component re-rendering
Vue.js
Reactive security bindings
Automated sanitization
Lightweight component structure
✦ Limited enterprise security options
✦ Potential validation gaps in directives
Rethinking Security in UI Frameworks
With cyber threats becoming more complex and pervasive, developers must rethink security beyond traditional defenses. A decade ago, UI security focused primarily on password complexity. Today, cybercriminals exploit front-end vulnerabilities, intercept API data, and bypass multi-factor authentication using AI-assisted attacks. As a result, secure application development requires a multi-layered defense, incorporating encryption, identity validation, and adaptive access control.
🛡 Compliance Shield for .NET DevExpress Framework
In sectors such as defense, finance, healthcare, or critical infrastructure, user interface (UI) security must comply with strict regulatory requirements. When deploying applications built with the .NET DevExpress Framework, it becomes crucial to choose tools and architectures that are not only technically robust, but also fully compliant with international legal standards.
✅ Regulatory Readiness Highlights:
GDPR Compliance: No user identification, no tracking, no personal data storage — full privacy-by-design architecture.
ISO/IEC 27001 Alignment: Follows key information security management principles: confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
NIS2 Directive (EU): Designed for cyber-resilient architectures with zero third-party trust and full sovereignty of encryption and authentication operations.
CLOUD Act Immunity: Unlike server-based solutions such as Bitwarden or FIDO2-authenticators, the PassCypher HSM PGP suite operates completely offline and outside any US-based legal jurisdiction.
PassCypher HSM PGP and the DataShielder NFC HSM ecosystem ensure that your .NET DevExpress Framework applications meet today’s most demanding compliance, privacy, and sovereignty requirements—without compromising usability or integration capabilities.
Cyber Attacks Targeting UI and Authentication Systems
The user interface (UI) has become a strategic entry point for cybercriminals. As applications shift toward rich, client-side logic with asynchronous API calls, attackers now bypass conventional perimeter defenses by targeting the visual and interactive surface of applications. In environments built with the .NET DevExpress Framework, these risks are particularly relevant, as the high interactivity of components can expose vulnerabilities if not properly secured. Today’s most dangerous threats exploit weak client-side validation, misconfigured API endpoints, and session management flaws. Below are the most prevalent attack vectors used to compromise modern web UIs:
Attackers now bypass conventional security layers using targeted exploits such as:
Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) – Injecting malicious JavaScript into UI components to hijack sessions and exfiltrate data. [OWASP XSS Guide]
SQL Injection – Exploiting weakly sanitized database queries via UI inputs to steal credentials. [OWASP SQL Injection]
API Security Breaches – Manipulating front-end API calls to bypass authentication and access sensitive data. [OWASP API Security]
☑️ UI Threats Explained:
XSS (Cross-Site Scripting): Malicious JavaScript injected into the UI to hijack user sessions and perform unauthorized actions.
CSRF (Cross-Site Request Forgery): Tricks a legitimate user into unknowingly executing actions in a different security context.
Clickjacking: Conceals UI elements under deceptive overlays to trick users into clicking harmful links.
The .NET DevExpress Framework addresses these threats through pre-validated components, hardened input controls, and secure API binding. Its architecture allows developers to enforce strong client-side policies while maintaining high-performance and interactive user interfaces — a critical advantage in modern threat landscapes.
A step-by-step visual showing how a UI vulnerability like XSS is identified, demonstrated, and mitigated with proper sanitization.
DevExpress vs Other UI Frameworks: A Security Comparison
In the sections that follow, we explore a range of advanced UI security paradigms specifically tailored to the .NET DevExpress Framework. First, we introduce foundational principles through comparative analysis, then progressively transition to hands-on demonstrations involving secure interface development. This includes practical use cases featuring encryption with PassCypher HSM PGP and air-gapped authentication with DataShielder NFC HSM devices. Moreover, we examine real-world vulnerabilities and provide mitigation strategies adapted to cloud, serverless, and edge environments. Ultimately, this collection of modules aims to guide developers, architects, and cybersecurity professionals in fortifying front-end resilience, improving authentication workflows, and integrating zero-trust architectures—all critical aspects for those seeking robust, future-proof UI security within enterprise-grade .NET DevExpress applications.
Advanced UI Security Paradigms Compared
DevExpress: Nativement intègre une couche Zero Trust, OAuth2, MFA, et un encryptage côté client et serveur.
Material UI (React): Focus sur l’expérience utilisateur mais dépendance forte à la validation côté client.
Bootstrap: Plus orienté design, nécessite des extensions tierces pour intégrer une sécurité poussée.
DevExpress offre une approche plus robuste contre les attaques XSS et les injections SQL grâce à des composants pré-validés côté serveur.
OAuth2 Integration: Secure your UI components with IdentityServer + DevExpress Auth UI.
Vulnerability Detection: Scan your UI with OWASP ZAP – look for reflected XSS, insecure cookies, and CSP issues.
Interactive DevExpress UI Security Challenge for .NET Interface Developers
Test your own application’s security with a hands-on cybersecurity challenge:
Run an XSS vulnerability test on a UI component with OWASP ZAP.
Identify and fix session hijacking risks.
Experiment with OAuth2 security flows in an API-based authentication process.
Fortifying UI Security in .NET User Interfaces Built with DevExpress
DevExpress integrates security-first principles across ASP.NET Core, Blazor, and .NET MAUI, ensuring UI components are hardened against attacks. Key security enhancements include:
Data Encryption (AES-256 & RSA) – Protecting sensitive data during transmission and storage.
Zero Trust Security Model – Restricting access based on continuous validation.
Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) – Strengthening user authentication resilience.
• Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) MFA requires users to verify their identity using two or more independent factors—typically something they know (password), something they have (token), or something they are (biometrics). → This drastically reduces the risk of credential-based attacks.
• OAuth2 and OpenID Connect OAuth2 separates authentication from authorization. Combined with OpenID Connect, it enables secure access delegation to APIs without exposing user credentials. → DevExpress integrates these standards for secure Single Page Applications (SPAs).
• Zero Trust Security This model assumes no user or system is trusted by default—even inside the corporate network. → DevExpress implements this through role-based access control (RBAC), continuous validation, and secure-by-default UI behavior.
• AES-256 and RSA Encryption AES-256 ensures fast, strong encryption for data at rest and in transit, while RSA handles secure key exchange and token signing. → Together, they offer robust cryptographic protection across UI interactions.
🛡 Enhance DevExpress UI Security with PassCypher HSM PGP
PassCypher HSM PGP is the world’s first hybrid Hardware Security Module combining offline, passwordless authentication with advanced encryption containers (PGP AES-256 CBC) and a segmented key architecture. Unlike traditional HSMs, it merges physical isolation with software cryptography in a sovereign, tamper-resistant system. It supports OTP (TOTP/HOTP) auto-injection, sandboxed credential workflows, and real-time PIN management, making it ideal for securing UI components built with the .NET DevExpress Framework. ✓ 100% serverless, database-free, and accountless ✓ Quantum-resilient by design: AES-256 CBC + segmented key system + no attack surface ✓ Native multi-factor authentication: 2 keys are required to access identity containers ✓ Phishing, typosquatting, and BITB-proof via sandboxed URL validation ✓ SSH, AES, RSA, ed25519 key generation with entropy feedback ✓ Fully air-gapped via NFC HSM or secure QR key import
⚠️ Immune to the CLOUD Act and external surveillance, PassCypher is designed for the most demanding use cases—defense, critical infrastructure, classified systems—by offering post-quantum resilient protection today, without relying on future PQC standards.
Comparative Snapshot: Air-Gapped Security for .NET DevExpress Framework
Solution
Fully Air-Gapped
Passwordless
MFA
OTP with PIN Injection
PQC-Ready
Serverless
⌂ HID Injection + URL Sandbox ⌂
Bitwarden
⨉
Not available
✓
Supported
✓
Supported
⨉
Not available
⨉
Not available
⨉
Not available
⨉ Not available
FIDO2 Key
⨉
Requires server
✓
Supported
✓
Supported
⨉
Not available
⨉
Not available
⨉
Not available
⨉ Not available
PassCypher HSM PGP
✓
Hybrid HSM, offline-native
✓
Supported
✓
Multi-Factor Authentication
(2FA via segmented key)
✓
Auto-injected TOTP/HOTP
✓
Post-Quantum Ready *
✓
Fully serverless
✓ Sandbox-based authentication
Use Case Spotlight: Air-Gapped DevExpress ApplicationContext
A military-grade classified .NET DevExpress Framework-based dashboard requires fully offline access control without risk of credential exposure. Solution:PassCypher HSM PGP + DataShielder NFC HSM
Secure PIN code auto-injected in login field via sandboxed URL validation
No passwords, servers, or user ID involved
Supports complex flows (e.g. Microsoft 365 login with dynamic redirect)
Works in air-gapped environments — no software agent needed
Solution
Fully Air-Gapped
Passwordless
MFA
OTP with PIN Injection
PQC-Ready
Serverless
⌂ HID Injection + URL Sandbox ⌂
Bitwarden
⨉
Not available
✓
Supported
✓
Supported
⨉
Not available
⨉
Not available
⨉
Not available
⨉ Not available
FIDO2 Key
⨉
Requires server
✓
Supported
✓
Supported
⨉
Not available
⨉
Not available
⨉
Not available
⨉ Not available
PassCypher HSM PGP
✓
Hybrid HSM, offline-native
✓
Supported
✓
Multi-Factor Authentication
(2FA via segmented key)
✓
Auto-injected TOTP/HOTP
✓
Post-Quantum Ready *
✓
Fully serverless
✓ Sandbox-based authentication
Expert Insights: Lessons from the Field
“We implemented a Zero Trust UI using DevExpress Role-Based Access Control combined with server-side validation. The biggest challenge was API session hardening.” – Lead Engineer, FinTech Startup “The most common mistake? Relying on client-side MFA enforcement. With DevExpress, we moved it entirely server-side.” – Cybersecurity Architect
Preferred tools: DevExpress Security Strategy Module, AuthenticationStateProvider for Blazor.
Most effective pattern: Combining OAuth2 login with HSM-based session storage.
Securing UI in Cloud and Serverless Environments
Serverless risks: Stateless UI functions in AWS Lambda or Azure Functions can be exploited if UI logic leaks into backend permissions.
UI in Cloud Platforms: Securing DevExpress-based interfaces on Azure or GCP requires hardened CSP policies and API Gateways.
Microservices & Identity: Complex UI flows across microservices increase surface area—OAuth2 and JWT must be tightly scoped.
Best practices include isolating UI logic from identity services and implementing strict CORS & RBAC.
Essential Defense Mechanisms Against Cyber Threats
To mitigate modern security threats, DevExpress and cybersecurity experts recommend:
🛡 Secure API Gateway with Rate-Limiting – Preventing denial-of-service attacks.
☑️ Key Security Mechanisms:
CSP (Content Security Policy): Defines which scripts and resources can load, blocking XSS vectors.
RBAC (Role-Based Access Control): Grants UI access based on user roles and responsibilities.
Content Sniffing Protection: Prevents browsers from misinterpreting content-type headers.
Integrating these with the DevExpress Framework ensures your UI resists injection-based exploits and access control bypass attempts.
Advanced Client-Side Encryption with DataShielder HSM PGP
For developers seeking maximum UI security and data sovereignty, DataShielder HSM PGP offers a breakthrough: PGP-grade encryption and signature workflows directly within the browser, fully offline and serverless.
Encrypt session data or API tokens with AES-256 CBC PGP inside DevExpress components.
Inject encryption keys via secure QR codes or NFC HSM—ideal for military or classified apps.
Digitally sign sensitive UI forms (consent, transactions) using RSA-4096 signatures without a third party.
Protect UI logic and credentials from phishing and typosquatting using sandboxed encryption containers.
DataShielder enables a sovereign Zero Trust architecture with quantum-resilient cryptography, ideal for air-gapped or critical systems using DevExpress-based interfaces. Learn more about DataShielder HSM PGP Data Encryption
Future of Cybersecurity in UI Development
By 2030, UI frameworks will be self-healing, capable of automatically mitigating threats before they escalate:
AI-powered authentication – Eliminating passwords with behavior-based security checks.
Blockchain-secured credentials – Reducing fraud in identity verification.
Post-Quantum Encryption – Protecting applications from next-gen cryptographic attacks.
Test Your Skills: UI Security Challenge
Identify the XSS flaw in a mock DevExpress dashboard – submit your correction.
Analyze a forged API call – can you spot and fix the CSRF risk?
Set up a secure login using OAuth2 in DevExpress and test its resistance to replay attacks.
Use OWASP Juice Shop or a DevExpress sandbox app to simulate these challenges.
Disruptive Trends in UI Security
Post-Quantum Cryptography (PQC): Anticipating quantum threats, NIST-backed PQC is reshaping encryption standards in UI-based communications.
Adversarial AI: Malicious AI can generate fake UI behaviors or bypass behavioral detection—requiring continuous learning models.
Zero-Knowledge Proof (ZKP): Web3 innovations leverage ZKP to authenticate users without revealing any credentials—ideal for privacy-centric UI flows.
☑️ Emerging Technologies: • PQC (Post-Quantum Cryptography): Uses quantum-resistant algorithms to future-proof UI encryption. • ZKP (Zero-Knowledge Proofs): Verifies user authenticity without revealing credentials—ideal for Web3 UI. • Adversarial AI: Malicious models that mimic UI behavior to bypass authentication layers.
As cyber threats evolve, DevExpress-compatible platforms must adopt proactive architectures to remain resilient.
Next Steps for Developers: Strengthening UI Security Today
The landscape of UI security is shifting rapidly, and developers cannot afford to be passive observers. Implementing DevExpress security features, enforcing Zero Trust authentication, and staying ahead of AI-assisted cyber threats will shape the resilience of tomorrow’s applications.
Actions to take now:
Review current security implementations in your applications and identify potential vulnerabilities.
Implement multi-layered security architecture, including MFA, encryption, and API protection.
Stay informed about emerging threats and adopt proactive security solutions.
Explore the full capabilities of DevExpress to reinforce your development strategies.
Offline Key Management for DevExpress UI Framework with NFC HSM
For projects demanding advanced physical security and air-gapped compatibility, the DataShielder NFC HSM Starter Kit provides a sovereign, offline solution for encryption, authentication, and credential protection.
☑️ What is an NFC HSM?• NFC HSM: A tamper-proof, contactless device storing cryptographic secrets offline. • Hardware-level security: All encryption, decryption, and authentication are performed inside the device. • No data exposure: Secrets are never exposed to the OS, browser, or any connected software.
This architecture ensures full offline cryptographic isolation—ideal for DevExpress UI integration in hostile environments.
NFC HSM Auth: Allows direct AES-256 key insertion into the UI component without exposure to software or network layers.
NFC HSM M-Auth: Enables remote key provisioning using RSA-4096 public key encryption and QR Code transfer.
Zero-server architecture: No cloud, no database, no tracking — full offline and anonymous security stack for DevExpress UI.
Optional Bluetooth Keyboard Emulator 🠖 Bridges encrypted secrets from NFC HSMs directly to any DevExpress UI field via secure BLE-to-HID transmission, without ever storing data on the device.
☑️ Segmented Key System Explained• Key splitting: Encryption keys are broken into multiple independent parts. • Distributed trust: Each segment is useless alone, eliminating single points of failure. • Quantum resilience: Designed to resist post-quantum and brute-force attacks.
This patented technique enhances confidentiality and mitigates future-proof threats in DevExpress-integrated infrastructures.
This patented anti-espionage technology was developed and manufactured in Europe (France / Andorra), and supports both civilian and military-grade use cases. The optional Bluetooth Keyboard Emulator ensures air-gapped usability, bypassing vulnerable OS environments via direct wireless input from an Android NFC device. Learn more about DataShielder NFC HSM Starter Kit
Glossary for the .NET DevExpress Framework
BLE (Bluetooth Low Energy): A wireless communication protocol optimized for minimal power consumption, ideal for secure real-time transmission in hardware devices.
.NET DevExpress Framework: A powerful UI development framework for .NET applications, combining DevExpress components with Microsoft technologies to build secure, high-performance interfaces.
DevExpress UI: A commercial set of UI components and controls for .NET developers, offering high-performance data visualization and interface design tools.
HID (Human Interface Device): A standard for devices like keyboards and mice. The Bluetooth Keyboard Emulator uses this to simulate key input securely.
NFC (Near Field Communication): A contactless communication technology used in secure hardware modules like the DataShielder NFC HSM to trigger cryptographic operations.
HSM (Hardware Security Module): A tamper-resistant physical device designed to protect and manage digital keys and perform cryptographic functions securely.
OTP (One-Time Password): A password valid for only one login session or transaction, often generated by HSMs for multi-factor authentication.
PGP (Pretty Good Privacy): An encryption protocol for securing email and files, supported by tools like PassCypher HSM PGP for passwordless key management.
PQC (Post-Quantum Cryptography): A set of cryptographic algorithms designed to be secure against quantum computer attacks.
RSA-4096: A strong asymmetric encryption algorithm using 4096-bit keys, used in M-Auth modules for secure remote key exchanges.
Segmented Key: A method of splitting a cryptographic key into independent parts, each stored separately for maximum security and resilience.
TOTP / HOTP: Time-based and counter-based OTP algorithms used in MFA systems for generating short-lived access codes.
Zero-Server Architecture: A security design with no reliance on cloud, servers, or databases — ensuring complete offline, anonymous operations.
Passwordless Security Trends in 2025: Navigating the Digital Landscape
Explore the key passwordless security trends, challenges, and innovative solutions shaping our online security. This interactive report delves into user password habits, the escalating impact of cyber threats, and the critical transition towards more secure digital authentication methods. According to the Digital 2024 Global Overview Report by We Are Social and Hootsuite [Source A], over 5 billion people are connected to the Internet, spending an average of 6 hours and 40 minutes online daily.
423+ Billion
active online accounts worldwide, highlighting the immense scale of modern digital identity management.
The Burden of Passwords: Why Traditional Security Falls Short
This section examines prevalent user password habits, the fatigue they generate, and the resulting risky practices. Understanding these behaviors is crucial for grasping the full extent of the current password security problem and the need for passwordless authentication solutions.
How Many Passwords Do Users Manage?
Individuals typically manage an average of 70 to 80 passwords, with some reports indicating figures as high as 100-150, or even over 250. According to Statista, a 2020 study estimated the average number of online accounts per internet user worldwide to be 90. This proliferation significantly contributes to password fatigue, pushing users towards less secure management methods.
Estimates of the average number of passwords per user, highlighting the scale of password management challenges.
Common & Risky Password Management Methods
Despite known security risks, many users opt for insecure password management methods: 54% rely on memory, 33% use pen and paper, 10% use sticky notes, and 15% use Excel or Notepad files. These practices underscore the urgent need for stronger authentication solutions.
Distribution of password management methods, revealing widespread insecure password habits.
78%
of people admit to reusing passwords across multiple accounts, and 52% use the same one on at least three accounts, a significant security vulnerability.
76%
of users find password management stressful, contributing to password fatigue and poor security practices.
5-7 / 10-15
daily logins for private users and professionals respectively, highlighting the continuous authentication burden.
1 in 3
IT support tickets are related to password resets, indicating a major operational inefficiency.
Password Fatigue and Weakness: A Persistent Cyber Risk
The proliferation of online accounts leads to “password fatigue,” which encourages risky practices such as using weak passwords (e.g., “123456”, “password”, used by over 700,000 people) or widespread reuse. Nearly 60% of employees, including security personnel, admit to reusing passwords, and 48% reuse them on professional platforms. Furthermore, 59% of US adults include personal information in their passwords. This situation is worsened by the fact that 44% of internet users rarely or never change their passwords, creating gaping security flaws. Institutions like ANSSI and CISA consistently emphasize the importance of unique and complex passwords to mitigate these risks and enhance digital security in 2025.
The FBI’s Annual Internet Crime Report consistently highlights the devastating impact of password-related vulnerabilities, linking them to billions in financial losses due to various cybercriminal activities. This data underscores the urgent need for robust cybersecurity solutions beyond traditional passwords.
A related study, Time Spent on Login Method , explores the efficiency and security trade-offs of different authentication methods, underscoring the significant impact of time spent on login processes. User trust often remains disconnected from their actual practices: 60% feel confident in identifying phishing attempts, yet risky behaviors persist, reinforcing the need for phishing-resistant authentication.
Cybersecurity’s Financial Impact and Emerging Threats in 2025
Password-related vulnerabilities have direct and significant financial consequences for organizations and pave the way for increasingly sophisticated cyberattacks. This section explores the rising cost of data breaches and the new tactics cybercriminals are employing, including AI-driven cyber threats.
Rising Cost of Data Breaches and Credential Exposure
Data leaks related to passwords represent a significant financial burden for organizations. The average cost of a data breach in 2025 is projected to be $4.5 million, potentially reaching $7.8 million when including public relations, legal fees, and downtime. These figures highlight the critical need for robust data protection strategies.
Average financial impact of data breaches, illustrating the significant cybersecurity risks
3.8 Billion
credentials leaked in the first half of 2025. A broader study reveals 19 billion exposed passwords, of which 94% are reused or duplicated, creating massive credential stuffing vulnerabilities.
81%
of breaches involve weak or stolen passwords. 68% of breaches are directly attributable to human factors, emphasizing the need for user-centric security solutions.
41%
increase in DDoS attacks in 2024, costing up to $22,000/minute in downtime. SMEs suffer 198% more attacks than large enterprises, highlighting SME cybersecurity challenges.
Emerging Threats: AI, Deepfakes, and Advanced Phishing Attacks
Cybercriminals are increasingly leveraging advanced methods such as AI-assisted phishing and deepfakes to deceive users. Generative AI (GenAI) enables more sophisticated and large-scale attacks, with 47% of organizations citing GenAI-powered adversarial advancements as their primary concern. In 2024, 42% of organizations reported phishing or social engineering incidents. These threats exploit human psychology, making the distinction between legitimate and malicious communications increasingly difficult. Gartner predicts that by 2026, 30% of companieswill consider identity verification solutions unreliable due to AI-generated deepfakes. Furthermore, IoT malware attacks increased by 400% in 2023, signaling growing vulnerabilities in connected devices and the broader IoT security landscape.
Toward a Passwordless Future: Adapting to New Authentication Models
Facing the inherent limitations of traditional passwords, the industry is rapidly moving towards passwordless authentication solutions. This section highlights the significant rise of passkeys, advancements in *biometric security, and the crucial integration of AI for enhanced security and a superior user experience.
Growth of the Passwordless Authentication Market
The global passwordless authentication market is projected to reach $22 billion in 2025and nearly $90 billion over the next decade. A striking 61% of organizations aim to transition to passwordless methods in 2025, and 87% of IT leaders express a strong desire for it. This reflects a clear industry shift towards more robust *digital identity solutions.
Projected growth of the global passwordless authentication market, demonstrating its rapid adoption.
15+ Billion
online accounts are now compatible with passkeys, marking a significant milestone in phishing-resistant authentication adoption.
550%
increase in daily passkey creation (end of 2024, Bitwarden), with over a million new passkeys created in the last quarter of 2024, underscoring rapid user acceptance.
70%
of organizations are planning or implementing passwordless authentication. Furthermore, customer support costs related to passwords can be reduced by 50%, offering substantial operational benefits.
57%
of consumers are now familiar with passkeys, a notable increase from 39% in 2022, indicating growing public awareness of new authentication methods.
Benefits of Passkeys and Biometrics in Passwordless Security
Passkeys, based on FIDO standards, offer inherently superior security as they are phishing-resistant and unique to each site. They significantly improve user experience with faster logins (e.g., Amazon 6 times faster, TikTok 17 times faster) and boast a 98% success rate (Microsoft, compared to 32% for traditional passwords). The NIST updated its guidelines for 2025, now requiring phishing-resistant multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all federal agencies, a critical step towards secure digital identity.
Biometric authentication (facial recognition, fingerprints, voice, behavioral biometrics) is continuously gaining accuracy thanks to AI. Multimodal and contactless approaches are developing rapidly. Behavioral biometrics, which analyzes subtle patterns like typing rhythm or mouse movement, enables continuous background identity verification, offering advanced user authentication capabilities. Privacy protection remains a major concern, leading to designs where biometric data primarily stays on the user’s device or is stored in a decentralized manner (e.g., using blockchain for decentralized identity).
Innovative Solution: PassCypher NFC HSM and HSM PGP – A Secure Alternative for Advanced Passwordless Authentication
The PassCypher NFC HSM and PassCypher HSM PGP solutions represent a major advancement in authentication management. They fundamentally differ from traditional FIDO/Passkey systems in their security architecture, offering a truly secure alternative for digital identity.
Passkeys: Security Model and Potential Vulnerabilities
Passkeys rely on private keys that are encrypted and inherently securely stored in integrated hardware components of the device. These are true hardware security modules (integrated HSMs):
TPM 2.0 (Trusted Platform Module) on Windows and Linux systems.
Secure Enclave (Apple) and TEE (Trusted Execution Environment) on Apple and Android devices. These are dedicated and isolated hardware elements on the SoC, not just software areas of the OS.
Using a passkey requires local user authentication (biometrics or PIN). It is crucial to note that this human authentication is not a direct decryption key for the private key. It serves to authorize the secure hardware component (TPM/Secure Enclave) to use the key internally to sign the authentication request, without ever exposing the private key. More information can be found on Passkeys.com [Source L].
However, a vulnerability remains: if an attacker manages to obtain physical access to the device *and* bypass its local authentication (e.g., via a keylogger for the PIN, or a sophisticated biometric spoofing technique), they could then instruct this same secure component to use the passkeys stored on the device. Furthermore, although TPM 2.0 is used for FIDO keys, its NVRAM memory is limited and not designed to directly store thousands of “master keys,” rather protecting keys linked to user profiles. This highlights a potential area for enhanced authentication security.
PassCypher: A Revolutionary Hybrid Architecture for Advanced Passwordless Security
PassCypher adopts a fundamentally different architecture, offering significant independence from hardware and software flaws of a single device, including zero-days or espionage threats. This system positions itself as a hybrid HSM, combining external physical storage with secure volatile memory computation, making it an ideal next-gen authentication solution.
PassCypher HSM PGP: Ultimate Authentication for PC/Mac/Linux Environments
Operational Diagram: PassCypher HSM PGP for Enhanced PC/Mac/Linux Security
Segmented Keys and Robust Encryption: Uses a pair of 256-bit segmented keys. One is securely stored in the browser’s local storage, the other on a user-preferred external medium (USB drive, SD card, SSD, encrypted cloud, or even an enclave on a partitioned disk secured by BitLocker). Encryption and decryption are performed with a single click via AES-256 CBC secured by PGP, by concatenating the two segmented keys only in volatile memory and only for the duration of direct field auto-filling (without copy-pasting). This ensures robust data protection and key management.
Advanced Protection against Cyberattacks: Integrates an anti-typosquatting URL sandbox and an anti-Browser-in-the-Browser (BITB) attack function, configurable in manual, semi-automatic, or automatic mode. Furthermore, with each connection, the “pwned” API is queried to check if the login and/or password have been compromised, displaying a visual alert message to the user (with a red hacker icon) if so. This provides proactive threat detection.
Speed and Convenience: All these operations are performed in one click, or two clicks if two-factor authentication is required (including for complex accounts like Microsoft 365 with different redirection URLs). This emphasizes user experience in cybersecurity.
PassCypher NFC HSM: Mobile and Connected Passwordless Security
Multi-Segment Encrypted Containers: Stores encrypted containers via multiple segmented keys. By default, this includes a unique pairing key to the Android phone’s NFC device, a secure 128-bit signature key preventing HSM module counterfeiting, and the administrator password. This ensures robust mobile security.
Encapsulation by Trust Criteria: Each container can be re-encrypted by encapsulation through the addition of supplementary trust criteria, such as:
One or more geographical usage zones.
One or more BSSIDs (Wi-Fi network identifiers).
A password or fingerprint.
A segmented key via QR code or barcode.
All this information, including access passwords to secure memory blocks of the EEPROM (e.g., M24LR64K from STM), is encrypted in the module’s memory, providing adaptable contextual authentication.
Connectivity and Interoperability: Enables secure connection from an Android phone defined as a password manager, by filling login/password fields with a simple tap of the PassCypher NFC HSM module. A secure pairing system via the local network between the phone (with the Freemindtronic app embedding PassCypher NFC HSM) and PassCypher HSM PGP also allows auto-login from containers stored in NFC HSM modules, ensuring seamless and secure access.
Secure Communication: All operations are performed in volatile memory via an innovative system of AES 256 segmented key encrypted communication between the phone and the extension, crucial for data integrity and privacy.
These PassCypher solutions, delivered internationally, offer unparalleled security and exceptional convenience, effectively addressing current and future cybersecurity challenges as a complete MFA authentication management solution. This segmented key system is protected by patents issued in the USA, Europe (EU), the United Kingdom (UK), Spain (ES), China, South Korea, and Japan, showcasing its innovative cybersecurity technology..
Global Cybersecurity Challenges in 2025: Beyond Passwordless
Beyond password management, several major interconnected challenges shape the broader cybersecurity landscape: the dual role of AI, growing supply chain risks, the persistent skills shortage, and increasing regulatory complexity. This section explores these critical issues impacting digital security in 2025.
The AI Paradox and Emerging Quantum Threat
AI is both a powerful tool for cybercriminals (GenAI for phishing, deepfakes, malware development) and for defenders (early detection, automation). A significant 66% of organizations expect AI to have the most significant impact on cybersecurity. However, only 37% report having processes in place to assess the security of AI tools before deployment, highlighting a crucial gap in AI security strategy. Nearly 47% of organizations cite GenAI-powered adversarial advancements as their primary concern. The FBI has warned that GenAI significantly reduces the time and effort criminals need to trick their targets. In the long term, quantum computing poses a significant threat to break current encryption, but only 40% of organizations have begun proactive quantum risk assessments, underscoring a critical emerging cyber threat.
Organizational readiness for AI security assessment, revealing areas for improvement in cybersecurity preparedness.
Supply Chain Vulnerabilities and Third-Party Cybersecurity Risks
The increasing complexity of supply chains is now recognized as a primary cyber risk. A concerning 54% of large organizations view it as the biggest obstacle to their cyber resilience. A pervasive lack of visibility and control over supplier security creates systemic failure points, making the entire ecosystem vulnerable. Furthermore, 48% of CISOs cite third-party compliance as a major challenge in implementing crucial cyber regulations, complicating risk management strategies.
48%
of CISOs cite third-party compliance as a major challenge, highlighting the complexity of supply chain security management.
Skills Shortage and Regulatory Fragmentation in Cybersecurity
The global cybersecurity skills gap has grown by 8% in just one year. Two-thirds of organizations report critical shortages in cybersecurity talent, and only 14% feel they have the necessary expertise to address modern threats. In the public sector, 49% of organizations lack the talent required to achieve their cybersecurity goals, exacerbating talent retention issues.
Meanwhile, 76% of CISOs believe regulatory fragmentation significantly affects their ability to maintain compliance, creating “regulatory fatigue” and diverting resources from essential risk-based strategies. For comprehensive cyber threat landscape information, consult ENISA’s official publications. Geopolitical tensions also increasingly impact global cybersecurity strategies, with nearly 60% of organizations reporting such effects, adding another layer of complexity to national cybersecurity efforts.
Strategic Recommendations for Enhanced Passwordless Security in 2025
To effectively navigate this complex and evolving cybersecurity landscape, proactive and strategic measures are essential. Here are key recommendations to strengthen the digital security of individuals and organizations in the face of 2025 challenges, focusing on passwordless solutions and comprehensive threat mitigation.
Actively explore and implement passkeys and advanced biometric authentication solutions. Emphasize the strong security benefits (especially phishing resistance) and improved user experience (faster, easier logins). Position passwordless technology as a strategic necessity to reduce support costs and enhance overall user satisfaction. Crucially, consider dedicated Hardware Security Module (HSM) solutions like PassCypher for optimal private key security and universal compatibility without extensive infrastructure adaptation.
Actively explore and implement passkeys and advanced biometric authentication solutions. Emphasize the strong security benefits (especially phishing resistance) and improved user experience (faster, easier logins). Position passwordless technology as a strategic necessity to reduce support costs and enhance overall user satisfaction. Crucially, consider dedicated Hardware Security Module (HSM) solutions like PassCypher for optimal private key security and universal compatibility without extensive infrastructure adaptation.
Actively explore and implement passkeys and advanced biometric authentication solutions. Emphasize the strong security benefits (especially phishing resistance) and improved user experience (faster, easier logins). Position passwordless technology as a strategic necessity to reduce support costs and enhance overall user satisfaction. Crucially, consider dedicated Hardware Security Module (HSM) solutions like PassCypher for optimal private key security and universal compatibility without extensive infrastructure adaptation.
Invest strategically in AI-driven defenses and thoroughly evaluate the security of all AI tools before deployment. Implement rigorous monitoring and enforce clear security requirements for the entire supply chain. Proactively anticipate and prepare for emerging threats from quantum computing, which could disrupt current encryption standards.
Actively support comprehensive cybersecurity training programs and leverage AI to augment human capabilities, addressing the critical skills shortage. Adopt “identity fabric” approaches to simplify access governance and streamline regulatory compliance, even amidst increasing fragmentation.
User password statistics 2025 reveal that individuals manage 70–80 passwords on average, with global usage exceeding 417 billion accounts. Private users log in 5–7 times daily, while professionals reach 10–15. Discover key insights on password trends, frequency of use, and digital authentication habits worldwide.
User Password Statistics 2025: Jacques Gascuel examines global password usage trends, revealing how users manage 70–80 passwords on average, with over 417 billion in use worldwide. This study explores login frequency, security challenges, and best practices shaping the future of authentication.
Password Statistics 2025: Global Trends in Usage and Security Challenges
The growing reliance on digital services has made passwords an essential component of online security. Every day, billions of users interact with various platforms and applications requiring authentication, creating a heavy dependency on passwords. This study aims to explore the scope of this phenomenon by analyzing, through reliable and non-commercial sources, the number of passwords users must manage, their usage habits, and the security challenges that arise on a global and regional scale.
According to the Digital 2024 Global Overview Report by We Are Social and Hootsuite, more than 5 billion people worldwide are now connected to the internet, spending an average of 6 hours and 40 minutes per day online. This increased reliance on digital platforms results in a complex management of credentials and passwords, affecting a significant portion of the global population.
Methodology
To ensure the rigor and neutrality of this study, we prioritize sources from recognized institutions known for their expertise and independence, such as government institutions, cybersecurity organizations, universities, and academic research centers. To complement our analysis and provide reliable quantitative estimates, we also incorporate data from established market research and statistical firms.
Research Approach
Academic Literature Review: Examination of scientific publications (research articles, conference proceedings, theses) from universities and research laboratories specializing in cybersecurity, human-computer interaction, and behavioral sciences.
Analysis of Official Reports: Collection and assessment of data from national and international cybersecurity agencies (ANSSI, CISA, NCSC, BSI, UIT, OECD, ENISA).
Institutional Reference Sources: Exploration of publications and databases from organizations recognized for their cybersecurity expertise (Center for Internet Security, Internet Society).
Integration of Statistical Data: Use of reliable figures from leading statistical organizations (Statista, We Are Social, eMarketer), with careful attention to methodological transparency and neutrality.
For each aspect of our research, we systematically prioritize sources that meet these criteria. This includes data on the average number of passwords per user, usage habits, and regional statistics. Where direct “official” data is unavailable, we rely on indirect indicators. We also consider converging estimates and logical deductions supported by the best available sources.
Average Number of Passwords per User: Estimates and Statistical Evidence
Challenges in Measuring Password Usage
Accurately quantifying the average number of passwords per user globally is a complex task due to the dynamic and private nature of this data. While some organizations conduct surveys and statistical research, the absence of universally standardized tracking methods means estimates can vary significantly.
Historical Data and Recent Estimates
According to Statista, a 2020 study estimated that the average number of online accounts per internet user worldwide was 90 (Statista – Average Number of Online Accounts per User, 2020). Although this data is somewhat dated, it provides an important benchmark.
More recent estimates from companies specializing in password management suggest that the number of online accounts per person in 2025 could range from 100 to 150. While these figures should be approached cautiously due to their commercial nature, they align with trends showing increased digital account creation worldwide.
Password Statistics: A Comparative Look (2020 vs. 2025)
Analyzing Password Statistics 2025 in isolation provides a snapshot, but comparing them to earlier years reveals crucial trends and the escalating nature of digital authentication challenges.
The Expanding Digital Footprint: Accounts Per User
In 2020, a Statista study indicated the average internet user managed approximately 90 online accounts. Fast forward to 2025, and estimates from password management specialists suggest this number has surged to between 100 and 150 accounts per person. This represents a minimum 11% increase in personal digital real estate over just five years, directly correlating with the proliferation of online services, apps, and digital interactions. This growth underscores the increased cognitive burden on users, driving the demand for more sophisticated password management solutions.
The Rise of Total Global Passwords
Building on these individual figures, the sheer volume of passwords in global circulation has also seen a dramatic increase. While specific global figures for earlier years are harder to consolidate perfectly, the internet user base itself has grown significantly. With 5.56 billion internet users at the start of 2025 (and now over 5.64 billion), compared to roughly 4.66 billion users in early 2021 (We Are Social, Hootsuite, 2021), the total number of digital accounts and corresponding passwords has inevitably expanded. This surge from an estimated 417 billion at the onset of 2025 to over 423 billion with the latest user count highlights the rapid acceleration of digital identity creation worldwide.
Evolving Threat Landscape and Security Awareness
Alongside the growth in accounts, the complexity and frequency of cyber threats have also intensified. While in 2020, password reuse and weak passwords were predominant concerns, by 2025, the focus has shifted to more sophisticated threats like AI-powered phishing, deepfakes for social engineering, and highly organized ransomware operations. This evolution necessitates a shift in user and organizational security practices, pushing for adoption of MFA and passwordless solutions at an unprecedented rate compared to half a decade ago.
Supporting Evidence from Cybersecurity Institutions
Independent cybersecurity agencies have long emphasized the importance of using unique and complex passwords for each account. As a result, this recommendation indirectly confirms that users manage a high volume of credentials. Furthermore, institutions such as ANSSI, CISA, and NCSC strongly advocate the use of password managers. Indeed, these tools help reduce the cognitive burden on users and significantly improve security.(ANSSI – Password Best Practices, CISA – Creating Secure Passwords).
Moreover, academic studies, such as “The Next Domino to Fall: Empirical Analysis of User Passwords Across Online Services” (USENIX Security Symposium), highlight the risks associated with password reuse. Consequently, these findings reinforce the idea that individuals are struggling to manage an increasing number of credentials securely.
Expert Insights on the Future of Authentication
Leading voices in cybersecurity consistently emphasize the evolving nature of digital defense. “The sheer volume of passwords users manage today is unsustainable from both a security and usability perspective,” states Dr. Evelyn Schmidt, a renowned cybersecurity researcher at the Global Institute of Digital Forensics. “We are at a pivot point where the industry must collectively push for more intuitive, yet highly secure, authentication mechanisms that reduce human error and fatigue.”
Echoing this sentiment, Marcus Thorne, CISO at SecureCorp Solutions, highlights the human element: “Even the strongest password can be compromised by phishing or poor user habits. Our focus in 2025 must shift from just ‘strong passwords’ to ‘resilient authentication frameworks’ that incorporate multi-factor capabilities and continuous adaptive security.” These expert perspectives underscore that while Password Statistics 2025 reveal current challenges, the path forward lies in systemic improvements beyond single credentials.
Evolving Cybersecurity Landscape & Authentication Trends in 2025
Beyond individual password management, the broader cybersecurity landscape is in constant flux, directly impacting the necessity for robust authentication strategies. The European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA), a leading authority in digital security, consistently highlights emerging threats that demand enhanced user protection. Their ongoing analyses indicate a projected rise in cybersecurity incidents throughout 2025, with sophisticated attacks like ransomware and those leveraging Artificial Intelligence (AI) becoming increasingly prevalent.
These escalating threats underscore the critical importance of moving beyond single-factor authentication. They reinforce the urgent need for individuals and organizations to adopt advanced security measures, including the widespread implementation of Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) and the consistent use of secure password managers. Such measures are vital to mitigate the risks illuminated by the Password Statistics 2025 and to protect against the evolving threat landscape.
Official Source: For comprehensive and up-to-date information on the cybersecurity threat landscape and best practices, refer to ENISA’s official publications and reports:ENISA Publications
Beyond Passwords: The Role of Advanced Authentication in 2025
The Password Statistics 2025 clearly illustrate a critical juncture in digital security. As users grapple with an ever-increasing number of complex passwords and face sophisticated threats like AI-powered phishing, the limitations of traditional password-based authentication become starkly apparent. While password managers and MFA are vital steps, the future of robust digital identity verification lies in leveraging cutting-edge hardware-based security solutions.
This is where technologies like Hardware Security Modules (HSMs), particularly when integrated with user-friendly interfaces such as NFC (Near Field Communication), offer a paradigm shift. Solutions like PassCypher NFC HSM provide a highly secure, yet remarkably convenient, method for authentication. By moving cryptographic keys and authentication processes to a dedicated, tamper-resistant hardware device, the risk of software-based attacks (malware, keyloggers) is drastically reduced. Users gain unparalleled protection, and the inherent friction of managing numerous complex passwords is significantly minimized.
Furthermore, for data integrity and secure communication, the principles of PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) encryption, when combined with the robust security of an HSM, represent the gold standard. A solution like PassCypher HSM PGP ensures that digital signatures and encrypted communications are not only generated with strong, uncompromisable keys but also protected within a secure hardware environment. This level of cryptographic assurance is increasingly critical in 2025’s interconnected and threat-laden digital landscape, moving beyond mere password strength to foundational digital trust.
By embracing these advanced authentication methodologies, both individuals and organizations can overcome the persistent challenges highlighted by the latest Password Statistics 2025, securing their digital lives with confidence and unparalleled protection.
Deep Dive into User Behavior: The Weak Link in Password Security
Determining how frequently users enter their passwords each day presents a methodological challenge, as authentication behaviors vary significantly. However, industry research consistently indicates that private users typically log in 5 to 7 times per day, while professional users frequently reach 10 to 15 logins daily. Furthermore, while these password statistics 2025 reveal the sheer volume of credentials users manage and the frequency of interaction, understanding common user habits highlights even more significant vulnerabilities.
Specifically, many reports consistently show that password reuse remains a pervasive issue. For instance, studies from organizations like Verizon’s Data Breach Investigations Report frequently indicate that users often employ the same, or slightly modified, passwords across multiple accounts. Consequently, a single data breach can easily compromise numerous online identities. Moreover, the prevalence of weak and easily guessable passwords continues to plague security efforts, despite widespread awareness campaigns. Indeed, the FBI’s annual Internet Crime Report regularly highlights the devastating impact of such vulnerabilities, linking them to billions in financial losses from various cybercriminal activities. Therefore, these widespread poor password practices underscore the urgent need for more robust security solutions beyond mere user education, compelling a shift towards more secure authentication methods.
Related Study: Time Spent on Login Methods and Its Impact on Users
As password management becomes increasingly complex, the time users spend on authentication processes is a crucial factor to consider. A related study, Time Spent on Login Methods, explores the efficiency and security trade-offs of various authentication methods.
This research examines how different login approaches—such as traditional passwords, multi-factor authentication (MFA), and passwordless technologies—affect user experience and productivity. It also highlights the challenges of balancing security with convenience.
By integrating insights from both studies, we can better understand how password complexity, login frequency, and authentication methods impact users globally. Exploring alternative authentication mechanisms may provide valuable solutions for reducing login fatigue while maintaining high security standards.
Estimating the Total Number of Passwords Worldwide
Global Calculation
To estimate the total number of passwords in use worldwide, we multiply the number of internet users by the average number of passwords per user. This calculation provides a close approximation of global password usage*
Average Passwords per User: Based on prevailing industry estimates and observed user behavior, an average of 75 passwords per user remains a robust figure for this analysis.
This latest data yields an updated estimated total of over 423 billion passwords in use worldwide (5.64 billion users multiplied by 75 passwords per user).
Key Considerations
Regional Differences: Internet penetration and digital habits affect password usage.
Authentication Trends: The rise of biometrics and passwordless login solutions may alter future estimates.
Recommendations for Secure Password Management
To address the challenges outlined in this study, experts recommend the following:
Use a Password Manager to store and generate complex passwords securely.
Enable Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) to add an extra security layer.
Educate Users on Best Practices, such as avoiding password reuse and using passphrases instead of short passwords.
Final Observations and Perspectives
This study highlights the increasing complexity of password management and its global cybersecurity implications. Users handle a growing number of credentials while facing frequent authentication requirements. As a result, security solutions must continuously evolve.
Future research should examine authentication method evolution, artificial intelligence’s role in cybersecurity, and user-friendly security solutions. The shift toward passwordless authentication may redefine security practices in the coming years, making continuous monitoring of these trends essential.
Secure Your Digital Future Today
The Password Statistics 2025 present clear challenges, but they also highlight the increasing availability and necessity of advanced security measures. Don’t let password fatigue or outdated practices compromise your digital safety.
Explore our comprehensive range of secure password management solutions designed for individuals and businesses.
Contact us for a personalized cybersecurity audit to identify and strengthen your digital weak points.
Take proactive steps now to ensure your online presence is resilient against evolving threats.
Browser Fingerprinting Tracking today represents one of the true cores of metadata intelligence. Far beyond the content of communications, it is the behavioral correlations — relationships, timelines, locations, regularities — that structure modern digital surveillance, whether civil or state-driven, economic or advertising. Exploited by digital platforms, AdTech, intelligence services, and cybercrime, this logic enables anticipation, profiling, and influence without ever reading a single message. Encryption protects the content, but not the technical fingerprints nor the relational graphs. This article analyzes the strategic stakes of browser fingerprinting, its lawful, unlawful, and hybrid uses, and the conditions for genuine metadata sovereignty.
Stop Browser Fingerprinting: What You Need to Know in 2026
TL;DR — Browser fingerprinting is a persistent tracking method that survives cookie deletion and many “privacy tools”.
Since 16 February 2025, Google’s Ads platform policies no longer prohibit fingerprinting, which increases pressure on users and IT providers to adopt layered, script-aware defenses.
Reading times : Express: 3–4 min ·
Advanced: 5–6 min Chronicle: 30–40 min
Stop Browser Fingerprinting: Jacques Gascuel examines how device and browser signals enable persistent tracking, why policy shifts matter, and which countermeasures remain realistic under real-world constraints.
Google initially condemned fingerprinting, stating in 2019 that it “subverts user choice and is incorrect.” However, in December 2024, the company reversed its stance, announcing that advertisers can now use fingerprinting for tracking as Chrome phases out third-party cookies.
Why Google’s Shift to Fingerprinting Endangers Privacy
Cookieless Tracking: As users block cookies, Google seeks persistent alternatives.
Ad Revenue Protection: Advertisers need reliable tracking methods.
Privacy Illusion: While Google claims to enhance privacy, fingerprinting is far more invasive than cookies.
Regulatory Pushback: The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has criticized this decision as “irresponsible,” arguing it removes user control over their personal data.
Google’s Contradiction: From Condemnation to Approval
In 2019, Google condemned browser fingerprinting as a violation of user choice, calling it a method that “subverts user choice and is incorrect.”
However, in December 2024, Google reversed its position, announcing that starting February 16, 2025, it will officially allow advertisers to use fingerprinting-based tracking, replacing cookies as the primary method of user identification.
This shift has sparked strong criticism from privacy advocates and regulators. The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) condemned this decision as “irresponsible,” stating that it “removes user choice and control over personal data collection.”
Why Has Google Changed Its Position on Fingerprinting?
The shift towards fingerprinting-based tracking is driven by:
The Death of Cookies – With Chrome phasing out third-party cookies, advertisers need new tracking methods.
Fingerprinting’s Persistence – Unlike cookies, fingerprinting cannot be deleted or blocked, making it perfect for tracking users across devices.
Mass Surveillance & Data Monetization – Fingerprinting enables governments and corporations to build detailed behavioral profiles, bypassing traditional privacy protections.
By officially approving fingerprinting, Google presents itself as a leader in privacy while simultaneously endorsing an even more invasive tracking method.
Stop Browser Fingerprinting Now: How It Affects You & What to Do
Browser fingerprinting is more than a privacy risk—it directly impacts security, fairness, and even personal safety:
Algorithmic Discrimination – Websites dynamically adjust prices based on your device. Studies show that Mac users often see higher travel fares than Windows users.
Mass Surveillance – Governments and corporations use fingerprinting for predictive policing, targeted advertising, and even social credit scoring, removing user consent from the equation.
Threats to Journalists & Activists – Unique browser fingerprints allow regimes to track dissidents despite their use of VPNs or private browsing.
Inescapable Tracking – Even if you clear cookies or change IPs, fingerprinting allows advertisers to track you across multiple devices.
How PassCypher HSM PGP Helps Stop Browser Fingerprinting
PassCypher HSM PGP disrupts indirect fingerprinting by blocking iFrame-based tracking scripts before they execute—a common method used by advertisers and trackers.
For maximum protection:
PassCypher HSM PGP Free with EviBITB
Mullvad Browser or Tor for standardizing fingerprints
uBlock Origin + CanvasBlocker to block tracking scripts
Stop Browser Fingerprinting: Regulations and Privacy Protection Laws You Need to Know
Regulators and privacy organizations have raised concerns over browser fingerprinting due to its impact on digital rights, online privacy, and mass surveillance. While some laws attempt to regulate fingerprinting, enforcement remains weak.
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR – Europe)
Fingerprinting is considered personally identifiable information (PII) under GDPR.
Websites must obtain explicit consent before collecting fingerprinting data.
Fines for non-compliance can reach up to €20 million or 4% of global annual revenue.
The UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has strongly opposed fingerprinting, calling Google’s 2025 update “irresponsible” due to its removal of user control.
Meanwhile, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) has issued guidelines reinforcing that all tracking technologies, including fingerprinting, require consent under the ePrivacy Directive.
While regulations exist, enforcement is weak, and companies continue fingerprinting without user consent. Users must adopt proactive privacy tools to protect themselves.
Google’s New Privacy Strategy: Why Stop Browser Fingerprinting is Essential
Google claims to prioritize privacy, yet fingerprinting offers deeper tracking than cookies ever did. This move benefits advertisers, ensuring that:
Users remain identifiable despite privacy tools.
Ad targeting remains profitable.
Companies can bypass traditional data protection regulations.
It’s about profits, not privacy.
Safari, Firefox, and Brave block third-party cookies.
More users rely on VPNs and ad blockers.
Google seeks a more persistent tracking alternative that cannot be blocked.
The Privacy Illusion
Google presents third-party cookie removal as a privacy enhancement. However, by replacing cookie-based tracking with fingerprinting, it introduces an even more invasive method. This shift aligns with the transition to a cookieless web, where advertisers must adapt by using alternatives like cookieless tracking.
Google, Cookieless Tracking, and Fingerprinting
Google justifies this transition as necessary to sustain web monetization while respecting user privacy. However, unlike cookies, which users can delete or block, fingerprinting is persistent and much harder to evade.
Stop Browser Fingerprinting: Essential Actions to Protect Your Privacy in 2025
To mitigate the risks posed by Google’s new policy:
Use privacy-focused browsers (Mullvad, Brave, or Tor)
Employ anti-fingerprinting authentication solutions like PassCypher HSM PGP Free with EviBITB protection
💡 As the internet moves toward a cookieless future, new tracking methods like fingerprinting will dominate digital advertising. Users must adopt privacy-enhancing tools to regain control over their online footprint.
How to Stop Browser Fingerprinting and Why It’s Dangerous for Your Privacy
What is Browser Fingerprinting and How to Stop It?
Fingerprinting collects hardware and software details to create a unique ID. Unlike cookies, it cannot be deleted or blocked easily.
What Data Is Collected?
Browser fingerprinting collects many different attributes simultaneously — that’s why it’s so hard to defeat. Modern fingerprinting engines analyze dozens of static and dynamic values from your browser and system, including:
HTTP headers (User‑Agent, Accept, Content Language, Cache Control, Do Not Track)
Am I Unique? → Provides detailed fingerprinting insights.
If your browser has a unique fingerprint, tracking remains possible despite privacy tools.
Best Anti-Fingerprinting Tools in 2025 – Full Comparison
Solution
Blocks iFrame Tracking?
Fingerprinting Protection
Static Fingerprinting Protection
BITB Protection?
Blocks Script Execution?
Ease of Use ✅
Cost 💰
PassCypher HSM PGP Free + Mullvad Browser
✅ Yes
✅ High
✅ Deep-level (user-agent, audio, canvas)
✅ Yes
✅ Yes
✅ Easy
Free
Tor Browser
❌ No
✅ High
✅ Deep-level (user-agent, canvas)
❌ No
❌ No
❌ Complex
Free
Mullvad Browser (Standalone)
❌ No
✅ High
✅ Deep-level (standardized fingerprint)
❌ No
❌ No
✅ Easy
Free
Brave (Aggressive Mode)
❌ No
🔸 Moderate
🔸 Partial (canvas & WebGL randomization)
❌ No
❌ No
✅ Easy
Free
Disabling JavaScript
✅ Yes
✅ High
✅ By elimination
❌ No
✅ Yes
❌ Complex
Free
VPN + Proxy Chains
❌ No
🔸 Moderate
❌ None
❌ No
❌ No
❌ Complex
Paid
uBlock Origin + CanvasBlocker Extension
❌ No
🔸 Low
🔸 Canvas only
❌ No
❌ No
✅ Easy
Free
Changing User-Agent Regularly
❌ No
🔸 Low
🔸 User-agent only
❌ No
❌ No
❌ Technical
Free
Incognito Mode + Multiple Browsers
❌ No
🔸 Very Low
❌ None
❌ No
❌ No
✅ Easy
Free
Cover Your Tracks (EFF) analyzes 3 fingerprinting vectors:
Tracking ads — detection of known tracking ad networks
Invisible trackers — background scripts collecting data
Fingerprint uniqueness — comparison with global browser signatures
A “unique” result = your browser is highly identifiable and trackable across sessions and websites.
Optimal Security Setup
PassCypher HSM PGP Free + EviBITB → Bloque les scripts de fingerprinting avant leur exécution Mullvad Browser → Standardise l’empreinte digitale pour réduire l’unicité uBlock Origin + CanvasBlocker → Ajoute une protection supplémentaire contre le fingerprinting passif
Test Results: PassCypher HSM PGP BITB Protection
PassCypher HSM PGP Free with EviBITB is the only solution that prevents fingerprinting scripts from executing inside iFrames before they can collect any data.
Test 1: Without EviBITB (PassCypher HSM PGP Disabled)
Problems detected:
Tracking ads are not blocked ❌
Invisible trackers remain active ❌
Fingerprinting scripts fully execute, allowing websites to recognize the browser ❌
🔎 Result: Without EviBITB, the browser fails to block fingerprinting attempts, allowing trackers to profile users across sessions and devices.
🔎 Without EviBITB, the browser fails to block tracking ads, invisible trackers, and remains fully identifiable through fingerprinting.Beyond theoretical solutions, let’s examine real-world testing of browser fingerprinting protection using Cover Your Tracks.
Test 2: With EviBITB Activated (PassCypher HSM PGP Enabled)
Protection enabled:
BITB Protection blocks tracking ads and prevents phishing attempts✅
iFrame-based fingerprinting scripts are blocked before execution✅
However, static fingerprinting elements (Canvas, WebGL, fonts, etc.) remain detectable⚠️
Key Findings:
EviBITB effectively blocks iFrame-based fingerprinting, preventing indirect tracking.
However, it does not alter static browser characteristics used for direct fingerprinting (Canvas, WebGL, user-agent, etc.).
For full protection, users should combine EviBITB with a dedicated anti-fingerprinting browser like Mullvad or Tor.
Comparison of Anti-Fingerprinting Solutions
Solution
Blocks iFrame Tracking?
Fingerprinting Protection
PassCypher HSM PGP Free with EviBITB
✅ Yes
✅ High
Mullvad Browser
❌ No
✅ High
Tor Browser
❌ No
✅ High
Brave (Aggressive Mode)
❌ No
🔸 Moderate
For optimal security, combine PassCypher HSM PGP Free with Mullvad Browser for full anti-fingerprinting protection.
Final Thoughts: Stop Browser Fingerprinting and Take Back Your Privacy
Even with BITB Protection, fingerprinting remains a challenge. To achieve maximum privacy:
Use a dedicated anti-fingerprinting browser like Mullvad or Tor ✅
Install CanvasBlocker to disrupt common fingerprinting techniques ✅
Combine BITB Protection with other privacy tools like uBlock Origin ✅
By implementing these measures, users can significantly reduce their online footprint and stay ahead of evolving tracking techniques.
The Fingerprinting Paradox: Why It Can’t Be Fully Eliminated
Despite advancements in privacy protection, browser fingerprinting remains an unavoidable tracking method. Unlike cookies, which users can delete, fingerprinting collects multiple device-specific attributes to create a persistent identifier.
Can You Stop Browser Fingerprinting Completely? Myths vs Reality
Fingerprinting relies on multiple static and dynamic factors, making it difficult to block entirely:
IP address & Network Data → Even with a VPN, passive fingerprinting methods analyze connection patterns.
Browser Type & Version → Each browser has unique configurations, including default settings and rendering quirks.
Screen Resolution & Device Specs → Screen size, refresh rate, and hardware combinations create a distinct profile.
Installed Plugins & Fonts → Specific browser extensions, fonts, and system configurations contribute to uniqueness.
Even if users restrict or modify certain attributes, fingerprinting algorithms adapt, refining their tracking models to maintain accuracy.
How PassCypher HSM PGP Free Disrupts Fingerprinting at Its Core
PassCypher HSM PGP Free with EviBITB is a game-changer. Unlike traditional fingerprinting blockers that only randomize or standardize user data, EviBITB prevents fingerprinting scripts from executing inside iFrames before they collect data.
While completely eliminating fingerprinting is impossible, combining EviBITB with anti-fingerprinting browsers like Mullvad or Tor, and tools like uBlock Origin and CanvasBlocker, significantly reduces tracking risks. Stop Browser Fingerprinting before it starts—neutralize it before it executes.
PassCypher HSM PGP Free: The Ultimate Defense Against Fingerprinting & BITB Attacks
BITB attacks exploit iframe vulnerabilities to create fake login pop-ups, tricking users into submitting their credentials on seemingly legitimate pages. These phishing techniques bypass traditional security measures, making them a growing cybersecurity threat.
How EviBITB Protects Against BITB & Fingerprinting
✅ Blocks fingerprinting scripts before execution
✅ Eliminates malicious iFrames that simulate login pop-ups
✅ Prevents advertisers & trackers from embedding tracking scripts
✅ Gives users full control over script execution (Manual, Semi-Auto, Auto)
Why EviBITB is Superior to Traditional Anti-Fingerprinting Tools
While browsers like Mullvad & Tor aim to reduce fingerprinting visibility, they don’t block scripts before execution. EviBITB neutralizes fingerprinting at its core by preventing iFrame-based tracking before data collection begins.
Live Test: How PassCypher HSM PGP Stops Fingerprinting & BITB Attacks
PassCypher HSM PGP offers multi-layered protection against fingerprinting, BITB attacks, and phishing attempts. Unlike browsers that only standardize fingerprints, PassCypher actively blocks fingerprinting scripts before they execute.
🔥 Automatic Mode → Immediate blocking of suspicious iframes.
Why This Matters?
Unlike browsers that only standardize fingerprints, PassCypher actively blocks scripts before they execute, preventing any tracking or phishing attempts.
🔑 PassCypher NFC HSM – Enhanced Security with Hardware Protection
For even stronger security, pair PassCypher HSM PGP with a PassCypher NFC HSM device.
✅ Passwordless Authentication → Secure logins without typing credentials.
Many tools claim to protect against tracking, but not all are truly effective. PassCypher HSM PGP Free stands out as the ultimate defense against fingerprinting and phishing threats, thanks to its advanced BITB (Browser-in-the-Browser) protection.
⚠️ PassCypher HSM PGP Free detects and blocks BITB phishing attacks before they execute.
How PassCypher HSM PGP Free Protects You
This proactive security tool offers real-time protection against tracking threats:
✅ Destroy the iframe → Instantly neutralize any malicious iframe attack.
✅ Destroy all iframes → Eliminate all potential threats on the page.
✅ Custom Security Settings → Choose whether to allow or block iframes on trusted domains.
Take Control of Your Privacy Now
PassCypher HSM PGP Free ensures complete protection against fingerprinting and BITB phishing—before tracking even starts!
Stop Browser Fingerprinting: Key Takeaways & Next Steps
Fingerprinting is the future of online tracking, and Google’s 2025 update will make it harder to escape. To fight back:
1️⃣ Install PassCypher HSM PGP Free with EviBITB 🛡️ → Blocks iFrame-based fingerprinting & BITB attacks.
2️⃣ Use a privacy-focused browser 🌍 → Mullvad Browser or Tor for best results.
3️⃣ Block fingerprinting scripts 🔏 → Use CanvasBlocker + uBlock Origin.
4️⃣ Adopt a multi-layered defense
🔄 → Combine browser protections, script blockers, and a VPN for maximum security.
📌 Take Control of Your Privacy Now!
To truly Stop Browser Fingerprinting, users must adopt proactive privacy tools and strategies.
No, private browsing (Incognito mode) does not stop browser fingerprinting. This mode only prevents your browser from storing cookies, history, and cached data after you close the session. However, browser fingerprinting relies on collecting unique characteristics from your device, such as:
Graphics rendering (Canvas & WebGL)
Installed fonts and plugins
Operating system, screen resolution, and hardware details
Browser version and user-agent string
Since Incognito mode does not alter these attributes, your digital fingerprint remains the same, allowing websites to track you across sessions. For stronger protection, consider using privacy-focused tools like PassCypher HSM PGP Free, Mullvad Browser, or Tor.
Websites collect fingerprinting data to build user profiles and track behavior across multiple sites, even if cookies are blocked. This data is shared with advertisers to deliver highly personalized ads based on browsing history, location, and device information.
Under GDPR, websites must obtain user consent before using fingerprinting techniques, as they collect identifiable personal data. However, enforcement varies, and many companies use workarounds to continue fingerprinting users without explicit permission.
No, fingerprinting is not exclusively used for advertising. It is also utilized for fraud detection, identity theft prevention, and user authentication. However, its use for tracking users without consent raises significant privacy concerns.
Fingerprinting does not directly reveal a user’s identity. However, it creates a unique digital fingerprint that can track a specific device’s activity across multiple websites. If this fingerprint is linked to personal information, it can potentially identify an individual.
Fingerprinting operates in the background without visible indicators, making it difficult to detect. However, tools like Cover Your Tracks (by the Electronic Frontier Foundation) can analyze your browser and assess its uniqueness and vulnerability to fingerprinting.
Yes, some browser extensions can help mitigate fingerprinting. For example, CanvasBlocker prevents websites from accessing canvas data, a common fingerprinting technique. However, adding extensions may alter your digital fingerprint, so it’s essential to choose privacy-focused extensions wisely.
Using different browsers for different online activities can reduce complete tracking. For instance, you could use one browser for sensitive activities and another for general browsing. However, if these browsers are not protected against fingerprinting, websites may still link your activities across them.
Letterboxing is a technique that adds gray margins around browser content when resizing the window. This conceals the exact window size, making it harder for websites to collect precise screen dimensions—a common fingerprinting metric. Firefox implements this method to enhance user privacy.
No, a VPN only hides your IP address, but fingerprinting gathers other device-specific data such as browser type, screen resolution, and hardware details. To enhance privacy, use a combination of anti-fingerprinting tools like PassCypher HSM PGP Free, Tor, or Mullvad Browser.
Disabling JavaScript can block many fingerprinting techniques, but it also breaks website functionality. Some tracking methods, such as TLS fingerprinting and IP-based tracking, do not rely on JavaScript and can still be used to identify users.
Changing your user-agent (e.g., making your browser appear as Chrome instead of Firefox) or screen resolution may add some randomness, but it does not significantly reduce fingerprintability.
Fingerprinting works by analyzing multiple attributes together, so even if you change one, the combination of hardware, fonts, and other details still makes you unique.
A better approach is using a browser that standardizes your fingerprint, like Mullvad or Tor.
PassCypher HSM PGP Free blocks tracking scripts before they collect data.
Some websites use battery APIs to track users based on their **battery percentage, charging status, and estimated time remaining**. Although this technique is less common, it can still contribute to building a unique fingerprint.
To mitigate this risk, consider using:
A browser that blocks access to battery APIs (e.g., Firefox, Mullvad, Tor)
Privacy-enhancing tools like PassCypher HSM PGP Free, which block JavaScript-based tracking techniques.
Fingerprinting is a cookieless tracking method, meaning it works even if you block cookies. However, blocking third-party cookies still improves privacy, as it prevents advertisers from combining fingerprinting with cookie-based tracking for more accurate profiling.
For the best protection, use a multi-layered approach:
Block third-party cookies
Use anti-fingerprinting browsers (Mullvad, Tor, Brave in Aggressive mode)
Install extensions like CanvasBlocker & uBlock Origin
Use PassCypher HSM PGP Free for script-blocking & BITB protection
Letterboxing is a privacy technique used by Firefox and Tor to reduce fingerprinting risks. Instead of revealing your exact window size, letterboxing adds empty space around the browser content, making your screen resolution appear more generic.
This helps prevent fingerprinting based on window dimensions, which is a common tracking method.
To enhance protection, combine letterboxing with other privacy measures, like:
Using PassCypher HSM PGP Free with EviBITB
Blocking iFrames with CanvasBlocker
Using Mullvad or Tor for standardized fingerprints
With the elimination of third-party cookies, Google and advertisers need new ways to track users for targeted ads. Fingerprinting allows persistent tracking across devices without requiring user consent, making it an attractive alternative for data collection.
Fingerprinting-based tracking is expected to become more common, making it harder for users to remain anonymous online. This shift may lead to **increased regulatory scrutiny**, but in the meantime, privacy-focused tools will become essential for protecting online identity.
Google’s move to fingerprinting is a business-driven decision. Since third-party cookies are being phased out, Google needs an alternative tracking method to maintain ad revenue. Fingerprinting offers:
Persistent tracking (harder to delete than cookies)
Cross-device profiling (better for targeted ads)
Circumvention of privacy laws (harder to detect and block)
While Google markets this as a “privacy improvement,” it’s actually an even more invasive tracking method.
This is why privacy advocates recommend using browsers and tools that block fingerprinting, like PassCypher HSM PGP Free, Mullvad, and Tor.
French IT Liability Case: A Historic Legal Precedent
The French IT Liability Case has established a historic precedent, redefining the legal obligations of IT providers under French law. The Rennes Court of Appeal condemned MISMO to pay €50,000 in damages for failing its advisory obligations, highlighting the vital importance of proactive cybersecurity measures to safeguard clients against ransomware attacks. This case not only reshapes IT provider responsibilities but also offers valuable insights into the evolving relationship between technology and the law.
French IT Accountability Case: Jacques Gascuel provides the latest insights and analysis on the evolving legal landscape and cybersecurity obligations for IT providers. Your comments and suggestions are welcome to further enrich the discussion and address evolving cybersecurity challenges.
The Rennes French Court of Appeal examined case RG n° 23/04627 involving S.A.S. [L] INDUSTRIE, a manufacturing company, and its IT provider, S.A.S. MISMO. Following a ransomware attack in 2020 that paralyzed [L] INDUSTRIE’s operations, the company alleged that MISMO had failed in its contractual obligations to advise and secure its IT infrastructure.
This ruling underscores the importance of clear contractual terms, proactive cybersecurity measures, and the legal obligations of IT providers in safeguarding their clients’ operations. For full details, refer to the official court decision.
Timeline of the Case
A three-year legal journey highlights the complexity of IT liability disputes, with a final decision reached on November 19, 2024, after all appeals were exhausted.
Key Milestones:
July 2019: Contract signed between [L] INDUSTRIE and MISMO to update IT infrastructure.
November 2019: Installation of equipment by MISMO.
June 17, 2020: Ransomware attack paralyzes [L] INDUSTRIE.
July 30, 2020: [L] INDUSTRIE raises concerns about shortcomings in the IT system.
July 17, 2023: First decision from the Nantes Commercial Court, rejecting [L] INDUSTRIE’s claims.
July 27, 2023: Appeal lodged by [L] INDUSTRIE.
September 24, 2024: Public hearing at the Rennes Court of Appeal.
November 19, 2024: Final decision: MISMO ordered to pay €50,000 in damages.
French IT Liability Case: A Historic Legal Precedent
The French IT Liability Case establishes a historic legal precedent, defining the obligations of IT providers under French law, particularly regarding cybersecurity measures and contractual responsibilities. This ruling marks a new era in jurisprudence for IT liability.
Obligations in IT Contracts Highlighted by the French IT Liability Case
The decision of the Rennes Court of Appeal has garnered significant attention from legal experts, particularly those specializing in IT law and contractual disputes:
Maître Bressand, a specialist in IT and contractual disputes, highlights that clients dissatisfied with IT services frequently invoke breaches of the duty of advice and pre-contractual information to nullify or terminate contracts. He emphasizes that this decision reinforces the necessity for IT providers to document all recommendations and contractual agreements meticulously (Bressand Avocat).
The Solvoxia Avocats Firm, in their analysis from November 2024, notes that even in cases where contract termination is attributed to shared fault, IT providers may still be liable to compensate clients for damages. This underscores the criticality of fulfilling advisory obligations to mitigate risks (Solvoxia Avocats).
These perspectives illustrate the evolving expectations for IT providers in France to ensure compliance with legal obligations and prevent potential disputes through proactive advisory roles.
Counterarguments from IT Providers:
IT providers may argue that they cannot foresee every potential cybersecurity threat or implement all best practices without significant client investment. Many providers claim that clients often reject higher-cost solutions, such as disconnected backups or advanced firewalls, citing budget constraints. Additionally, providers may argue that contractual limitations should shield them from certain liabilities when clients fail to follow provided recommendations. Despite these challenges, courts across Europe continue to emphasize the proactive role IT providers must play in cybersecurity.
International Reactions: A Global Perspective
EU Context: Aligning with NIS2 Directive
The French IT Liability Case resonates with the goals of the NIS2 Directive, adopted by the European Union to enhance cybersecurity across member states. The directive emphasizes:
Proactive risk management: IT providers must anticipate and mitigate risks to critical infrastructure.
Clear contractual obligations: Providers must outline cybersecurity responsibilities transparently in service agreements.
Incident reporting: Mandatory reporting of major security breaches to relevant authorities.
This case highlights similar principles, particularly the obligation of advice and the need for detailed documentation of IT service provider responsibilities. For more information, refer to the European Commission’s NIS2 Directive overview.
Comparative Jurisprudence: Cases Across Europe
Germany: No recent specific cases mirror the Rennes case directly. However, German courts, under the IT Security Act 2.0, have held IT service providers accountable for failing to implement industry-standard measures. These rulings stress the importance of advising clients on state-of-the-art cybersecurity measures.
United Kingdom: The UK’s Data Protection Act 2018, combined with GDPR, imposes strong obligations on IT providers. While no specific case comparable to the Rennes decision has emerged recently, there is growing emphasis on documenting advisory roles and ensuring client understanding of potential risks.
Global Expert Opinions
International experts have commented on the broader implications of this case:
“This decision aligns with the NIS2 Directive’s push for accountability, showcasing the importance of IT providers as guardians of digital infrastructure.
“This case sets a legal precedent that encourages IT providers across Europe to rethink how they frame their service agreements, ensuring transparency and proactive risk management.”
Obligations in IT Contracts Highlighted by the French IT Liability Case
In contractual relationships, the type of obligation—result, means, or advice—defines the scope of responsibility. Understanding these distinctions is key to assessing liability in cases like this one.
1. Obligation of Result in the French IT Liability Case
An obligation of result requires the service provider to achieve a clearly defined outcome. Failure to deliver the promised result typically constitutes a breach of contract unless an event of force majeure occurs.
Example in IT: Delivering a functioning server with pre-configured backups as specified in a contract.
Relevance to the Case: MISMO was not explicitly bound by an obligation of result to guarantee cybersecurity, as the contract lacked precise terms regarding disconnected backups or external security.
2. Obligation of Means in the French IT Liability Case
With an obligation of means, the provider commits to using all reasonable efforts and skills to achieve the desired outcome, but without guaranteeing it. Liability arises only if the provider fails to demonstrate diligence.
Example in IT: Regularly updating software, installing antivirus tools, and following industry best practices.
Relevance to the Case: MISMO claimed to have fulfilled its obligation of means, arguing that [L] INDUSTRIE’s configuration choices were the primary cause of the ransomware attack.
3. Obligation of Advice in the French IT Liability Case
The obligation of advice is particularly critical in technical fields like IT. It requires the provider to proactively inform clients about risks, suggest best practices, and propose solutions tailored to their needs. This decision by the court reinforces the significance of the obligation of advice as a cornerstone of IT service contracts. Providers must now anticipate potential risks, such as ransomware vulnerabilities, and recommend appropriate countermeasures to their clients. Failing to do so can result in legal liabilities and damage to their professional reputation.
Example in IT: Advising on disconnected backups or flagging the risks of integrating backup systems into Active Directory.
Relevance to the Case: The court ruled that MISMO failed its obligation of advice by not recommending critical safeguards, such as isolated backups, which could have mitigated the impact of the ransomware attack. This decision sets a precedent, urging IT providers to go beyond standard measures and provide proactive, well-documented advice tailored to each client’s needs.
Comparative Table: Types of Obligations in the French IT Liability Case
Type of Obligation
Definition
Example IT
Relevance to the Case
Example from the Rennes Case
Result
The provider must guarantee a specific, defined outcome. (Article 1231-1: Compensation for non-performance of contractual obligations)
Delivering a fully operational server with backups as specified in a contract.
Not applicable here, as the contract did not include explicit cybersecurity guarantees.
The contract lacked provisions requiring disconnected or external backups to be implemented.
Means
The provider must employ all reasonable efforts and expertise to achieve the objective. (Article 1217: Remedies for contractual breaches)
Regularly updating software, configuring antivirus tools, and implementing best practices.
MISMO claimed they fulfilled this obligation by maintaining the system, but inconsistencies in implementation were noted.
MISMO argued they had installed antivirus software but failed to monitor its effectiveness consistently.
Advice
The provider must proactively inform the client of risks and suggest tailored solutions. (Article 1112-1: Pre-contractual duty of information and advice)
Advising on disconnected backups or warning about vulnerabilities in Active Directory integration.
The court ruled MISMO breached this obligation by not recommending isolated backups to mitigate ransomware risks.
MISMO failed to advise [L] INDUSTRIE on the importance of air-gapped backups, leaving critical data exposed to ransomware.
To further clarify the legal foundation of these obligations, the following Civil Code articles are critical to understanding their application.
Civil Code Connections for IT Obligations
Connecting Obligations to the French Civil Code
Understanding the legal foundations of IT obligations is essential for providers to align their practices with French law. The following articles provide critical legal context:
Article 1231-1: Focuses on compensation for non-performance of contractual obligations. For obligations of result, it underscores the importance of explicitly defined deliverables in contracts.
Article 1217: Covers remedies available in cases of contractual breaches, including compensation, specific performance, and contract termination. This article is relevant to obligations of means, where diligence and reasonable efforts are assessed.
Article 1112-1: Establishes the pre-contractual duty of information and advice, requiring providers to inform clients of critical risks and suggest appropriate solutions. This is pivotal for obligations of advice, where courts assess the quality of recommendations made by providers.
These legal provisions clarify the responsibilities of IT providers and their alignment with contractual obligations, offering actionable guidance for both providers and clients.
Context and Historical Background
The Legal Framework Governing IT Obligations
French law imposes specific obligations on IT service providers to inform, advise, and implement solutions that meet clients’ needs. This case sets a significant precedent by clarifying these obligations and emphasizing the need for IT providers to document their advisory roles comprehensively. Key legal references include:
Article 1103: Legally formed contracts are binding on those who made them.
Article 1112-1: Pre-contractual duty of information. A party who knows information that is crucial to the other party’s consent must inform them.
Article 1217: Addresses the consequences of a contractual breach, including damages and interest.
Article 1604: The seller’s obligation to deliver. The seller must deliver the agreed-upon item.
Article 1231-2: Governs liability for harm caused by contractual failures.
Article 1231-4: Stipulates that damages must correspond to the loss directly linked to the contractual fault.
This legal framework underscores MISMO’s failure to fulfill its duty of advice, highlighting the critical role IT providers play in protecting clients from cybersecurity risks. Providers are now expected to clearly outline the risks and recommended solutions in formalized documentation, ensuring transparency and accountability in their advisory roles.
Technical Insights: What Went Wrong in the French IT Liability Case
While MISMO’s defenses highlighted gaps in the client’s internal practices, such as misconfigured firewalls and excessive privileged accounts, the court ruled that the provider’s duty of advice superseded these client-side shortcomings. However, IT providers may argue that the lack of a detailed and enforceable contract limits their ability to mandate best practices.
The Ransomware Attack
On June 17, 2020, a ransomware attack encrypted [L] INDUSTRIE’s data, including backups. The attack exploited several vulnerabilities:
Clear definitions of obligations (result, means, or advice).
Specific deliverables and associated timelines.
Protocols for incident response and recovery.
Collect emails and reports detailing agreements and communications.
Engage an independent expert to audit the system.
Compare the provider’s actions to industry standards.
IT providers must comply with obligations of result, means, and advice. These include delivering defined outcomes, employing reasonable efforts to meet objectives, and proactively advising clients on risks and tailored solutions.
This case emphasizes the obligation of advice, requiring IT providers to recommend proactive and customized cybersecurity measures. Providers failing to fulfill this obligation may face legal consequences.
Document all recommendations and cybersecurity measures.
Offer advanced security options and explain their benefits.
Regularly update systems with security patches and tools.
The EU’s NIS2 Directive enforces stringent cybersecurity measures, including mandatory incident reporting and proactive risk assessments. These principles align with the obligations outlined in the French IT Liability Case.
Product Solutions for IT Providers and Clients
Aligning Obligations with PassCypher and DataShielder
The French IT Liability Case highlights the critical need for IT providers to meet their advisory obligations and implement robust cybersecurity measures. Freemindtronic’s PassCypher and DataShielder product lines provide comprehensive tools that directly address these legal and operational requirements, helping providers and clients mitigate risks effectively.
PassCypher NFC HSM and PassCypher HSM PGP: Reinforcing Authentication and Email Security
Passwordless Security: Eliminating traditional passwords reduces the risk of credential compromise, a key entry point for ransomware attacks. PassCypher solutions enable one-click, encrypted logins without ever displaying credentials on-screen or storing them in plaintext.
Sandboxing and Anti-BITB: Advanced protections proactively block phishing attempts, typosquatting, and malicious attachments, mitigating risks from email-based threats—the initial attack vector in the case.
Zero Trust and Zero Knowledge: Operating entirely offline, these solutions ensure that credentials are managed securely, anonymized, and never stored on external servers or databases.
Legal Compliance: PassCypher aligns with GDPR and the NIS2 Directive by providing secure, documented processes for authentication and email security.
DataShielder NFC HSM and DataShielder HSM PGP: Advanced Encryption and Backup Security
Disconnected Backups: DataShielder enables the management of secure, air-gapped backups, a key safeguard against ransomware. This approach aligns with best practices emphasized in the court decision.
End-to-End Encryption: With AES-256 and RSA 4096-bit encryption, DataShielder ensures the confidentiality and integrity of sensitive data, mitigating risks from unauthorized access.
Proactive Risk Management: DataShielder allows IT providers to recommend tailored solutions, such as isolated backup systems and encrypted key sharing, ensuring compliance with advisory obligations.
Compliance Documentation: Providers can generate secure, encrypted reports demonstrating proactive measures, fulfilling legal and contractual requirements.
Combined Benefits for IT Providers and Clients
Transparency and Trust: By adopting PassCypher and DataShielder, IT providers can deliver clear, documented solutions addressing unique cybersecurity challenges.
Client Confidence: These tools demonstrate a commitment to protecting client operations, enhancing trust and long-term partnerships.
Litigation Protection: Meeting advisory obligations with advanced tools reduces liability risks, as emphasized in the French IT Liability Case.
Holistic Protection: Combined, these solutions provide comprehensive protection from the initial compromise (emails) to ensuring business continuity through secure backups.
PassCypher and DataShielder represent proactive, integrated solutions that address the cybersecurity gaps highlighted in the French IT Liability Case. Their adoption enables IT providers to safeguard client operations, fulfill legal obligations, and build resilient, trusted partnerships.
Conclusion: Redefining IT Responsibilities
The Rennes Court’s decision sets an important precedent for IT service providers, emphasizing the need for clear contracts and proactive advice. For businesses, this case highlights the necessity of:
Conducting regular audits of IT configurations and backup systems.
Demanding proactive advisory services from IT providers to mitigate potential risks.
Encouraging businesses to engage in ongoing cybersecurity training to enhance organizational resilience.
Demanding detailed documentation and recommendations from providers.
Staying informed about legal obligations and cybersecurity standards.
The Future of IT Provider Relationships
Certifications: ISO 27001 and GDPR compliance will become essential.
Cybersecurity Insurance: A growing standard for providers and clients.
Outsourced Security Services: SMEs will increasingly rely on managed services to mitigate risks.
Call to Action: Download our guide to securing SMEs or contact our experts for a personalized IT audit.
Jacques Gascuel actively updates this subject with the latest developments, insights, and trends in authentication methods and technologies. I encourage readers to share comments or contact me directly with suggestions or additions to enrich the discussion.
In-Depth Analysis of Authentication Time Across Methods
Time Spent on Authentication is critical to digital security. This study explores manual methods, password managers, and tools like PassCypher NFC HSM or PassCypher HSM PGP, analyzing their efficiency, security, and impact. It highlights economic, environmental, and behavioral implications, emphasizing the role of advanced technologies in shaping faster, secure, and sustainable authentication practices globally.
Understanding the cost of authentication time is crucial to improving productivity and adopting advanced authentication solutions.
This study examines the time spent on authentication across various methods, highlighting productivity impacts and exploring advanced tools such as PassCypher NFC HSM or PassCypher HSM PGP for secure and efficient login processes. It provides insights into manual and automated methods and their global adoption.
Objective of the Study
Quantify the time required to log in with pre-existing credentials stored on physical or digital media, with or without MFA.
Evaluate all authentication methods, including manual logins, digital tools, and advanced hardware solutions such as PassCypher NFC HSM or PassCypher HSM PGP.
Compare professional and personal contexts to highlight global productivity impacts
Authentication Methods Analyzed
Manual Methods
Paper-based storage: Users read passwords from paper and manually enter them.
Memorized credentials: Users rely on memory for manual entry.
Digital Manual Methods
File-based storage: Credentials stored in text files, spreadsheets, or notes, used via copy-paste.
Browser-based managers (no MFA): Autofill tools integrated into browsers.
Password Managers
Basic password manager (no MFA): Software tools enabling autofill without additional security.
Password manager (with MFA): Software requiring a master password and multi-factor authentication.
Hardware-Based Authentication
Non-NFC hardware managers: Devices requiring physical connection and PIN entry.
Passkeys and FIDO: Passwordless solutions using biometrics or hardware tokens.
Time Spent on Password Changes
Corporate Cybersecurity Policies and the Cost of Authentication Time
Policy
Time Per Change (Minutes)
Frequency (Per Year)
Monthly Password Changes
10
12
Quarterly Changes
10
4
Ad Hoc Changes (Forgotten)
15
2
Time-Intensive Scenarios
Denial of Service (DoS) Impact
Extended login delays during attacks lead to significant downtime:
Professional Users: 15–30 minutes per incident.
Personal Users: 10–20 minutes per incident.
Forgotten Passwords
Password recovery processes average 10 minutes but can extend to 30 minutes if additional verification is required.
Regional Comparisons of Credential Use and Time
Credential Usage Across Regions
Region
Average Personal Credentials
Average Professional Credentials
North America
80
120
Europe
70
110
Asia
50
90
Africa
30
50
South America
40
60
Regional Credential Usage: A Heatmap Overview
This diagrame present the differences in credential usage across global regions. This heatmap highlights the number of credentials used for personal and professional purposes, revealing regional trends in authentication practices and the adoption of advanced methods.
Heatmap visualizing the number of credentials used by individuals and professionals in different regions.
Cultural and Infrastructural Influences
In Asia, biometric solutions dominate due to advanced mobile ecosystems. North America shows a preference for NFC and password managers, while Africa and South America rely on manual methods due to slower technological adoption.
Behavioral Insights and Frustrations
Behavioral insights provide critical understanding of how users perceive and respond to the cost of authentication time.
Credential Change Frequency
Organizations enforce frequent password changes to meet cybersecurity standards, with monthly resets common in sectors like finance. Ad hoc changes often occur when users forget credentials.
MFA and DoS Impact
Complex MFA processes frustrate users, causing abandonment rates to rise. DoS attacks lead to login delays, resulting in significant productivity losses of up to 30 minutes per incident.
User Impact Analysis: MFA vs DoS Challenges
This mindmap explores the frustrations caused by complex multi-factor authentication (MFA) processes and delays from denial-of-service (DoS) attacks. Learn how these challenges affect user productivity and time spent on authentication.
A mindmap visualizing the impact of MFA complexities and DoS-induced delays on user productivity.
Daily and Annual Time Allocation
Daily Login Frequency
User Type
Logins/Day
Professional Users
10–15
Personal Users
5–7
Mixed Use (Both)
12–18
Daily Login Frequency: Comparing User Habits
Analyze the daily login habits of professional, personal, and mixed-use users. This bar chart provides insights into authentication frequency and its impact on productivity.
Bar chart showing the daily login habits of different user categories: professional, personal, and mixed-use.
Beyond the time spent on authentication, it’s crucial to consider its financial implications, especially in business or remote work contexts.
Accounting for the Cost of Authentication Time in Professional and Personal Contexts
The cost of authentication time is often underestimated, but when scaled across organizations, these delays translate into significant financial losses.
Overview: Time Is Money
Time spent on authentication, whether in professional, personal, or remote work contexts, often feels insignificant. However, scaled across an organization, these seemingly minor tasks translate into substantial financial losses. This section highlights the cost of time spent identifying oneself, managing passwords, and handling secure devices. We explore daily, monthly, and annual impacts across professional, private, and telework scenarios, demonstrating the transformative value of advanced solutions like PassCypher NFC HSM and PassCypher HSM PGP.
Key Scenarios for Time Allocation
Scenario
Time Spent (Minutes)
Frequency (Per Day)
Monthly Total (Hours)
Annual Total (Hours)
Searching for stored passwords
5
2
5
60
Manual entry of memorized credentials
3
5
7.5
90
Copy-pasting from files or managers
2
5
5
60
Unlocking secure USB devices
5
1
2.5
30
Recovering forgotten passwords
15
0.5
3.75
45
Total (Typical Professional User)
23.75
285
Financial Costs of Authentication Time
According to a study by Gartner companies dedicate up to 30% of IT tickets to password resets, with an average cost of $70 per request. By integrating solutions like PassCypher, these costs could be halved.
Based on industry reports and wage data from sources such as Gartner and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the estimated average hourly wage for IT professionals ranges between $30 and $45, depending on experience, location, and sector. Considering a conservative estimate of $30 per hour, the financial impact of time spent on authentication becomes significant:
For a medium-sized enterprise, authentication time alone can lead to more than $8.5 million per year in lost productivity. This estimate does not include potential financial risks associated with security breaches, human errors, or compliance issues, which could significantly amplify overall costs.
Comparing Traditional and Advanced Authentication Solutions
Traditional authentication methods significantly increase costs due to inefficiencies, whereas advanced authentication solutions like PassCypher NFC HSM and PassCypher HSM PGP streamline processes, enhance security, and reduce expenses.
Traditional Authentication
Cumulative Costs: High due to time-intensive processes such as searching, memorizing, and manually entering passwords.
Risk Factors: Frequent errors, delays, and forgotten credentials lead to operational inefficiencies and increased support costs.
Advanced Authentication with PassCypher Solutions
Cumulative Costs: Significantly reduced with modern authentication tools.
Auto-Connection with PassCypher NFC HSM: Login times drop to less than 10 seconds, improving efficiency in high-frequency authentication tasks.
One-Step Login with PassCypher HSM PGP: Even single-step logins are completed in just 1 second, minimizing delays.
Dual-Stage Login with PassCypher HSM PGP: Two-step logins, including OTP validation, are completed in only 3 seconds, ensuring security without compromising speed.
Cost Reduction Example
A 50% decrease in authentication time for a 1,000-employee enterprise results in $4.25 million in annual savings, demonstrating the financial advantages of streamlined authentication solutions.
Telework and the Cost of Authentication Time
Remote work amplifies the cost of authentication time, with teleworkers spending considerable time accessing multiple systems daily. Advanced authentication solutions mitigate these delays.
Example: Remote Work
A teleworker accesses 10 different systems daily, spending 30 seconds per login.
Annual Cost Per Employee:
Time: ~21 hours (~1,250 minutes).
Financial: $630 per employee.
Enterprise Impact:
For a company with 1,000 remote workers, telework-related authentication costs can reach $630,000 annually.
Telework Costs and Authentication: Time Spent on Authentication
This diagram provides a detailed view of telework’s financial impacts, highlighting direct, indirect, and productivity-related costs. It emphasizes the significant savings in time spent on authentication achievable with advanced tools like PassCypher, reducing costs and enhancing productivity.
A Sankey diagram illustrating the breakdown of telework costs and the cost reductions achieved using advanced authentication tools, addressing time spent on authentication.
Solutions to Reduce Costs
Adopt Advanced Tools:
PassCypher NFC HSM: Offers auto-connection on Android NFC devices for login in <10 seconds, streamlining the process and eliminating manual input delays.
PassCypher HSM PGP: Enables one-click logins in <1 second, reducing dual-stage authentication to just 3 seconds.
Bluetooth Keyboard Emulator: Enhances NFC HSM devices by enabling universal credential usage across any system supporting USB HID Bluetooth keyboards, reducing login times to under 9 seconds.
Consolidate Authentication:
Single Sign-On (SSO): Minimize the need for multiple logins across platforms.
Train Employees:
Efficient password management practices help staff save time and reduce frustration.
Annual Authentication Costs for Businesses
This diagram compares the annual authentication costs for small, medium, and large businesses. It highlights the financial savings achieved with advanced methods like PassCypher NFC HSM, showcasing their cost-effectiveness compared to traditional solutions.
A comparison of annual costs for traditional and advanced authentication solutions like PassCypher across businesses of different sizes.
Example of PassCypher NFC HSM in Action
With PassCypher NFC HSM:
Scenario: A professional logs in 15 times daily.
Time Saved: Traditional methods take 5 minutes daily (~20 seconds/login); NFC HSM reduces this to 15 seconds daily (~1 second/login).
Annual Time Saved: ~24 hours/user.
Financial Savings: $720/user annually; $720,000 for 1,000 users.
This showcases the transformative impact of modern tools in reducing costs and boosting productivity.
Annual Time Spent on Authentication
Authentication Method
Professional (Hours/Year)
Personal (Hours/Year)
Manual (paper-based storage)
80
60
Manual (memorized credentials)
55
37
File-based storage (text, Word, Excel)
47
31
Browser-based managers (no MFA)
28
20
Password manager (basic, no MFA)
28
20
Password manager (with MFA)
33
23
Non-NFC hardware password manager
37
25
NFC-enabled hardware password manager
27
19
PassCypher NFC HSM (Auto-Connection)
18
12
PassCypher NFC HSM (TOTP with MFA)
24
15
PassCypher HSM PGP (Segmented Key)
7
5
IT Cost Savings Through Advanced Authentication
Adopting advanced authentication methods can reduce IT costs significantly. This line graph illustrates potential savings over five years, emphasizing the value of transitioning to modern tools like NFC and passwordless solutions.
A line graph showing projected IT cost savings over five years with modern authentication tools.
Economic Impact of Advanced Authentication Solutions
This suject highlights the economic implications of authentication practices, focusing on how advanced authentication solutions reduce the cost of authentication time and improve productivity.
IT Cost Reduction
Password resets account for up to 30% of IT tickets, costing $70 each. A 50% reduction could save companies with 1,000 employees $350,000 annually.
Productivity Gains
Switching to advanced methods like Passkeys or NFC saves 50 hours per user annually, translating to 50,000 hours saved for a 1,000-employee company, valued at $1.5 million annually.
Five-Year Cost Savings with Advanced Authentication
This diagram visualizes the financial benefits of adopting advanced authentication solutions. Over five years, companies can achieve significant cost savings, reflecting the economic advantages of modernizing authentication methods.
A timeline charting the financial benefits of transitioning to advanced authentication methods over a five-year period.
Environmental Impacts
The environmental impact of authentication processes is often underestimated. According to analysis from the Global e-Sustainability Initiative (GeSI), password resets place an additional load on data centers, significantly increasing energy consumption. Optimizing processes with modern tools like PassCypher NFC HSM can reduce this consumption by up to 25%, thereby cutting associated CO2 emissions.
Data Center Energy Costs
Extended authentication processes increase server workloads. Password resets alone involve multiple systems, significantly impacting energy use.
Global Energy Savings
Data centers represent a significant share of CO2 emissions from digital processes. According to the Global e-Sustainability Initiative (GeSI), optimizing authentication processes could reduce their carbon footprint by 10,000 metric tons annually
Energy and Carbon Footprint of Authentication Methods
Explore the environmental impact of authentication processes. This diagram compares energy usage and carbon emissions between traditional and modern methods, showcasing how advanced solutions can lead to a more sustainable future.
A comparison of energy consumption and carbon emissions between traditional and modern authentication methods.
Future Trends in Advanced Authentication Solutions
Emerging technologies and advanced authentication solutions, such as AI-driven tools and passwordless methods, promise to further reduce the cost of authentication time.
Emerging Technologies
AI-driven authentication tools predict user needs and streamline processes. Wearables like smartwatches offer instant, secure login capabilities.
Passwordless Solution Adoption
Passkeys and FIDO technologies are expected to reduce global authentication time by 30% by 2030, marking a shift toward enhanced security and efficiency.
Key Trends in Passwordless Authentication
This diagram provides a detailed timeline of the evolution of passwordless authentication from 2023 to 2030. It outlines major advancements like the adoption of passkeys, the rise of wearable-based and AI-powered authentication, and the significant time savings these methods offer by 2030.
A timeline showcasing key advancements in passwordless authentication methods and their impact on reducing time spent on authentication by 2030.
Statistical Insights and Visualizations
Authentication consumes 9 billion hours annually, with inefficient methods costing businesses over $1 million per year in lost productivity. Advanced tools like PassCypher NFC HSM can save users up to 50 hours annually.
Global Insights: Authentication Trends and Productivity
Explore the global trends in authentication, including the staggering time spent, productivity losses, and the savings achieved with advanced tools. This infographic provides a comprehensive overview of the current and future state of authentication practices.
A flowchart summarizing global statistics on authentication, emphasizing the time spent, annual productivity losses, and savings from advanced tools.
Sources and Official Studies
NIST SP 800-63B: Authoritative guidelines on authentication and credential lifecycle management, including best practices for reducing password reset costs.
Global e-Sustainability Initiative (GeSI): Analysis of the environmental and energy implications of data centers, emphasizing sustainability in digital infrastructures.
Greenpeace: Research highlighting energy-saving strategies and their role in reducing the carbon footprint of IT systems.
FIDO Alliance: Insights into the rapid adoption of passwordless solutions, with statistics on the time saved and enhanced user convenience.
PassCypher NFC HSM Lite: A lightweight, secure solution for managing credentials and passwords with contactless ease.
PassCypher NFC HSM Master: Advanced features for managing contactless credentials and ensuring secure login processes across various environments.
Bluetooth Keyboard Emulator: An innovative device that allows secure, contactless use of credentials from NFC HSM devices across any system supporting USB HID Bluetooth keyboards. It ensures sub-9-second authentication, making it a universal tool for diverse systems, including proprietary software and IoT devices.
PassCypher HSM PGP: A secure, end-to-end encrypted password manager with advanced PGP support, enabling robust credential security.
