The United States Postal Service (USPS) experienced a massive data breach due to a vulnerable component at its website. The "application program interface" or API component allowed unauthorized users to access and download details about other users of the Informed Visibility service.
"In addition to exposing near real-time data about packages and mail being sent by USPS commercial customers, the flaw let any logged-in usps.com user query the system for account details belonging to any other users, such as email address, username, user ID, account number, street address, phone number, authorized users, mailing campaign data and other information.
Many of the API’s features accepted “wildcard” search parameters, meaning they could be made to return all records for a given data set without the need to search for specific terms. No special hacking tools were needed to pull this data, other than knowledge of how to view and modify data elements processed by a regular Web browser like Chrome or Firefox."
Geez! The USPS has since fixed the API vulnerability. Regardless, this is bad, very bad, for several reasons. Not only should the vulnerable API have prevented one user from viewing details about another, but it allowed changes to some data elements. Krebs added:
"A cursory review by KrebsOnSecurity indicates the promiscuous API let any user request account changes for any other user, such as email address, phone number or other key details. Fortunately, the USPS appears to have included a validation step to prevent unauthorized changes — at least with some data fields... The ability to modify database entries related to Informed Visibility user accounts could create problems for the USPS’s largest customers — think companies like Netflix and others that get discounted rates for high volumes. For instance, the API allowed any user to convert regular usps.com accounts to Informed Visibility business accounts, and vice versa."
About 13 million Informed Delivery users were also affected, since the vulnerable API component affected all USPS.com users. A vulnerability like this makes package theft easier since criminals could determine when certain types of mail (e.g., debit cards, credit cards, etc.) arrive at users' addresses. The vulnerable API probably existed for more than one year, when a security researcher first alerted the USPS about it.
While the USPS provided a response to Krebs on Security, a check at press time of the Newsroom and blog sections of About.USPS.com failed to find any mention of the data breach. Not good. Transparency matters.
If the USPS is serious about data security, then it should issue a public statement. When will users receive breach notification letters, if they haven't been sent? Who fixed the vulnerable API? How long was it broken? What post-breach investigation is underway? What types of changes (e.g., employee training, software testing, outsource vendor management, etc.) are being implement so this won't happen again?
Trust matters. The lack of a public statement makes it difficult for consumers to judge the seriousness of the breach and the seriousness of the fix by USPS. We probably will hear more about this breach.
Amazon.com, the online retail giant, confirmed that it experienced a data breach last Wednesday. CBS News reported:
"Amazon said a technical error on its website exposed the names and email addresses of some customers. The online retail giant its website and systems weren't hacked. "We have fixed the issue and informed customers who may have been impacted," said an Amazon spokesperson. An Amazon spokesman didn't answer additional questions, like how many people were affected or whether any of the information was stolen."
"From: Amazon.com Sent: 21 November 2018 10:53 To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Important Information about your Amazon.com Account
Hello, We’re contacting you to let you know that our website inadvertently disclosed your name and email address due to a technical error. The issue has been fixed. This is not a result of anything you have done, and there is no need for you to change your password or take any other action.
Sincerely, Customer Service http://Amazon.com"
What? That's all? No link to a site or to a page for customers with questions?
This incident is a reminder that several things can cause data breaches. It's not only when cyber-criminals break into an organization's computers or systems. Human error causes data breaches, too. In some breaches, employees collude with criminals. In some cases, sloppy data security by outsource vendors causes data breaches. Details matter.
Typically, organizations affected by data breaches hire external security agencies to conduct independent, post-breach investigations to learn important details: when the breach started, how exactly the breach happened, the list of data elements unauthorized users accessed/stole, what else may have happened that wasn't readily apparent when the incident was discovered, and key causal events leading up to the breach -- all so that a complete fix can be implemented, and so that it doesn't happen again.
Who made the "technical error?" Who discovered it? What caused it? How long did the error exist? Who fixed it? Were specialized skills or tools necessary? What changes were made so that it won't happen again? Amazon isn't saying. If management decided to skip a post-breach investigation, consumers deserve to know that and why, too.
Often, the breach starts long before it is discovered by the company, or by a security researcher. Often, the fix includes several improvements: software changes, employee training, and/or improved security processes with contractors.
So, all we know is that names and email addresses were accessed by unauthorized persons. If stolen, that is sufficient to do damage -- spam or phishing email messages, to trick victims into revealing sensitive personal (e.g., usernames, passwords, etc.) and payment (e.g., bank account numbers, credit card numbers, etc.) information. It is not too much to ask Amazon to share both breach details and the results of a post-breach investigation.
Executives at Amazon know all of this, so maybe it was a management decision not to share breach details nor a post-breach investigation -- perhaps, not wanting to risk huge Black Friday holiday sales. Then again, the lack of details could imply the breach was far worse than management wants to admit.
Either way, this is troublesome. It's all about trust. When details are shared, consumers can judge the severity of the breach, the completeness of the company's post-breach response, and ideally feel better about continuing to shop at the site. What do you think?
To provide the best representation, attorneys often process and archive sensitive information about their clients. Consumers hire attorneys to complete a variety of transactions: buy (or sell) a home, start (or operate) a business, file a complaint against a company, insurer, or website for unsatisfactory service, file a complaint against a former employer, and more. What are attorneys' obligations regarding data security to protect their clients' sensitive information, intellectual property, and proprietary business methods?
"2016 was the year that law firm data breaches landed and stayed squarely in both the national and international headlines. There have been numerous law firm data breaches involving incidents ranging from lost or stolen laptops and other portable media to deep intrusions... In March, the FBI issued a warning that a cybercrime insider-trading scheme was targeting international law firms to gain non-public information to be used for financial gain. In April, perhaps the largest volume data breach of all time involved law firm Mossack Fonesca in Panama... Finally, Chicago law firm, Johnson & Bell Ltd., was in the news in December when a proposed class action accusing them of failing to protect client data was unsealed."
"Lawyers don’t get a free pass when it comes to data security... In a significant ethics opinion issued last month, Formal Opinion 483, Lawyers’ Obligations After an Electronic Data Breach or Cyberattack, the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility provides a detailed roadmap to a lawyer’s obligations to current and former clients when they learn that they – or their firm – have been the subject of a data breach... a lawyer’s compliance with state or federal data security laws does "not necessarily achieve compliance with ethics obligations," and identifies six ABA Model Rules that might be implicated in the breach of client information."
Readers of this blog are familiar with the common definition of a data breach: unauthorized persons have accessed, stolen, altered, and/or destroyed information they shouldn't have. Attorneys have an obligation to use technology competently. The post by Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP also stated:
"... lawyers have an obligation to take “reasonable steps” to monitor for data breaches... When a breach is detected, a lawyer must act “reasonably and promptly” to stop the breach and mitigate damages resulting from the breach... A lawyer must make reasonable efforts to assess whether any electronic files were, in fact, accessed and, if so, identify them. This requires a post-breach investigation... Lawyers must then provide notice to their affected clients of the breach..."
"4. Evaluate Your Vendors’ Security: Ask to see your vendor’s security certificate. Review the vendor’s security system as you would your own, making sure they exercise the same or stronger security systems than your own law firm..."
"... has agreed to pay a $50 million settlement to roughly 200 million people affected by the email service’s 2013 data breach... Up to 3 billion accounts had their emails and other personal information stolen in the hacking, but the settlement filed late Monday only applies to an estimated 1 billion accounts, held by 200 million people in the United States and Israel between 2012 and 2016... A hearing to approve this proposed end to the two-year lawsuit will be held in California on Nov. 29. If approved, the affected account holders will be emailed a notice."
It's not only social media companies and credit reporting agencies that experience data breaches where massive amounts of sensitive, personal information about millions of consumers are exposed and/or stolen. Data aggregators and analytics firms also have data breaches. Wired Magazine reported:
"The sales intelligence firm Apollo sent a notice to its customers disclosing a data breach it suffered over the summer... Apollo is a data aggregator and analytics service aimed at helping sales teams know who to contact, when, and with what message to make the most deals... Apollo also claims in its marketing materials to have 200 million contacts and information from over 10 million companies in its vast reservoir of data. That's apparently not just spin. Night Lion Security founder Vinny Troia, who routinely scans the internet for unprotected, freely accessible databases, discovered Apollo's trove containing 212 million contact listings as well as nine billion data points related to companies and organizations. All of which was readily available online, for anyone to access. Troia disclosed the exposure to the company in mid-August."
This is especially problematic for several reasons. First, data aggregators like Apollo (and social media companies and credit reporting agencies) are high-value targets: plenty of data is stored in one location. That's both convenient and risky. It also places a premium upon data security.
When data like this is exposed or stolen, it makes it easy for fraudsters, scammers, and spammers to create sophisticated and more effective phishing (and vishing) attacks to trick consumers and employees into revealing sensitive payment and financial information.
Second, data breaches like this make it easier for governments' intelligence agencies to compile data about persons and targets. Third, Apollo's database reportedly also contained sensitive data about clients. That's proprietary information. Wired explained:
"Some client-imported data was also accessed without authorization... Customers access Apollo's data and predictive features through a main dashboard. They also have the option to connect other data tools they might use, for example authorizing their Salesforce accounts to port data into Apollo..."
Salesforce, a customer relationship management (CRM) platform, uses cloud services and other online technologies to help its clients, companies with sales representatives, to manage their sales, service, and marketing activities. This breach also suggests that some employee training is needed about what to, and what not to upload, to outsourcing vendor sites. What do you think?
On Friday, the Centers For Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced a data breach at a computer system which interacts with the Healthcare.gov site. Files for about 75,000 users -- agents and brokers -- were accessed by unauthorized persons. The announcement stated:
"Earlier this week, CMS staff detected anomalous activity in the Federally Facilitated Exchanges, or FFE’s Direct Enrollment pathway for agents and brokers. The Direct Enrollment pathway, first launched in 2013, allows agents and brokers to assist consumers with applications for coverage in the FFE... CMS began the initial investigation of anomalous system activity in the Direct Enrollment pathway for agents and brokers on October 13, 2018 and a breach was declared on October 16, 2018. The agent and broker accounts that were associated with the anomalous activity were deactivated, and – out of an abundance of caution – the Direct Enrollment pathway for agents and brokers was disabled."
CMS has notified and is working with Federal law enforcement. It expects to restore the Direct Enrollment pathway for agents and brokers within the next 7 days, before the start of the sign-up period on November 1st for health care coverage under the Affordable Care Act.
CMS Administrator Seema Verma said:
"I want to make clear to the public that HealthCare.gov and the Marketplace Call Center are still available, and open enrollment will not be negatively impacted. We are working to identify the individuals potentially impacted as quickly as possible so that we can notify them and provide resources such as credit protection."
Sadly, data breaches happen -- all too often within government agencies and corporations. It should be noted that this breach was detected quickly -- within 3 days. Other data breaches have gone undetected for weeks or months; and too many corporate data breaches affected millions.
"... a multi-state investigation focused on two separate privacy breaches by Aetna that occurred in 2017 – one involving a mailing that potentially revealed information about addressees’ HIV/AIDS status, the other involving a mailing that potentially revealed individuals’ involvement in a study of patients with atrial fibrillation (or AFib)..."
Connecticut, Washington, and the District of Columbia joined with New Jersey for both the investigation and settlement agreements. The multi-state investigation found:
"... that Aetna inadvertently disclosed HIV/AIDS-related information about thousands of individuals across the U.S. – including approximately 647 New Jersey residents – through a third-party mailing on July 28, 2017. The envelopes used in the mailing had an over-sized, transparent glassine address window, which revealed not only the recipients’ names and addresses, but also text that included the words “HIV Medications"... The second breach occurred in September 2017 and involved a mailing sent to 1,600 individuals concerning a study of patients with AFib. The envelopes for the mailing included the name and logo for the study – IMPACT AFib – which could have been interpreted as indicating that the addressee had an AFib diagnosis... Aetna not only violated the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), but also state laws pertaining to the protected health information of individuals in general, and of persons with AIDS or HIV infection in particular..."
A class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of affected HIV/AIDS patients has been settled, pending approval from a federal court, which requires Aetna to pay about $17 million to resolve allegations. Terms of the multi-state settlement agreement require Aetna to pay a $365,211.59 civil penalty to New Jersey, and:
Implement policy, processes, and employee training reforms to both better protect persons' protected health information, and ensure mailings maintain persons' privacy; and
Hire an independent consultant to evaluate and report on its privacy protection practices, and to monitor its compliance with the terms of the settlement agreements.
In an October 12th Security Update, Facebook lowered the number of users affected during its latest data breach, and explained how hackers broke into its systems and stole users' information during the data breach it first announced on September 28th. During the data breach:
"... the attackers already controlled a set of accounts, which were connected to Facebook friends. They used an automated technique to move from account to account so they could steal the access tokens of those friends, and for friends of those friends, and so on, totaling about 400,000 people. In the process, however, this technique automatically loaded those accounts’ Facebook profiles, mirroring what these 400,000 people would have seen when looking at their own profiles. That includes posts on their timelines, their lists of friends, Groups they are members of, and the names of recent Messenger conversations. Message content was not available to the attackers, with one exception. If a person in this group was a Page admin whose Page had received a message from someone on Facebook, the content of that message was available to the attackers.
The attackers used a portion of these 400,000 people’s lists of friends to steal access tokens for about 30 million people. For 15 million people, attackers accessed two sets of information – name and contact details (phone number, email, or both, depending on what people had on their profiles). For 14 million people, the attackers accessed the same two sets of information, as well as other details people had on their profiles. This included username, gender, locale/language, relationship status, religion, hometown, self-reported current city, birthdate, device types used to access Facebook, education, work, the last 10 places they checked into or were tagged in, website, people or Pages they follow, and the 15 most recent searches. For 1 million people, the attackers did not access any information."
Facebook promises to notify the 30 million breach victims. While it lowered the number of breach victims from 50 to 30 million, this still isn't good. 30 million is still a lot of users. And, hackers stolen the juiciest data elements -- contact and profile information -- about breach victims, enabling them to conduct more fraud against victims, their family, friends, and coworkers. Plus, note the phrase: "the attackers already controlled a set of accounts." This suggest the hackers created bogus Facebook accounts, had the sign-in credentials (e.g., username, password) of valid accounts, or both. Not good.
Moreover, there is probably more bad news coming, as other affected companies assess the (collateral) damage. Experts said that Facebook's latest breach may be worse since many companies participate in the Facebook Connect program. Not good.
The timeline of the data breach and intrusion detection are troubling. Facebook admitted that the vulnerability hackers exploited existed from July, 2017 to September, 2018 when it noticed, "an unusual spike of activity that began on September 14, 2018." While it is good that Facebook's tech team notice the intrusion, the bad news is the long open window the vulnerability existed provided plenty of time for hackers to plot and do damage. That the hackers used automated tools suggests that the hackers knew about the vulnerabilities for a long time... long enough to decide what to do, and then build automated tools to steal users' information. Where was Facebook's quality assurance (QA) testing department during all of this? Not good.
This latest data breach included a tiny bit of good news:
"This attack did not include Messenger, Messenger Kids, Instagram, WhatsApp, Oculus, Workplace, Pages, payments, third-party apps, or advertising or developer accounts."
Buzzfeed also listed several comments by users. Some are skeptical of privacy promises:
Here's another comment:
Who is going to buy Portal while breach investigation results from this latest data breach, and from its Cambridge Analytica breach, are still murky? What other systems and software vulnerabilities exist? Would you buy Portal?
"... the impact could be significantly bigger since those stolen credentials could have been used to gain access to so many other sites. Companies that allow customers to log in with Facebook Connect are scrambling to figure out whether their own user accounts have been compromised."
Facebook Connect, an online tool launched in 2008, allows users to sign into other apps and websites using their Facebook credentials (e.g., username, password). many small, medium, and large businesses joined the Facebook Connect program, which was using:
"... a simple proposition: Connect to our platform, and we’ll make it faster and easier for people to use your apps... The tool was adopted by thousands of other firms, from mom-and-pop publishing companies to high-profile tech outfits like Airbnb and Uber."
Initially, Facebook Connect made online life easier and more convenient. Users could sign up for new apps and sites without having to create and remember new sign-in credentials:
But in July 2017, that measure of security fell short. By exploiting three software bugs, attackers forged “access tokens,” digital keys used to gain entry to a user’s account. From there, the hackers were able to do anything users could do on their own Facebook accounts, including logging in to third-party apps."
"We have now analyzed our logs for all third-party apps installed or logged in during the attack we discovered last week. That investigation has so far found no evidence that the attackers accessed any apps using Facebook Login.
Any developer using our official Facebook SDKs — and all those that have regularly checked the validity of their users’ access tokens – were automatically protected when we reset people’s access tokens. However, out of an abundance of caution, as some developers may not use our SDKs — or regularly check whether Facebook access tokens are valid — we’re building a tool to enable developers to manually identify the users of their apps who may have been affected, so that they can log them out."
So, there are more news and updates to come about this. According to the New York Times, some companies' experiences so far:
"Tinder, the dating app, has found no evidence that accounts have been breached, based on the "limited information Facebook has provided," Justine Sacco, a spokeswoman for Tinder and its parent company, the Match Group, said in a statement... The security team at Uber, the ride-hailing giant, is logging some users out of their accounts to be cautious, said Melanie Ensign, a spokeswoman for Uber. It is asking them to log back in — a preventive measure that would invalidate older, stolen access tokens."
On Friday, Facebook announced a data breach which affected about 50 million users of the social networking service. Facebook engineers discovered the hack on September 25th. The Facebook announcement explained:
"... that attackers exploited a vulnerability in Facebook’s code that impacted “View As” a feature that lets people see what their own profile looks like to someone else. This allowed them to steal Facebook access tokens which they could then use to take over people’s accounts. Access tokens are the equivalent of digital keys that keep people logged in to Facebook so they don’t need to re-enter their password every time they use the app... This attack exploited the complex interaction of multiple issues in our code. It stemmed from a change we made to our video uploading feature in July 2017, which impacted “View As.” The attackers not only needed to find this vulnerability and use it to get an access token, they then had to pivot from that account to others to steal more tokens."
Many mobile users will see the message in the image displayed on the right. Facebook said it has fixed the vulnerability, notified law enforcement, turned off the "View As" feature until the breach investigation is finished, and has already reset the access tokens of about 90 million users.
Why the higher number of 90 million and not 50 million? According to the announcement:
"... we have reset the access tokens of the almost 50 million accounts we know were affected to protect their security. We’re also taking the precautionary step of resetting access tokens for another 40 million accounts that have been subject to a “View As” look-up in the last year. As a result, around 90 million people will now have to log back in to Facebook, or any of their apps that use Facebook Login. After they have logged back in, people will get a notification at the top of their News Feed explaining what happened."
So, 90 million users affected and 50 million known for sure. What to make of this? Wait for findings in the completed breach investigation. Until then, we won't know exactly how attackers broke in, what they stole, and the true number of affected users.
What else to make of this? Facebook's announcement skillfully avoided any direct mentions of exactly when the attack started. The announcement stated that the vulnerability was related to a July 2017 change to the video uploading feature. So, the attack could have started soon after that. Facebook didn't say, and it may not know. Hopefully, the final breach investigation report will clarify things.
And, there is more disturbing news.
Some users have claimed that Facebook blocked them from posting messages about the data breach. TechCrunch reported:
"Some users are reporting that they are unable to post [the] story about a security breach affecting 50 million Facebook users. The issue appears to only affect particular stories from certain outlets, at this time one story from The Guardian and one from the Associated Press, both reputable press outlets... some users, including members of the staff here at TechCrunch who were able to replicate the bug, were met with the following error message which prevented them from sharing the story."
Well, we now know that -- for better or for worse -- Facebook has an automated tool to identify spam content in real-time. And, this tool can easily misidentify content as spam, which isn't spam. Not good.
Reportedly, this error message problem has been fixed. Regardless, it should never have happened. The data breach is big news. Clearly, many people want to read and post about it. Popularity does not indicate spam. And Facebook owes users an explanation about its automated tool.
Did Facebook notify you directly of its data breach? Did you get this spam error message? How concerned are you? Please share your experience and opinions below.
California-based Uber Technologies, Inc. has agreed to pay $148 million to settle lawsuits by several states' attorneys general regarding the ride-sharing service's massive data breach in 2016 where hackers stole information about 57 million Uber customers and drivers worldwide, including 600,000 U.S. driver's license numbers. The breach problems were compounded by allegations that Uber paid the hackers $100,000 for their silence, and by the company's failure to notify both state agencies and affected consumers about the breach.
"In November 2016, Uber learned that hackers had gained access to some personal information Uber maintains about its drivers, including drivers’ license information for about 600,000 drivers nationwide. Instead of reporting the breach to law enforcement and impacted individuals, Uber tracked down the hackers and obtained assurances that the hackers deleted the information – and made payments to ensure their silence... Since some of the compromised information – specifically driver’s license numbers – is considered personally identifiable information (PII), Uber was required to notify impacted individuals under the Pennsylvania Breach of Personal Information Notification Act. However, Uber failed to report the breach until November 2017."
13,500 Uber drivers in Pennsylvania were affected by the breach. Pennsylvania's share of the total payment is $5.7 million. Each Uber driver in Pennsylvania will receive $100.
48 states have data breach notification laws requiring various levels of notifications to both state officials and affected consumers, who need notice in order to take action to protect themselves and their sensitive personal and payment information.
Massachusetts' share of the total payment is $7.1 million, of which $6.5 million will be distributed to the Commonwealth’s General fund and $600,000 will be used to assist consumers and businesses. Massachusetts AG Maura Healey said:
"Uber failed to immediately report this data breach and tried to pay hush money to hackers. This settlement should be a lesson to other businesses that consumers have a right to know when their personal information has been compromised."
"Uber’s decision to cover up this breach was a blatant violation of the public’s trust. The company failed to safeguard user data and notify authorities when it was exposed. Consistent with its corporate culture at the time, Uber swept the breach under the rug in deliberate disregard of the law. Companies in California and throughout the nation are entrusted with customers’ valuable private information. This settlement broadcasts to all of them that we will hold them accountable to protect their data."
"We wholeheartedly support innovative business models, but new ways of engaging in business cannot come at the expense of public safety or consumer privacy. This settlement today demonstrates what happens when all of us in law enforcement work together. My office will continue to collaborate closely with the Attorney General to protect consumers both in San Francisco, and the rest of California."
Terms of the settlement agreement require Uber and its executives to:
"1. Implement and maintain robust data security practices. 2. Comply with state laws in connection with its collection, maintenance, and safeguarding of personal information, as well as reporting of data security incidents. 3. Accurately and honestly represent data security and privacy practices to better ensure transparency in how the company’s driver and customer information is safeguarded. 4. Develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive information security program with an executive officer who advises key executive staff and Uber’s Board of Directors. 5. Report any data security incidents to states on a quarterly basis for two years. 6. Maintain a Corporate Integrity Program that includes a hotline to report misconduct, quarterly reports to the board, implementation of privacy principles, and an annual code of conduct training".
T-Mobile confirmed a data breach which impacted its customers. Last week, the mobile service provider said in a statement:
"On August 20, our cyber-security team discovered and shut down an unauthorized access to certain information, including yours, and we promptly reported it to authorities. None of your financial data (including credit card information) or social security numbers were involved, and no passwords were compromised. However, you should know that some of your personal information may have been exposed, which may have included one or more of the following: name, billing zip code, phone number, email address, account number and account type (prepaid or postpaid)."
Affected customers are being notified. The statement did not disclose the number of affected customers, exactly how criminals breached its systems, nor the specific actions T-Mobile is taking to prevent this type of breach from happening again. The lack of detail is discouraging and does not promote trust.
"... the breach affected about 3 percent of T-Mobile's 77 million customers, or 2 million people... In May, researchers detected a bug in the company's website that allowed anyone to access the personal data of customers with just a phone number. The company is waiting for regulatory approval of a proposed $26.5 billion takeover of Sprint, the fourth-largest carrier in the United States."
So, criminals have stolen enough information to do damage: send spam via e-mail or text, and conduct pretexting (e.g., impersonate others to take over online accounts by resetting passwords, and/or gain access to payment data).
If you received a breach notice from T-Mobile, how satisfied are you with the company's response?
"... consumers who purchased on adidas.com/US... On June 26, Adidas became aware that an unauthorized party claims to have acquired limited data associated with certain Adidas consumers. Adidas is committed to the privacy and security of its consumers' personal data. Adidas immediately began taking steps to determine the scope of the issue and to alert relevant consumers. adidas is working with leading data security firms and law enforcement authorities to investigate the issue..."
The preliminary breach investigation found that contact information, usernames, and encrypted passwords were exposed or stolen. So far, no credit card or fitness information of consumers was "impacted." The company said it is continuing a forensic review and alerting affected customers.
While the company's breach announcement did not disclose the number of affected customer, CBS News reported that hackers may have stolen data about millions of customers. Fox Business reported that the Adidas:
"... hack was reported weeks after Under Armour’s health and fitness app suffered a security breach, which exposed the personal data of roughly 150 million users. The revealed information included the usernames, hashed passwords and email addresses of MyFitnessPal users."
It is critical to remember that this June 28th announcement was based upon a preliminary investigation. A completed breach investigation will hopefully determine and disclose any additional data elements exposed (or stolen), how the hackers penetrated the company's computer systems, which systems were penetrated, whether any internal databases were damaged/corrupted/altered, the total number of customers affected, specific fixes implemented so this type of breach doesn't happen again, and descriptive information about the cyber criminals.
This incident is also a reminder to consumers to never reuse the same password at several online sites. Cyber criminals are persistent, and will use the same password at several sites to see where else they can get in. It is no relief that encrypted passwords were stolen, because we don't yet know if the encryption tools were also stolen (making it easy for the hackers to de-encrypt the passwords). Not good.
We also don't yet know what "contact information" means. That could be first name, last name, phone, street address, e-mail address, mobile phone numbers, or some combination. If e-mail addresses were stolen, then breach victims could also experience phishing attacks where fraudsters try to trick victims into revealing bank account, sign-in credentials, and other sensitive information.
If you received a breach notice from Adidas, please share it below while removing any sensitive, identifying information.
Given the increased usage of data in digital formats, new access methods, and continual data breaches within corporations and governments, several state governments have updated their data breach notification laws, and/or passed new laws:
The last state without any breach notification laws, Governor Kay Ivey signed in March the state's first data breach law: the Alabama Data Breach Notification Act of 2018 (SB 318), which became effective on June 1, 2018. Some of the key modifications: a) similar to other states, the law defined the format and types of data elements which must be protected, including health information; b) defined "covered entities" including state government agencies and "third-party agents" contracted to maintain, store, process and/or access protected data; c) requires notification of affected individuals within 45 days, and to the state Attorney General; and d) while penalties aren't mandatory, the law allows civil penalties up to $5,000 per day for, "each consecutive day that the covered entity fails to take reasonable action to comply with the notice provisions of this act."
Earlier this year, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed legislation updating the state's breach notification laws. Some of the key modifications: a) expanded definitions of personal information to include medical or mental health treatment/diagnosis, passport numbers, taxpayer ID numbers, biometric data, e-mail addresses in combination with online passwords and security questions; b) set the notification window for affected persons at 45 days; c) allows e-mail notification of affected persons; d) and if the breach affected more than 1,000 persons, then notification must provided to the three national credit-reporting agencies and to the state Attorney General.
Colorado Governor John Hickenloope signed on May 29th several laws including HB-1128, which will go into effect on september 1, 2018. Some experts view HB-1128 as the strongest protections in the country. Some of the key modifications: a) expanded "covered entities" to include certain "third-party service providers" contracted to maintain, store, process and/or access protected data; b) expanded definitions of "personal information" to include biometric data, plus e-mail addresses in combination with online passwords and security questions; c) allows substitute notification methods (e.g., e-mail, post on website, statewide news media) if the cost of basic notification would exceed $250,000; d) allows e-mail notification of affected persons; e) sets the notification window at 30 days, if the breach affected more than 500 Colorado residents; and f) expanded requirements for companies to protected personal information.
Louisiana Governor John Edwards signed in May 2018 an amendment to the state’s Database Security Breach Notification Law (Act 382) which will take effect August 1, 2018. Some of the key modifications: a) expanded definition of ‘personal information’ to include a state identification card number, passport number, and “biometric data” (e.g., fingerprints, voice prints, eye retina or iris, or other unique biological characteristics used to access systems); b) removed vagueness and defined the notification window as within 60 days; c) allows substitute notification methods (e.g., e-mail, posts on affected company's website, statewide news media); and d) tightened required that companies utilizing "computerized data" better protect the information they archive.
The next-to-last state without any breach notification laws, Governor Dennis Daugaard signed into law in March the state’s first breach notification law (SB 62). Like breach laws in other states, it provides definitions of what a breach is, personal information which must be protected, covered entities (e.g., companies, government agencies) subject to the law, notification requirements, and conditions when substitute notification methods (e.g., e-mail, posts on the affected entity's website, statewide news media) are allowed.
New Mexico enacted its new breach notification law (HB 15) in March, 2017. With the additions of Alabama and South Dakota, finally every state has a breach notification law. Sadly, it has taken 16 years. California was the first state to enact a breach notification law in 2002. It has taken that long for other states to catch up... not only catch up with California, but also catch up with technological changes driven by the internet.
Yesterday, Twitter.com advised all of its users to change their passwords after a huge security blunder exposed users' passwords online in an unprotected format. The social networking service released a statement on May 3rd:
"We recently identified a bug that stored passwords unmasked in an internal log. We have fixed the bug, and our investigation shows no indication of breach or misuse by anyone. Out of an abundance of caution, we ask that you consider changing your password on all services where you’ve used this password."
Security experts advise consumers not to use the same password at several sites or services. Repeated use of the same password makes it easy for criminals to hack into multiple sites or services.
The statement by Twitter.com also explained that it masks users' passwords:
"... through a process called hashing using a function known as bcrypt, which replaces the actual password with a random set of numbers and letters that are stored in Twitter’s system. This allows our systems to validate your account credentials without revealing your password. This is an industry standard.
Due to a bug, passwords were written to an internal log before completing the hashing process. We found this error ourselves, removed the passwords, and are implementing plans to prevent this bug from happening again."
The good news: Twitter found the buy by itself. The not-so-good news: the statement was short on details. It did not disclose details about the fixes so this blunder doesn't happen again. Nor did the statement say how many users were affected. Twitter has about 330 million users, so it seems that all users were affected.
Apparently, Panera Bread experienced a massive data breach, which the restaurant chain's management allegedly ignored for months. CSO Online reported:
"Panera Bread’s website leaked millions of customer records in plain text for at least eight months, which is how long the company blew off the issues reported by security researcher Dylan Houlihan... Houlihan shared copies of email exchanges with Panera Bread CIO John Meister – who at first accused Houlihan of trying to run a scam when he first reported the security vulnerability back in August 2017... Exactly eight months after reporting the issue to Panera Bread, Houlihan turned to KrebsOnSecurity. Krebs spoke to Meister, and the website was briefly taken offline. Less than two hours later, Panera said it had fixed the problem."
Reportedly, the sensitive customer information leaked included usernames, first and last names, email addresses, phone numbers, home addresses, birthdays, the last four digits of saved credit card numbers, dietary restrictions, food preferences, and "social account integration information."
Security experts disagree about two key issues: a) whether or not the vulnerability was fixed, and b) the number of affected consumers. Panera Bread claimed about 10,000 customers were affected. Then, that number went up:
"After some more poking, Hold Security reported to Krebs that Panera didn’t just leak plain text records of 7 million customers; “the vulnerabilities also appear to have extended to Panera’s commercial division, which serves countless catering companies. At last count, the number of customer records exposed in this breach appears to exceed 37 million.”
A check earlier today of the public-facing pages at Panera's website failed to find a breach notice, which companies usually provide after a data breach. Not good. Shoppers need to know. Many states have breach notification laws.
Panera's behavior doesn't inspire much confidence. It's internal breach-detection mechanisms seem to have failed, and its post-breach response seemed unprepared, unfocused, and disinterested. What do you think?
Gathered in a Washington, D.C., ballroom last Thursday for their annual “tech prom,” hundreds of tech industry lobbyists and policy makers applauded politely as announcers read out the names of the event’s sponsors. But the room fell silent when “Facebook” was proclaimed — and the silence was punctuated by scattered boos and groans.
These days, it seems the only bipartisan agreement in Washington is to hate Facebook. Democrats blame the social network for costing them the presidential election. Republicans loathe Silicon Valley billionaires like Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg for their liberal leanings. Even many tech executives, boosters and acolytes can’t hide their disappointment and recriminations.
The tipping point appears to have been the recent revelation that a voter-profiling outfit working with the Trump campaign, Cambridge Analytica, had obtained data on 87 million Facebook users without their knowledge or consent. News of the breach came after a difficult year in which, among other things, Facebook admitted that it allowed Russians to buy political ads, advertisers to discriminate by race and age, hate groups to spread vile epithets, and hucksters to promote fake news on its platform.
Over the years, Congress and federal regulators have largely left Facebook to police itself. Now, lawmakers around the world are calling for it to be regulated. Congress is gearing up to grill Zuckerberg. The Federal Trade Commission is investigating whether Facebook violated its 2011 settlement agreement with the agency. Zuckerberg himself suggested, in a CNN interview, that perhaps Facebook should be regulated by the government.
The regulatory fever is so strong that even Peter Swire, a privacy law professor at Georgia Institute of Technology who testified last year in an Irish court on behalf of Facebook, recently laid out the legal case for why Google and Facebook might be regulated as public utilities. Both companies, he argued, satisfy the traditional criteria for utility regulation: They have large market share, are natural monopolies, and are difficult for customers to do without.
While the political momentum may not be strong enough right now for something as drastic as that, many in Washington are trying to envision what regulating Facebook would look like. After all, the solutions are not obvious. The world has never tried to rein in a global network with 2 billion users that is built on fast-moving technology and evolving data practices.
I talked to numerous experts about the ideas bubbling up in Washington. They identified four concrete, practical reforms that could address some of Facebook’s main problems. None are specific to Facebook alone; potentially, they could be applied to all social media and the tech industry.
1. Impose Fines for Data Breaches
The Cambridge Analytica data loss was the result of a breach of contract, rather than a technical breach in which a company gets hacked. But either way, it’s far too common for institutions to lose customers’ data — and they rarely suffersignificant financial consequences for the loss. In the United States, companies are only required to notify people if their data has been breached in certain states and under certain circumstances — and regulators rarely have the authority to penalize companies that lose personal data.
Consider the Federal Trade Commission, which is the primary agency that regulates internet companies these days. The FTC doesn’t have the authority to demand civil penalties for most data breaches. (There are exceptions for violations of children’s privacy and a few other offenses.) Typically, the FTC can only impose penalties if a company has violated a previous agreement with the agency.
That means Facebook may well face a fine for the Cambridge Analytica breach, assuming the FTC can show that the social network violated a 2011 settlement with the agency. In that settlement, the FTC charged Facebook with eight counts of unfair and deceptive behavior, including allowing outside apps to access data that they didn’t need — which is what Cambridge Analytica reportedly did years later. The settlement carried no financial penalties but included a clause stating that Facebook could face fines of $16,000 per violation per day.
David Vladeck, former FTC director of consumer protection, who crafted the 2011 settlement with Facebook, said he believes Facebook’s actions in the Cambridge Analytica episode violated the agreement on multiple counts. “I predict that if the FTC concludes that Facebook violated the consent decree, there will be a heavy civil penalty that could well be in the amount of $1 billion or more,” he said.
Facebook maintains it has abided by the agreement. “Facebook rejects any suggestion that it violated the consent decree,” spokesman Andy Stone said. “We respected the privacy settings that people had in place.”
If a fine had been levied at the time of the settlement, it might well have served as a stronger deterrent against any future breaches. Daniel J. Weitzner, who served in the White House as the deputy chief technology officer at the time of the Facebook settlement, says that technology should be policed by something similar to the Department of Justice’s environmental crimes unit. The unit has levied hundreds of millions of dollars in fines. Under previous administrations, it filed felony charges against people for such crimes as dumping raw sewage or killing a bald eagle. Some ended up sentenced to prison.
“We know how to do serious law enforcement when we think there’s a real priority and we haven’t gotten there yet when it comes to privacy,” Weitzner said.
2. Police Political Advertising
Last year, Facebook disclosed that it had inadvertently accepted thousands of advertisements that were placed by a Russian disinformation operation — in possible violation of laws that restrict foreign involvement in U.S. elections. FBI special prosecutor Robert Mueller has charged 13 Russians who worked for an internet disinformation organization with conspiring to defraud the United States, but it seems unlikely that Russia will compel them to face trial in the U.S.
Facebook has said it will introduce a new regime of advertising transparency later this year, which will require political advertisers to submit a government-issued ID and to have an authentic mailing address. It said political advertisers will also have to disclose which candidate or organization they represent and that all election ads will be displayed in a public archive.
But Ann Ravel, a former commissioner at the Federal Election Commission, says that more could be done. While she was at the commission, she urged it to consider what it could do to make internet advertising contain as much disclosure as broadcast and print ads. “Do we want Vladimir Putin or drug cartels to be influencing American elections?” she presciently asked at a 2015 commission meeting.
However, the election commission — which is often deadlocked between its evenly split Democratic and Republican commissioners — has not yet ruled on new disclosure rules for internet advertising. Even if it does pass such a rule, the commission’s definition of election advertising is so narrow that many of the ads placed by the Russians may not have qualified for scrutiny. It’s limited to ads that mention a federal candidate and appear within 60 days prior to a general election or 30 days prior to a primary.
This definition, Ravel said, is not going to catch new forms of election interference, such as ads placed months before an election, or the practice of paying individuals or bots to spread a message that doesn’t identify a candidate and looks like authentic communications rather than ads.
To combat this type of interference, Ravel said, the current definition of election advertising needs to be broadened. The FEC, she suggested, should establish “a multi-faceted test” to determine whether certain communications should count as election advertisements. For instance, communications could be examined for their intent, and whether they were paid for in a nontraditional way — such as through an automated bot network.
And to help the tech companies find suspect communications, she suggested setting up an enforcement arm similar to the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, known as FinCEN. FinCEN combats money laundering by investigating suspicious account transactions reported by financial institutions. Ravel said that a similar enforcement arm that would work with tech companies would help the FEC.
“The platforms could turn over lots of communications and the investigative agency could then examine them to determine if they are from prohibited sources,” she said.
3. Make Tech Companies Liable for Objectionable Content
Last year, ProPublica found that Facebook was allowing advertisers to buy discriminatory ads, including ads targeting people who identified themselves as “Jew-haters,” and ads for housing and employment that excluded audiences based on race, age and other protected characteristics under civil rights laws.
Facebook has claimed that it has immunity against liability for such discrimination under section 230 of the 1996 federal Communications Decency Act, which protects online publishers from liability for third-party content.
“Advertisers, not Facebook, are responsible for both the content of their ads and what targeting criteria to use, if any,” Facebook stated in legal filings in a federal case in California challenging Facebook’s use of racial exclusions in ad targeting.
But sentiment is growing in Washington to interpret the law more narrowly. Last month, the House of Representatives passed a bill that carves out an exemption in the law, making websites liable if they aid and abet sex trafficking. Despite fierce opposition by many tech advocates, a version of the bill has already passed the Senate.
And many staunch defenders of the tech industry have started to suggest that more exceptions to section 230 may be needed. In November, Harvard Law professor Jonathan Zittrain wrote an article rethinking his previous support for the law and declared it has become, in effect, “a subsidy” for the tech giants, who don’t bear the costs of ensuring the content they publish is accurate and fair.
“Any honest account must acknowledge the collateral damage it has permitted to be visited upon real people whose reputations, privacy, and dignity have been hurt in ways that defy redress,” Zittrain wrote.
In a December 2017 paper titled “The Internet Will Not Break: Denying Bad Samaritans 230 Immunity,” University of Maryland law professors Danielle Citron and Benjamin Wittes argue that the law should be amended — either through legislation or judicial interpretation — to deny immunity to technology companies that enable and host illegal content.
“The time is now to go back and revise the words of the statute to make clear that it only provides shelter if you take reasonable steps to address illegal activity that you know about,” Citron said in an interview.
4. Install Ethics Review Boards
Cambridge Analytica obtained its data on Facebook users by paying a psychology professor to build a Facebook personality quiz. When 270,000 Facebook users took the quiz, the researcher was able to obtain data about them and all of their Facebook friends — or about 50 million people altogether. (Facebook later ended the ability for quizzes and other apps to pull data on users’ friends.)
Cambridge Analytica then used the data to build a model predicting the psychology of those people, on metrics such as “neuroticism,” political views and extroversion. It then offered that information to political consultants, including those working for the Trump campaign.
The company claimed that it had enough information about people’s psychological vulnerabilities that it could effectively target ads to them that would sway their political opinions. It is not clear whether the company actually achieved its desired effect.
But there is no question that people can be swayed by online content. In a controversial 2014 study, Facebook tested whether it could manipulate the emotions of its users by filling some users’ news feeds with only positive news and other users’ feeds with only negative news. The study found that Facebook could indeed manipulate feelings — and sparked outrage from Facebook users and others who claimed it was unethical to experiment on them without their consent.
Such studies, if conducted by a professor on a college campus, would require approval from an institutional review board, or IRB, overseeing experiments on human subjects. But there is no such standard online. The usual practice is that a company’s terms of service contain a blanket statement of consent that users never read or agree to.
James Grimmelman, a law professor and computer scientist, argued in a 2015 paper that the technology companies should stop burying consent forms in their fine print. Instead, he wrote, “they should seek enthusiastic consent from users, making them into valued partners who feel they have a stake in the research.”
Such a consent process could be overseen by an independent ethics review board, based on the university model, which would also review research proposals and ensure that people’s private information isn’t shared with brokers like Cambridge Analytica.
“I think if we are in the business of requiring IRBs for academics,” Grimmelman said in an interview, “we should ask for appropriate supervisions for companies doing research.”
ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for their newsletter.
Facebook.com has dominated the news during the past three weeks. The news media have reported about many issues, but there are more -- whether or not you use Facebook. Things began about mid-March, when Bloomberg reported:
"Yes, Cambridge Analytica... violated rules when it obtained information from some 50 million Facebook profiles... the data came from someone who didn’t hack the system: a professor who originally told Facebook he wanted it for academic purposes. He set up a personality quiz using tools that let people log in with their Facebook accounts, then asked them to sign over access to their friend lists and likes before using the app. The 270,000 users of that app and their friend networks opened up private data on 50 million people... All of that was allowed under Facebook’s rules, until the professor handed the information off to a third party... "
"We are suspending Strategic Communication Laboratories (SCL), including their political data analytics firm, Cambridge Analytica (CA), from Facebook... In 2015, we learned that a psychology professor at the University of Cambridge named Dr. Aleksandr Kogan lied to us and violated our Platform Policies by passing data from an app that was using Facebook Login to SCL/CA, a firm that does political, government and military work around the globe. He also passed that data to Christopher Wylie of Eunoia Technologies, Inc.
Like all app developers, Kogan requested and gained access to information from people after they chose to download his app. His app, “thisisyourdigitallife,” offered a personality prediction, and billed itself on Facebook as “a research app used by psychologists.” Approximately 270,000 people downloaded the app. In so doing, they gave their consent for Kogan to access information such as the city they set on their profile, or content they had liked... When we learned of this violation in 2015, we removed his app from Facebook and demanded certifications from Kogan and all parties he had given data to that the information had been destroyed. CA, Kogan and Wylie all certified to us that they destroyed the data... Several days ago, we received reports that, contrary to the certifications we were given, not all data was deleted..."
"The claim that this is a data breach is completely false. Aleksandr Kogan requested and gained access to information from users who chose to sign up to his app, and everyone involved gave their consent. People knowingly provided their information, no systems were infiltrated, and no passwords or sensitive pieces of information were stolen or hacked."
Why the rush to deny a breach? It seems wise to complete a thorough investigation before making such a claim. In the 11+ years I've written this blog, whenever unauthorized persons access data they shouldn't have, it's a breach. You can read about plenty of similar incidents where credit reporting agencies sold sensitive consumer data to ID-theft services and/or data brokers, who then re-sold that information to criminals and fraudsters. Seems like a breach to me.
"... Stroz Friedberg, to conduct a comprehensive audit of Cambridge Analytica (CA). CA has agreed to comply and afford the firm complete access to their servers and systems. We have approached the other parties involved — Christopher Wylie and Aleksandr Kogan — and asked them to submit to an audit as well. Mr. Kogan has given his verbal agreement to do so. Mr. Wylie thus far has declined. This is part of a comprehensive internal and external review that we are conducting to determine the accuracy of the claims that the Facebook data in question still exists... Independent forensic auditors from Stroz Friedberg were on site at CA’s London office this evening. At the request of the UK Information Commissioner’s Office, which has announced it is pursuing a warrant to conduct its own on-site investigation, the Stroz Friedberg auditors stood down."
That's a good start. An audit would determine or not data which perpetrators said was destroyed, actually had been destroyed. However, Facebook seems to have built a leaky system which allows data harvesting:
"Hundreds of millions of Facebook users are likely to have had their private information harvested by companies that exploited the same terms as the firm that collected data and passed it on to CA, according to a new whistleblower. Sandy Parakilas, the platform operations manager at Facebook responsible for policing data breaches by third-party software developers between 2011 and 2012, told the Guardian he warned senior executives at the company that its lax approach to data protection risked a major breach..."
Reportedly, Parakilas added that Facebook, "did not use its enforcement mechanisms, including audits of external developers, to ensure data was not being misused." Not good. The incident makes one wonder what other developers, corporate, and academic users have violated Facebook's rules: shared sensitive Facebook members' data they shouldn't have.
Facebook announced on March 21st that it will, 1) investigate all apps that had access to large amounts of information and conduct full audits of any apps with suspicious activity; 2) inform users affected by apps that have misused their data; 3) disable an app's access to a member's information if that member hasn't used the app within the last three months; 4) change Login to "reduce the data that an app can request without app review to include only name, profile photo and email address;" 5) encourage members to manage the apps they use; and reward users who find vulnerabilities.
"The company at the centre of the Facebook data breach boasted of using honey traps, fake news campaigns and operations with ex-spies to swing election campaigns around the world, a new investigation reveals. Executives from Cambridge Analytica spoke to undercover reporters from Channel 4 News about the dark arts used by the company to help clients, which included entrapping rival candidates in fake bribery stings and hiring prostitutes to seduce them."
"... has marketed itself as classifying voters using five personality traits known as OCEAN — Openness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism — the same model used by University of Cambridge researchers for in-house, non-commercial research. The question of whether OCEAN made a difference in the presidential election remains unanswered. Some have argued that big data analytics is a magic bullet for drilling into the psychology of individual voters; others are more skeptical. The predictive power of Facebook likes is not in dispute. A 2013 study by three of Kogan’s former colleagues at the University of Cambridge showed that likes alone could predict race with 95 percent accuracy and political party with 85 percent accuracy. Less clear is their power as a tool for targeted persuasion; CA has claimed that OCEAN scores can be used to drive voter and consumer behavior through “microtargeting,” meaning narrowly tailored messages..."
So, while experts disagree about the effectiveness of data analytics with political campaigns, it seems wise to assume that the practice will continue with improvements. Data analytics fueled by social media input means political campaigns can bypass traditional news media outlets to distribute information and disinformation. That highlights the need for Facebook (and other social media) to improve their data security and compliance audits.
While the UK Information Commissioner's Office aggressively investigates CA, things seem to move at a much slower pace in the USA. TechCrunch reported on April 4th:
"... Facebook’s founder Mark Zuckerberg believes North America users of his platform deserve a lower data protection standard than people everywhere else in the world. In a phone interview with Reuters yesterday Mark Zuckerberg declined to commit to universally implementing changes to the platform that are necessary to comply with the European Union’s incoming General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Rather, he said the company was working on a version of the law that would bring some European privacy guarantees worldwide — declining to specify to the reporter which parts of the law would not extend worldwide... Facebook’s leadership has previously implied the product changes it’s making to comply with GDPR’s incoming data protection standard would be extended globally..."
Do users in the USA want weaker data protections than users in other countries? I think not. I don't. Read for yourself the April 4th announcement by Facebook about changes to its terms of service and data policy. It didn't mention specific countries or regions; who gets what and where. Not good.
"I want to share an update on the Cambridge Analytica situation -- including the steps we've already taken and our next steps to address this important issue. We have a responsibility to protect your data, and if we can't then we don't deserve to serve you. I've been working to understand exactly what happened and how to make sure this doesn't happen again. The good news is that the most important actions to prevent this from happening again today we have already taken years ago. But we also made mistakes, there's more to do, and we need to step up and do it... This was a breach of trust between Kogan, Cambridge Analytica and Facebook. But it was also a breach of trust between Facebook and the people who share their data with us and expect us to protect it. We need to fix that... at the end of the day I'm responsible for what happens on our platform. I'm serious about doing what it takes to protect our community. While this specific issue involving Cambridge Analytica should no longer happen with new apps today, that doesn't change what happened in the past. We will learn from this experience to secure our platform further and make our community safer for everyone going forward."
"Zuckerberg didn't mention in his Facebook post why it took him five days to respond to the scandal... The groundswell of outrage and attention following these revelations has been greater than anything Facebook predicted—or has experienced in its long history of data privacy scandals. By Monday, its stock price nosedived. On Tuesday, Facebook shareholders filed a lawsuit against the company in San Francisco, alleging that Facebook made "materially false and misleading statements" that led to significant losses this week. Meanwhile, in Washington, a bipartisan group of senators called on Zuckerberg to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. And the Federal Trade Commission also opened an investigation into whether Facebook had violated a 2011 consent decree, which required the company to notify users when their data was obtained by unauthorized sources."
In a press release this afternoon, Facebook revised upward the number affected by the Facebook/CA breach from 50 to 87 million persons. Most, about 70.6 million, are in the United States. The breakdown by country:
So, what should consumers do?
You have options. If you use Facebook, see these instructions by Consumer Reports to deactivate or delete your account. Some people I know simply stopped using Facebook, but left their accounts active. That doesn't seem wise. A better approach is to adjust the privacy settings on your Facebook account to get as much privacy and protections as possible.
Of course, you should submit feedback directly to Facebook demanding that it extend GDPR privacy protections to your country, too. And, wise online users always read the terms and conditions of all Facebook quizzes before taking them.
Don't use Facebook? There are considerations for you, too; especially if you use a different social networking site (or app). Reportedly, Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook, will testify before the U.S. Congress on April 11th. His upcoming testimony will be worth monitoring for everyone. Why? The outcome may prod Congress to act by passing new laws giving consumers in the USA data security and privacy protections equal to what's available in the United Kingdom. And, there may be demands for Cambridge Analytica executives to testify before Congress, too.
"The FTC is firmly and fully committed to using all of its tools to protect the privacy of consumers. Foremost among these tools is enforcement action against companies that fail to honor their privacy promises, including to comply with Privacy Shield, or that engage in unfair acts that cause substantial injury to consumers in violation of the FTC Act. Companies who have settled previous FTC actions must also comply with FTC order provisions imposing privacy and data security requirements. Accordingly, the FTC takes very seriously recent press reports raising substantial concerns about the privacy practices of Facebook. Today, the FTC is confirming that it has an open non-public investigation into these practices."
An "open non-public investigation?" Either the investigation is public, or it isn't. Hopefully, an attorney will explain. And, that announcement read like weak tea. I expect more. Much more.
USA citizens may want stronger data security laws, especially if Facebook's solutions are less than satisfactory, it refuses to provide protections equal to those in the United Kingdom, or if it backtracks later on its promises. Thoughts? Comments?
Equifax, one of the three national credit reporting agencies, announced today that 2.4 million more persons were affected by its massive data breach in 2017. The March 1st announcement stated, in part:
"Equifax Inc. today announced that the company has confirmed the identities of U.S. consumers whose partial driver’s license information was taken. Equifax was able to identify these consumers by referencing other information in proprietary company records that the attackers did not steal, and by engaging the resources of an external data provider.
Through these additional efforts, Equifax was able to identify approximately 2.4 million U.S. consumers whose names and partial driver’s license information were stolen, but who were not in the previously identified affected population discussed in the company’s prior disclosures about the incident. This information was partial because, in the vast majority of cases, it did not include consumers’ home addresses, or their respective driver’s license states, dates of issuance, or expiration dates... Today’s newly identified consumers were not previously informed because their SSNs were not stolen together with their partial driver’s license information..."
Equifax will notify the newly identified breach victims via U.S. Postal mail, and will offer them complimentary identity theft protection and credit file monitoring services.
The timeline for the massive breach: intrusions occurred in May (2017), Equifax staff first discovered the intrusions in July (2017); Equifax notified the publicy in September (2017); and now identified 2.4 million more breach victims (March, 2018).
Equifax said in September (2017) that 143 million persons were affected. That was about 44 percent of the United States population. In October (2017), Equifax revised upward the number affected by 2.5 million to 145.5 million persons. What's the new total? Equifax didn't have the guts to admit it in its March 1st announcement. Since the company doesn't seem to want to admit it, I'm going with 147.9 million persons affected -- about 45.6 percent of the population.
So, it took Equifax almost six months after its initial announcement to determine exactly who was affected during its massive data breach. This does not inspire confidence. Instead, it suggests that the company's internal systems and intrusion detection mechanisms failed miserably.
Equifax Set up a Flawed System to Prevent and Mitigate Data Security Problems
Equifax Ignored Numerous Warnings of Risks to Sensitive Data
Equifax Failed to Notify Consumers, Investors, and Regulators about the Breach in a Timely and Appropriate Fashion
Equifax Took Advantage of Federal Contracting Loopholes and Failed to Adequately Protect Sensitive IRS Taxpayer Data
Equifax’s Assistance and Information Provided to Consumers Following the Breach was Inadequate.
Equifax's latest breach update highlights item #3: the company's failure to promptly notify consumers. When consumers aren't notified promptly, they are unable to take action to protect their sensitive personal and payment information.
Have we heard the last from Equifax? Will it provide future updates with even more persons affected? I hope not, but the company's track record suggests otherwise.
Equifax has foisted upon the country a cluster f--k of epic proportions = #FUBAR. Businesses and consumers depend upon secure, reliable credit reports. The United States economy relies upon it, too. Equifax executives need to experience direct consequences: fines, terminations, and jail time. Without consequences, executives won't adequately secure sensitive personal and financial information -- and this will happen again. What do you think?
Earlier this month, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (Democrat - Massachusetts) issued a report about her office's investigation in to the massive Equifax data breach. Key findings from the report:
"Equifax Set up a Flawed System to Prevent and Mitigate Data Security Problems. The breach was made possible because Equifax adopted weak cybersecurity measures that did not adequately protect consumer data. The company failed to prioritize cybersecurity and failed to follow basic procedures that would have prevented or mitigated the impact of the breach. For example, Equifax was warned of the vulnerability in the web application software Apache Struts that was used to breach its system, and emailed staff to tell them to fix the vulnerability – but then failed to confirm that the fixes were made...
Equifax Ignored Numerous Warnings of Risks to Sensitive Data. Equifax had ample warning of weaknesses and risks to its systems. Equifax received a specific warning from the Department of Homeland Security about the precise vulnerability that hackers took advantage of to breach the company’s systems. The company had been subject to several smaller breaches in the years prior to the massive 2017 breach, and several outside experts identified and reported weaknesses...
Equifax Failed to Notify Consumers, Investors, and Regulators about the Breach in a Timely and Appropriate Fashion. The breach occurred on May 13, 2017, and Equifax first observed suspicious signs of a problem on July 29, 2017. But Equifax failed to notify consumers, investors, business partners, and the appropriate regulators until 40 days after the company discovered the breach. By failing to provide adequate information in a timely fashion, Equifax robbed consumers of the ability to take precautionary measures to protect themselves...
Equifax Took Advantage of Federal Contracting Loopholes and Failed to Adequately Protect Sensitive IRS Taxpayer Data. Soon after the breach was announced, Equifax and the IRS were engulfed in controversy amid news that the IRS was signing a new $7.2 mil lion contract with the company. Senator Warren’s investigation revealed that Equifax used contracting loopholes to force the IRS into signing this “bridge” contract, and the contract was finally cancelled weeks later by the IRS after the agency learned of additional weaknesses in Equifax security that potentially endangered taxpayer data.
Equifax’s Assistance and Information Provided to Consumers Following the Breach was Inadequate. Equifax took 40 days to prepare a response for the public before finally announcing the extent of the breach – and e ven after this delay, the company failed to respond appropriately. Equifax had an inadequate crisis management plan and failed to follow their own procedures for notifying consumers. Consumers who called the Equifax call center had hours-long waits. The website set up by Equifax to assist consumers was initially unable to give individuals clarity other than to tell them that their information “may” have been hacked – and that website had a host of security problems in its own right. Equifax delayed their public notice in part because the company spent almost two weeks trying to determine precisely which consumers were affected..."
Senator Warren's investigation was one of several underway. The importance of this investigative report cannot be overstated for several reasons. First, the three national credit reporting agencies (e.g., Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion) maintain reports about the credit histories and worthiness of all adults in the United States. That's extremely sensitive -- and valuable -- information that affects just about everyone. And, the country's economy relies on the accuracy and security of credit reports.
The credit reporting industry includes national agencies, regional agencies, and a larger list of "consumer reporting companies" -- businesses that collect information about consumers into reports for a variety of decisions about credit, employment, residential rental housing, insurance, and more. The CFPB compiled this larger list in 2017 (Adobe PDF; 264k bytes).
Senator Warren's report highlighted fixes needed:
"Federal Legislation is Necessary to Prevent and Respond to Future Breaches. Equifax and other credit reporting agencies collect consumer data without permission, and consumers have no way to prevent their data from being collected and held by the company – which was more focused on its own profits and growth than on protecting the sensitive personal information of millions of consumers. This breach and the response by Equifax illustrate the need for federal legislation that (1) establishes appropriate fines for credit reporting agencies that allow serious cybersecurity breaches on their watches; and (2) empowers the Federal Trade Commission to establish basic standards to ensure that credit reporting agencies are adequately protecting consumer data."
Download the full report (Adobe PDF; 672k bytes) titled, "Bad Credit: Uncovering Equifax's Failure to Protect Americans' Personal Information." Senator Warren's report is also available here. The CFPB list of consumer reporting companies is also available here.
My personal view: data breaches like Equifax's will stop only after executives at credit reporting agencies suffer direct consequences for failed information security: jail time or massive personal fines. There has to be consequences. What do you think?