Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

Fraudulent activities related to the ‘stealing’ of student data

15 October 2021 | Story Department Communication and Marketing

Dear Student

Nationally, there are fraudulent activities related to the ‘stealing’ of student data enabled by

1. the sharing of student login credentials with other parties;

2. national mobile data service providers clamping down on the misuse of data allocations by universities to students; and

3. students misusing data allocations made to them.

The University of the Free State (UFS) cannot unblock you if you are blocked by a service provider for fraudulent activity.

Managing your credentials and passwords is your responsibility.

For more details, please read the following message.

Your digital identity is very important and has a very direct influence on not only your digital life, but also has a very direct influence on your private life.

The following is a more detailed explanation of this statement:

Your digital identity is the key to unlocking all forms of access to digital services such as bank accounts, access to private digital services, and access to the learning materials at the university. All of this is controlled through two very simple ‘things’, being your login code and the password attached to the specific login code.

At the point of first registration as a student, a unique student number is allocated to the student. This is a unique number that will identify you as a person throughout your academic journey and will also ‘live on’ for many years thereafter, or for as long as there is an active relationship between you and the university.

We, as the university, do not re-use these unique numbers and they are active for life. This is the manner in which the university identifies you as a unique individual and we link ALL other digital services to this number, also the provision of data to enable your academic journey.

When you lose control over your login credentials, you, personally, are immediately exposed – firstly as an adult, and secondly, in your private capacity. At this point, there is very little the UFS can do to assist you in regaining control over your digital identity.

Recently, one of the national mobile data vendors uncovered a fraudulent syndicate that purchases a student’s credentials (login code and password) and then literally takes over your private life, using your credentials to enter into agreements on your behalf, for which you are then personally accountable. Apart from the foregoing, the university’s monitoring systems also indicate that there is widespread sharing of login credentials among other students (not registered at the UFS) and also with other external parties such as friends, family, etc.

It is important to note that these activities are fraudulent by nature. As a law-abiding institution, the university is also obligated to report these activities to the South African Police Service (SAPS), which will result in an investigation aligned to criminal activities. This is not a situation where the UFS can support the implied individual; it will be a personal criminal matter. The crux of the matter is that the single student is now exposed to the full force of the law in terms of fraudulent actions, which can result in criminal cases against the student – personally.

From the perspective of the national mobile data operators, they also monitor the use and abuse of their national infrastructures and will protect their interests in this regard. In line with this, the UFS – through the GlobalProtect VPN solution – was fully in control of the allocation of pre-defined monthly data allocations to the student community and could manage students who misused the facilities internally without the national/criminal elements added to it. This is no longer the situation.

At national level, the mobile data providers do not follow a very strict regime whereby they allow the use of data up to the limits defined by each of the universities in South Africa. Once that specific level has been reached, the relevant student (customer) will be cut off at the level of the provider and will not receive any data access for the rest of that month.

Should you (as an example) be a student who allows other parties to mimic you as a registered student, your allocated data can be exhausted in a single day, leaving you stranded for the rest of that month. At that point you will then personally have to purchase additional data to enable you to engage academically with the UFS. This has a very critical spin-off effect. Students who run out of data for whatever reason, can no longer claim that the university should foot the bill for additional data, as records will show that ‘other parties’ were allowed to digitally engage with the UFS. These records are kept and can be used to support the stance of the university as a whole.

In this regard, the UFS departs from the notion that the academic programme of a student needs to be supported, where the costs of aspects such as access data is taken care of, given very specific limits imposed on the university as a whole. These aspects are directly linked to the sustainability of the ‘grant’ in terms of overall affordability, the management of the facility, and lastly, that it is used in support of the academic journey of the student. The intent here is not to provide any data for the pursuance of lifestyle matters, such as certain social media activities, etc. As far as possible, we are in constant negotiation with the Institutional Student Representative Council (ISRC) to ensure that the university is in line with the specific student needs related to academic services. These are ongoing discussions where the student voice is heard and acted on.

In accordance with the foregoing, the matter is no longer in the hands of the UFS as the sole provider, but control over this is now also monitored and managed at a level where South African universities are no longer fully in charge. This is a very unfortunate matter brought about by the misuse of the facilities by certain individuals who are not interested in the well-being of our students. The situation is what it is, and as the accountable party, the UFS will continue to play a critical role in this regard.

When confronted with any matter related to the loss of data, students are invited to contact the ICT Service Desk at 051 401 2000, who will then determine if the login credentials have been shared or not, and to support the student where there are legitimate issues to be dealt with. Please note that ICT Services has very well-kept access records per student, and if there are other technical reasons why connectivity was lost, ICT Services will assist the student to regain access to the teaching and learning facilities of the UFS.

Fair to say, if any evidence exists that login credentials have been shared, it is not a typical hack event; the UFS cannot assist the student by intervening in the contract agreement with the mobile data provider on behalf of the student, as the contract holder remains the student.

News Archive

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water

2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za
3 August 2009

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept