Jul 24, 2020

DHL: COVID-19’s Impact On Consumer Returns & E-commerce

E-Commerce
Retail
Jack Grimshaw
2 min
DHL: COVID-19’s Impact On Consumer Returns & E-commerce
The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic has turned the e-commerce industry on its head, how has the returns process felt the impact...

With consumers forced to stay at home for the last few months, global e-commerce has seen an unprecedented increase in the number of sales made, as many stores closed their doors and rely on their online presence.

Maintaining customer loyalty and overcoming the increased pressures has been difficult for retailers around the world who didn’t have the capacity to move entirely to e-commerce operations before the pandemic. Online product returns have, inevitably, experienced implications from the pandemic also.

DHL's report has taken a look at the impact of the virus into the e-commerce sector as a whole. According to the report, returns technology provider Optoro has recorded a 20% decrease in average weekly returns volumes throughout the coronavirus’ most recent phase. Other brands providing returns technology to retailers, such as Returnly, also saw the rate of e-commerce returns drop by a sharp 21% as mandated lockdowns were implemented around the world.

It is believed that the main driver behind the decreasing number of returns is due to consumers not wanting to add extra stress into their lives throughout a period of high pressure. Many are, understandably, wary of leaving their homes, with official government advice encouraging people to stay in as much as possible. The reluctance to leave homes and visit local shipping locations will have had a huge impact on the reduced rate of returns.

A large portion of online retailers have extended their returns windows, in some cases up to 90 days, and a number of retailers have also implemented plans to allow for returns to be made in-store once they have reopened.

The extensions and postponements of returns are expected to result in a huge increase of returns in the future, however. “We are thinking of Covid as another Black Friday for returns – after the market opens,” says Returnly’s CEO and founder, Eduardo Vilar. 

The impact that the pandemic has had on the returns process could be the catalyst to the implementation and adoption of fast-track returns, Narvar’s CEO Amit Sharma believes, with a sizeable backlog of returns waiting to be made.“Customers will expect more from brands and retailers. Some of the conveniences that they are seeing on the delivery side will eventually permeate returns.”

Transparency, a stress-free experience and regulations will all be key things to consider for retailers building successful, efficient returns processes amid the return of retail.

Share article

Jun 21, 2021

Google and NIST Address Supply Chain Cybersecurity

Google
NIST
SLSA4
Sonatype
Elise Leise
3 min
The SolarWinds and Codecov cyberattacks reminded companies that software security poses a critical risk. How do we mitigate it?

As high-level supply chain attacks hit the news, Google and the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have both developed proposals for how to address software supply chain security. This isn’t a new field, unfortunately. Since supply chains are a critical part of business resilience, criminals have no qualms about targeting its software. That’s why identifying, assessing, and mitigating cyber supply chain risks (C-SCRM) is at the top of Google and NIST’s respective agendas. 

 

High-Profile Supply Chain Attacks 

According to Google, no comprehensive end-to-end framework exists to mitigate threats across the software supply chain. [Yet] ‘there is an urgent need for a solution in the face of the eye-opening, multi-billion-dollar attacks in recent months...some of which could have been prevented or made more difficult’. 

 

Here are several of the largest cybersecurity failures in recent months: 

 

  • SolarWinds. Alleged Russian hackers slipped malicious code into a routine software update, which they then used as a Trojan horse for a massive cyberattack. 
  • Codecov. Attackers used automation to collect credentials and raid ‘additional resources’, such as data from other software development vendors. 
  • Malicious attacks on open-source repositories. Out of 1,000 GitHub accounts, more than one in five contained at least one dependency confusion-related misconfiguration. 

 

As a result of these attacks and Biden’s recent cybersecurity mandate, NIST and Google took action. NIST held a 1,400-person workshop and published 150 papers worth of recommendations from Microsoft, Synopsys, The Linux Foundation, and other software experts; Google will work with popular source, build, and packaging platforms to help companies implement and excel at their SLSA framework

 

What Are Their Recommendations? 

Here’s a quick recap: NIST has grouped together recommendations to create federal standards; Google has developed an end-to-end framework called Supply Chain Levels for Software Artifacts (SLSA)—pronounced “Salsa”. Both address software procurement and security. 

 

Now, here’s the slightly more in-depth version: 

 

  • NIST. The organisation wants more ‘rigorous and predictable’ ways to secure critical software. They suggest that firms use vulnerability disclosure programmes (VDP) and software bills of materials (SBOM), consider simplifying their software and give at least one developer per project security training.
  • Google. The company thinks that SLSA will encompass the source-build-publish software workflow. Essentially, the four-level framework helps businesses make informed choices about the security of the software they use, with SLSA 4 representing an ideal end state. 

 

If this all sounds very abstract, consider the recent SolarWinds attack. The attacker compromised the build platform, installed an implant, and injected malicious behaviour during each build. According to Google, higher SLSA levels would have required stronger security controls for the build platform, making it more difficult for the attacker to succeed. 

 

How Do The Proposals Differ? 

As Brian Fox, the co-founder and CTO at Sonatype, sees it, NIST and Google have created proposals that complement each other. ‘The NIST [version] is focused on defining minimum requirements for software sold to the government’, he explained, while Google ‘goes [further] and proposes a specific model for scoring the supply chain. NIST is currently focused on the “what”. Google, along with other industry leaders, is grappling with the “how”’. 

 

Share article