How to Protect Data in Transit and Comply with Quebec’s Law 25?

For a Data Protection Officer in Montreal, the prospect of an audit by the Commission d’accès à l’information du Québec (CAI) is a constant pressure. While the principles of Law 25 are clear, proving compliance for personal information (PI) ‘in transit’ presents a unique technical challenge. Data in transit refers to any information moving between systems, whether across the public internet via email, through a web form, or between internal servers. The financial stakes are enormous; IBM’s 2024 report reveals that the average cost per data breach for Canadian organizations is CA$6.32 million, a figure that underscores the necessity of robust security.

Common advice often stops at “use a VPN” or “encrypt your emails,” but this is dangerously superficial for Law 25. True compliance lies in the demonstrable and documented control over the entire data lifecycle. This includes the specific cryptographic protocols used on your servers, the jurisdictional residency of your file-sharing vendors, and the automated systems that prevent accidental data leakage. A DPO must be able to prove to auditors not just that data is encrypted, but *how* it is encrypted, who has access, and what protocols are in place to manage and log every “confidentiality incident,” no matter how small.

This guide departs from generic security advice. We will focus on the specific, auditable technical measures required to satisfy CAI investigators. The core principle is not just to protect data, but to build a defensible and documented security posture. We will delve into the technical standards, configuration choices, and policy enforcement mechanisms that form the bedrock of a robust data-in-transit protection strategy under Law 25, moving from theory to actionable implementation.

This article provides a structured approach to securing data in transit for Law 25 compliance. Explore the sections below to build an audit-proof framework for your Montreal-based organization.

Why Encrypting Your Hard Drive Is Not Enough to Protect Email Data?

A common misconception in data security is equating “data at rest” encryption with comprehensive protection. Encrypting your hard drives (data at rest) is a crucial baseline, safeguarding information if a physical device is lost or stolen. However, this measure offers zero protection for data in transit. The moment you compose an email containing personal information and hit “send,” that data leaves the secure confines of your encrypted drive and travels across multiple servers and networks before reaching its destination. Each point in that journey is a potential interception point if the transit itself is not secured.

This distinction is not merely academic; it is a core principle of Law 25. The legislation requires organizations to protect personal information throughout its entire lifecycle. Relying solely on at-rest encryption creates a critical vulnerability. Attackers often target data in motion through man-in-the-middle (MitM) attacks on insecure networks or by compromising intermediary email servers. A stark reminder of this reality was the 2023 ransomware attack on five southwestern Ontario hospitals. While their internal systems were impacted, the disruption of their Wi-Fi and email systems highlights how transit pathways are prime targets, leading to blocked access to critical patient information and significant operational chaos.

For a DPO, the key takeaway is that your security posture must explicitly differentiate between these two states. Your Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs) must document the specific controls used to protect data as it moves between your organization and third parties (clients, vendors, partners) and even within your own network. Without robust transit encryption protocols like TLS for emails and web traffic, your encrypted hard drives are like a locked safe with an open door. The contents are secure inside, but anything taken out is completely exposed.

How to Configure TLS 1.3 on Your Web Server for Compliance?

Transport Layer Security (TLS) is the standard cryptographic protocol for securing internet communications, including web traffic (HTTPS) and email. For Law 25 compliance, simply having TLS enabled is insufficient; you must enforce the most current and secure version, which is TLS 1.3. Older versions, such as TLS 1.0, 1.1, and all versions of its predecessor SSL, contain known vulnerabilities that can be exploited by attackers to decrypt sensitive data. A CAI auditor will specifically look for evidence that these obsolete protocols are disabled.

TLS 1.3 offers significant security advantages, including a faster handshake process and the removal of outdated, insecure cipher suites. Its adoption is now the industry standard; SSL Labs data from May 2024 shows that 70.1% of surveyed sites already support this modern protocol. For a Montreal business, failing to implement TLS 1.3 is not just a security risk but a clear signal of non-compliance. Your server configuration must be set to prioritize TLS 1.3 and, as a fallback, the still-secure TLS 1.2. This configuration prevents “downgrade attacks,” where an attacker forces a connection to use an older, vulnerable protocol.

Implementing this requires direct intervention on your web server’s configuration files (e.g., Apache, Nginx, or IIS). The process involves specifying the allowed protocols and restricting the list of cipher suites to only those approved by standards bodies like the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Documenting these technical settings is a crucial part of creating an auditable trail for Law 25.

Secure FTP vs Cloud Sharing Links: Which Is Safer for Client Files?

When transferring large files containing personal information, such as client records or financial data, the choice of method has profound implications for Law 25 compliance. The two common options are cloud-based sharing links (e.g., from Dropbox, Google Drive) and Secure File Transfer Protocol (SFTP). While cloud links offer convenience, they introduce significant compliance risks, particularly concerning data residency. If your cloud provider’s servers are located in the United States, transferring PI to them triggers cross-border data transfer requirements under Law 25, necessitating a thorough PIA and vetting of the provider’s privacy policies.

In contrast, using an SFTP server hosted in a Montreal-based data center keeps the data squarely within Quebec’s jurisdiction, simplifying compliance. SFTP, which operates over an SSH connection, provides robust encryption and, crucially, generates comprehensive server-level audit trails. You have full control over who accessed which files and when—a level of granularity often unavailable or ephemeral with generic cloud sharing links. This detailed logging is invaluable during a CAI investigation, as it allows you to provide precise, verifiable evidence of your data handling practices.

The decision between these two methods should be guided by a risk assessment rooted in Law 25’s principles. The following table highlights the key differences from a compliance perspective.

For organizations regularly handling sensitive PI, the control, auditability, and jurisdictional advantages of a locally hosted SFTP server make it the superior choice for minimizing compliance risk under Law 25.

The Public Wi-Fi Mistake That Exposes Your Data in Transit

One of the most common yet perilous behaviors for data in transit is the use of public Wi-Fi networks—in cafes, airports, or hotels—without proper safeguards. These networks are notoriously insecure and represent a prime hunting ground for cybercriminals. An employee checking work email from a public hotspot could be unknowingly broadcasting sensitive client data over an open channel, making it trivial for an attacker on the same network to intercept it. This single action can constitute a “confidentiality incident” under Law 25. The risk is not hypothetical; the Canadian Internet Use survey reveals that 57.3% of Canadians have already experienced at least one online security incident, highlighting the pervasive threat.

The primary defense against this threat is the mandatory use of a corporate Virtual Private Network (VPN). A VPN creates an encrypted tunnel between the user’s device and the company’s network, effectively shielding all data in transit from prying eyes, even on an untrusted public network. However, having a VPN is not enough; enforcing its use is critical. Company policy must strictly prohibit accessing corporate resources or handling any PI on public Wi-Fi without an active VPN connection. This policy should be documented, communicated to all employees, and technically enforced where possible.

Employee training and awareness are paramount. As the Quebec Cybersecurity Advisory notes in its Law 25 guidelines, proactive measures are essential. They recommend that organizations take a hands-on approach to illustrate these risks.

Montreal businesses should conduct a phishing simulation campaign with their employees, using realistic local templates. The results serve as a powerful data point for justifying investment in modern security.

– Quebec Cybersecurity Advisory, Law 25 Compliance Guidelines 2024

For a DPO, this means implementing and documenting a remote work security policy that explicitly details the required use of VPNs. This documentation, combined with employee training records, provides auditors with clear evidence that the organization has taken reasonable steps to mitigate the risks associated with public networks.

How to Enforce Automatic Encryption for Outgoing Emails Containing SIN Numbers?

Certain categories of personal information are considered highly sensitive, with the Social Insurance Number (SIN or NAS in French) being a prime example. An accidental leak of a SIN can lead to identity theft and constitutes a high-risk confidentiality incident under Law 25, mandating notification to the CAI and the affected individual. Relying on employees to manually encrypt emails containing SINs is a flawed strategy prone to human error. The only robust solution is to implement an automated system that enforces this protection without user intervention.

This is achieved through a Data Loss Prevention (DLP) system, a feature available in modern enterprise email platforms like Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace. A DLP policy can be configured to automatically scan all outgoing emails and their attachments for patterns matching sensitive information. For SINs, the DLP rule would be configured to detect the specific ###-###-#### format, as well as contextual keywords like “SIN,” “NAS,” or “Social Insurance Number.”

When the DLP system detects a high-confidence match, it can trigger a series of automated actions. The most critical action is to force encryption on the email before it leaves your network. Other useful actions include displaying a policy tip to warn the sender before they send the email and, for very high-risk scenarios, quarantining the message for a manager’s or DPO’s review. This multi-layered approach both prevents data loss and educates users in real-time. The configuration of these rules is a technical process that requires precision:

1. Configure DLP rules to detect SIN format patterns (e.g., `d{3}-d{3}-d{3}`) using regular expressions.
2. Add contextual keyword detection for “NAS,” “SIN,” and “Social Insurance Number” in both English and French to increase accuracy.
3. Set automatic encryption triggers when SIN patterns are detected with a high confidence level (e.g., 75% or higher).
4. Configure policy tips to warn users before sending emails that potentially contain SIN data.
5. Implement quarantine actions for critical severity matches, requiring manual review and release by an administrator.

For a CAI audit, being able to present active, documented DLP rules for sensitive data like SINs is powerful evidence of proactive compliance and a mature security program.

The Email Habit That Violates Law 25 Every Single Day

Beyond spectacular cyberattacks, one of the most frequent violations of Law 25 occurs through a seemingly innocuous daily habit: the misuse of email. Employees often treat their inbox as a filing cabinet and a communication tool for all purposes, creating a minefield of compliance risks. Simple actions like forwarding a client’s query containing PI to an internal distribution list that includes unauthorized staff, or using the “Reply All” function on a thread containing financial details, can constitute a confidentiality incident.

Under Law 25, every instance of unauthorized access to personal information, even internal, must be logged. If that incident presents a “risk of serious injury,” it must be reported. The casual forwarding of emails violates the core principle of “purpose limitation”—that PI should only be accessed and used for the specific purpose for which it was collected. When an email containing a client’s address and phone number is forwarded to a department that has no legitimate need for that information, you have created a compliance violation.

Another critical violation is the use of personal email accounts (like Gmail or Hotmail) for business communications involving PI. This practice removes the data from the organization’s control, making it impossible to manage access rights, respond to data access or deletion requests from individuals, or secure the information according to corporate standards. It effectively creates a shadow IT environment outside the scope of your documented security policies. As one expert source on Law 25 compliance notes, the reporting obligation is clear:

Organizations must make data breach notifications to Le Commission d’accès à l’information du Quebec, as well as to any affected individuals. A breach notification will be required when the unauthorized access of personal information is likely to cause a ‘risk of serious injury’ to the individual.

The solution requires a combination of technical controls and continuous employee training. DPOs must establish and enforce a clear policy on the appropriate use of email for handling PI, emphasizing principles like data minimization and need-to-know access. This policy should be a cornerstone of your Law 25 compliance documentation.

Why Automated Phishing Bots Can Bypass Your Legacy Spam Filters?

Many organizations in Montreal still rely on legacy spam filters that operate on simple keyword matching and sender reputation databases. While these systems can block a significant amount of generic spam, they are increasingly ineffective against modern, automated phishing attacks. Today’s phishing bots leverage sophisticated techniques specifically designed to evade such traditional defenses, posing a direct threat to the security of personal information in transit.

First, these bots use generative AI to create highly convincing and context-aware email content. Instead of poorly worded, generic messages, they can draft phishing emails that perfectly mimic legitimate business communications, often incorporating localized details relevant to a Montreal business (e.g., referencing a recent local event or a fake invoice from a known Quebec-based supplier). This social engineering component makes it much harder for both employees and simple filters to detect the fraud.

Second, attackers employ technical evasion tactics. This includes using zero-day domains—brand new domain names that have no negative reputation yet—to send malicious emails. They also utilize Unicode homograph attacks, where they register domains using characters from different alphabets that look identical to legitimate ones (e.g., using a Cyrillic ‘а’ instead of a Latin ‘a’). A legacy filter checking for the text string “microsoft.com” will not flag a visually identical domain that is technically different. Furthermore, the malicious payload is often not in the email body itself but hidden in a linked document on a third-party site, bypassing content scanners that only analyze the initial email.

Modern security solutions (like advanced threat protection systems) combat this by using behavioral analysis, sandboxing (opening links and attachments in a safe, isolated environment), and machine learning to identify anomalous patterns, rather than just relying on static rules. For a DPO, relying on a legacy spam filter is a compliance risk, as it no longer constitutes a “reasonable” safeguard against foreseeable threats under Law 25.

How to Prepare Your Montreal Business for Unexpected Regulatory Audits?

The ultimate test of your Law 25 compliance program is its ability to withstand a regulatory audit from the CAI. Preparation for such an audit is not a one-time project but an ongoing process of documentation, implementation, and review. An auditor’s primary goal is to see evidence of a living, breathing privacy management program, not a set of policies that exist only on paper. Your ability to produce clear, organized documentation on demand is paramount.

A successful audit hinges on having a comprehensive and readily accessible “compliance portfolio.” This portfolio must include both high-level governance documents and low-level technical evidence. At the top level, you need an up-to-date Privacy Policy and a detailed registry of all confidentiality incidents, noting which were reported to the CAI. You must also have completed Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs) for any new system or process that handles personal information, especially those involving cross-border data transfers.

At the technical level, you must be prepared to show, not just tell. This means having server configuration files that prove TLS 1.3 is enforced, active DLP rule sets that demonstrate how you protect SINs, and detailed access logs from your secure file transfer systems. Employee training is another critical component; you need records of who was trained on your privacy policies and when. This holistic approach, combining policy, technology, and people, is what constitutes a “reasonable safeguard” in the eyes of a regulator.

Your audit preparedness checklist should be a dynamic document, regularly reviewed and updated by the DPO. It serves as your roadmap for maintaining continuous compliance and ensures you are ready to respond to a CAI inquiry at a moment’s notice.

To put these principles into practice, your next step is to conduct a thorough internal audit using these guidelines as your benchmark. Begin by assessing your current server configurations and vendor agreements against the standards outlined here.