Blog

Proctoring Software Vulnerabilities

Posted by Joseph D. Lento | Feb 04, 2022 | 0 Comments

The increased need for proctoring software in American education has made students the guinea pigs in a still-developing field. For over 2,000 universities throughout the country, the use of this untested software now poses a problem for students and staff alike. Students who have used the software report interactions with malware that has compromised their private data.

What is more, this software has repeatedly been shown to hold a bias against students with disabilities or students of color. While the field is still growing, the use of certain proctoring software has resulted in aggressive accusations of academic misconduct across U.S. universities.

As of December 2021, there is no law in the United States specifically dictating how today's proctoring software can be used. That said, the appearance of tag-along malware has opened the floor to conversations about students' at-home privacy rights.

Today's Use of Proctoring Technology

A Dutch cybersecurity company tested several proctoring programs that universities required students to download and use during the Spring 2021 testing season. Tests of programs, including Proctorio, revealed that some programs could activate students' web cameras and screenshot their content without their knowledge or consent, and misuse their personal data.

While many software developers believe the integration of malware into proctoring technology was inevitable, those same developers strove to address student and staff concerns as quickly as possible. Even so, the damage was done. Students whose lives were already disrupted due to the transition into at-home learning saw their data compromised as a result of proctoring software's underdeveloped security protocols.

Identifying the Problem

Like many industries, the world of proctoring software faced an abrupt change in early 2020. Universities attempting to accommodate at-home learning wanted to turn to proctoring software to limit student misconduct, whether or not students were reportedly engaging in such behavior.

Unfortunately, this use of proctoring software rapidly revealed the product's flaws. Students using Honorlock and ProctorU reported false accusations of cheating based on a student’s skin color. Disabled students also reported bias within these programs.

What's more, students reported finding proctoring programs invasive. While the perceived need for such programs is understandable, considering the value of academic honesty, students report that the use of their web cameras, touchpad tracking, and data assessment distracted them more so than aided them throughout their at-home testing experience.

Reactions to Security Breaches

Proctorio isn’t the only proctoring software to see a significant data breach, but this most recent security blunder saw Proctorio specifically separate from several American universities. The speed with which its team and others reacted, however, limited reports of further cyberattacks, helping the software retain some of its audience.

To complicate matters further, students' reports of false misconduct charges have not ceased. As it stands, proctoring software's misuse of student data can threaten a student's academic and professional career if it isn't addressed with the student's best interest in mind.

All that said, students and staff alike still face challenges when contending with the need for more secure remote learning opportunities. While the companies behind monitoring programs like Proctorio are now working to protect their users, it's up to individual universities and attending students to find a new and just path forward.

Moving Forward With Remote Proctoring

Many universities advocate for the use of remote proctoring software out of fear of students' academic misconduct. In 2020, the vast majority of faculty across the United States reported that they believed remote students were cheating when participating in online exams. Unfortunately, this belief - partnered with the insecurity of today's proctoring software - can lead to the abuse of students' rights and false accusations leveled against a student body.

Students accused of academic misconduct online or in-person have the right to a legal defense. For more information about student misconduct cases involving at-home proctoring software, students and their families can contact attorney Joseph D. Lento and the team at the Lento Law Firm. Having an experienced student misconduct attorney represent accused parties as they combat the allegations brought against them will always be the best step forward. Call 888-535-3686 today.

About the Author

Joseph D. Lento

"I pride myself on having heart and driving hard to get results!" Attorney Joseph D. Lento passionately fights for the futures of his clients nationwide. Attorney Lento and his team represent students and others in disciplinary cases and various other proceedings at colleges and universities across the United States. Attorney Lento has helped countless students, professors, and others in academia at more than a thousand colleges and universities across the United States, and when necessary, he and his team have sought justice on behalf of clients in courts across the nation. He does not settle for the easiest outcome, and instead prioritizes his clients' needs and well-being. Joseph D. Lento is licensed in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, is admitted pro hac vice as needed nationwide, and he can help you or your student address any school-related issue or concern anywhere in the United States.

Comments

There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Contact Us Today!

footer-2.jpg

If you, or your student, are facing any kind of disciplinary action, or other negative academic sanction, and are having feelings of uncertainty and anxiety for what the future may hold, contact the Lento Law Firm today, and let us help secure your academic career.

This website was created only for general information purposes. It is not intended to be construed as legal advice for any situation. Only a direct consultation with a licensed Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York attorney can provide you with formal legal counsel based on the unique details surrounding your situation. The pages on this website may contain links and contact information for third party organizations - the Lento Law Firm does not necessarily endorse these organizations nor the materials contained on their website. In Pennsylvania, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout Pennsylvania's 67 counties, including, but not limited to Philadelphia, Allegheny, Berks, Bucks, Carbon, Chester, Dauphin, Delaware, Lancaster, Lehigh, Monroe, Montgomery, Northampton, Schuylkill, and York County. In New Jersey, attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New Jersey's 21 counties: Atlantic, Bergen, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Essex, Gloucester, Hudson, Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Salem, Somerset, Sussex, Union, and Warren County, In New York, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New York's 62 counties. Outside of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, unless attorney Joseph D. Lento is admitted pro hac vice if needed, his assistance may not constitute legal advice or the practice of law. The decision to hire an attorney in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania counties, New Jersey, New York, or nationwide should not be made solely on the strength of an advertisement. We invite you to contact the Lento Law Firm directly to inquire about our specific qualifications and experience. Communicating with the Lento Law Firm by email, phone, or fax does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Lento Law Firm will serve as your official legal counsel upon a formal agreement from both parties. Any information sent to the Lento Law Firm before an attorney-client relationship is made is done on a non-confidential basis.

Menu