Category: Data breach

Marriott International – data breach affecting 500 million customers

3. December 2018

Marriott International Inc., the world’s largest hotel company, was hit by a data breach affecting up to 500 million customers.

Marriott said it has found a data breach in the Starwood guest reservation database regarding the hotels ‘Westin’, ‘Sheraton’, ‘Le Méridien’, ‘St. Regis’ and ‘W Hotels’. The main brand Marriott does not belong to it. Marriot had bought its competitor Starwood in 2016 and thus obviously their security gap at the same time.

Up to 500 million customers may have been affected by the breach and, of those impacted, roughly two-thirds had their names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, passport numbers and duration of stay compromised. It is also possible that payment card information were caught in the breach.

An internal tool alerted a potential data breach on September 8th, 2018. An investigation subsequently initiated revealed that the guest database may have been compromised since 2014. At the moment Marriott could not rule out the possibility that the files needed for decryption had also been stolen. This would mean that the attackers could also use the stolen data to, for example, shop with them.

As a result, Starwood’s IT systems will be phased out.

Since Friday, those affected have also been informed and customer can find out more on the website.

Yahoo agreed to pay US$ 85 million after data breaches in 2013 and 2014

24. October 2018

As part of a court settlement filed Monday, Yahoo agreed to pay $50 million in damages and to provide two-years of free credit monitoring for services to 200 million people.

Around 3 billion Yahoo accounts were hacked in 2013 and 2014 but the company, which is now owned by Verizon, did not disclose the breach until 2016. Affected are U.S. and Israel residents and small businesses with Yahoo accounts at any time from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2016. Apart from usernames and email addresses, millions of birthdates and security questions and answers were stolen. Not among the stolen information were passwords, credit card numbers and bank account information.

According to the settlement, the fund will compensate accountholders who paid for email services, who had out-of-pocket losses or who already have credit monitoring services. A refund of $25 per hour will be made for the time spent handling issues caused by the breach. Those with documented losses can ask for up to 15 hours of lost time ($375) whereas those who cannot document losses can ask for up to 5 hours ($125).

A hearing to approve the preliminary settlement is scheduled for November 29.

Facebook may face up to $1.63 Billion Fine in Europe after Data Breach

2. October 2018

Ireland’s Data Protection Commission, the company’s lead privacy regulator in the EU, could fine Facebook Inc. up to $1.63 billion for a data breach disclosed Friday, reports the Wall Street Journal. Hackers compromised the accounts of at least 50 million users, bypassing security measures and possibly giving them full control of both profiles and linked apps.

The Commission is now requesting more information on the scale and nature of the data breach in order to find out which EU residents could be affected. Facebook announced that it would respond to follow-up questions. The incident results in the latest legal threat Facebook is facing from U.S. and European officials over its handling of user data and is a severe setback to their efforts to regain trust after a series of privacy and security breaches.

The way in which this data breach is handled by data protection authorities could mark one of the first important tests under the GDPR, which came into force in May earlier this year. The handling could provide conclusions regarding the application of breach-notifications and data-security provisions by companies in the future.
The law requires companies to notify data protection authorities of breaches within 72 hours, under threat of a maximum fine of 2% of worldwide revenue. Furthermore, under the GDPR companies that fail to safeguard their users’ data risk a maximum fine of €20 million ($23 million), or 4% of a firm’s global annual revenue for the prior year, whichever is higher. Taking the larger calculation as a basis Facebook’s maximum fine would be $1.63 billion.

Record fine for Uber

28. September 2018

Due to an initially concealed data breach in 2016, the U.S. company Uber has to pay a fine of €126 million, as the Attorney General Barbara Underwood announced in a statement.

On November 21, 2017, Uber announced that a hacker attack would take place in 2016, in which the hackers would capture approximately 50 million customer data as well as seven million data from Uber drivers. The company paid the hackers blackmail money instead of reporting the data breach (we reported).

Now a settlement was reached between Uber and the relevant US authorities. The settlement includes the highest fine ever imposed, $148 million (€126 million), flanked by further obligations to improve data security.

Category: Data breach · USA
Tags: ,

Data of patients disclosed in Singapore’s largest data breach in history

30. July 2018

A cyberattack has impacted data of 1.5 Mio patients of SingHealth clinics by stealing name, ID Card number, address, gender, race and date of birth as reported by ARN Net.

Due to “operational security reasons”, the authorities haven’t disclosed the identity of the responsibles behind the attack.

Even Singapore’s Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, “had his personal particulars stolen as well as his outpatient dispensed medicines record.”

The report further states that all patients, whether or not they were affected will receive an SMS notification over the next five days, with patients also able to access the Health Buddy mobile app or SingHealth website to check if they are affected by this incident.

According to Channel Asia the SingHealth IT system was compromised through an initial breach on a particular front-end workstation, gaining privileged account credentials to gain access to the database.

It is believed that the attack began on June 27th, 2018 and was detected on July 4th, 2018. Apparently, no further illegal exfiltration has been detected since and all Patient records in SingHealth’s IT system remain intact.

Several measures have been taken in terms of IT-security such as controls on workstations and servers, resetting user and systems accounts and installment of additional system monitoring controls.

Data breach exposes data including trade secrets from several large carmakers

24. July 2018

A security researcher from the UpGuard Cyber Risk Team detected that various data from carmakers like Volkswagen, Ford and Toyota were exposed. UpGuard is an Australian cybersecurity group that among other things detects data breaches.

The source of the data leak is a small Canadian company called Level One Robotics and Controls. On a publicly accessible backup server of the engineering company were files from more than a hundred companies in business with said company. Belonging to the group of companies affected by the leak are some of the biggest carmakers like Tesla, VW, Toyota, General Motors, Chrysler and ThyssenKrupp.

The 47.000 unsecured files contained inter alia product designs, invoices, bank accounts and contracts. Some of these data are among the industry’s most closely guarded and confidential trade secrets. In addition, a number of non-disclosure agreements explaining the sensitivity of the leaked information formed part of the exposed data.

The researcher issued a leakage warning and since then the accessible information was taken offline within 24 hours.

Data breach at Panini’s online service ‘MyPanini’

2. July 2018

According to a report in the magazine ‘Der Spiegel’, personal data and images of users who wanted to create Panini images with their own photos could be accessed by third parties.

The Italian scrapbook manufacturer for football images Panini has serious problems with the security of their online customer database. Through changing the browser’s URL, unauthorized persons could have accessed personal data of other customers, including pictures of minors. Therefore, the case can be considered as particularly serious.

Through its ‘MyPanini’ service, Panini offers fans the opportunity to upload photos with their own images and have these personalised images sent to them. Until a few days ago, logged in users could have also seen the uploaded images and personal data of other customers. Apparently the full name, the date of birth and partly even the place of residence of the customers are listed.

To a certain degree, the uploaded images showed children and young children from different countries in the private domestic environment, some even with their naked upper body.

The data breach was confirmed and has been known internally for days. Supposedly, the problem has been solved by a security update, but it is not possible to access the website at the moment.

It remains to be seen what financial consequences the data breach has for either Panini or the technical service provider. In accordance with new European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) infringements of the provisions can lead to administrative fines up to 10 000 000 EUR or up to 2% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year.

Under the new GDPR: Complaints against Google, Instagram, WhatsApp and Facebook

1. June 2018

On the 25th of May, the day the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into force, noyb.eu filed four complaints over “forced consent” against Google (Android), Instagram, WhatsApp and Facebook.

The complaints filed by the organisation (None Of Your Business) led by Austrian activist Schrems could result in penalties worth up to 7 billion euros. Max Schrems has been fighting Facebook over data protection issues for almost ten years. His earlier lawsuit challenged Facebook’s ability to transfer data from the European Union to the United States (“Safe Harbor”).

The activist alleged that people were not given a “free choice” whether to allow companies to use their data. Noyb.eu bases its opinion on the distinction between necessary and unnecessary data usage. “The GDPR explicitly allows any data processing that is strictly necessary for the service – but using the data additionally for advertisement or to sell it on needs the users’ free opt-in consent.” (See https://noyb.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/pa_forcedconsent_en.pdf) The organisation also claims that under Art. 7 (4) of the GDPR forced consent is prohibited.

The broadly similar complaints have been filed in authorities in various countries, regardless of where the companies have their headquarters. Google (Android) in France (data protection authority: CNIL) with a maximum possible penalty in the amount of 3.7 billion euro although its headquarter is in the USA. Instagram (Facebook) in Belgium (DPA). WhatsApp in Hamburg (HmbBfDI) and Facebook in Austria (DSB). All of these last three have their headquarters in Ireland and could face a maximum possible penalty in the amount of 1.3 billion euro.

How to rule a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA)?

9. May 2018

Pursuant to Art. 35 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) the controller of personal data shall carry out an assessment of the impact of the data processing that takes place in the controller’s responsibility. That means mostly, to anticipate the possible data breaches and to fulfil the requirements of the GDPR before the personal data is processed.

Even if the date of enforcement of the GDPR (25th May 2018) comes closer and closer, just a few of the EU member states are well-prepared. Only Austria, Belgium, Germany, Slovakia and Sweden have enact laws for the implementation of the new data protection rules. Additional to this legislation the national data protection authorities have to publish some advises on how to rule a DPIA. Pursuant to Art. 35 (4) sent. 2 GDPR these handbooks on DPIA’s should be gathered by the European Data Protection Board for an equal European-wide data protection level. The Board as well seems not to work yet, as the Article 29 Working Part (WP29) is still the official authority.

But at least, Belgium and Germany have published their DPIA recommendations and listed processes for which a DPIA is required, pursuant to Art. 35 (4) GDPR, and in which cases a DPIA is not required, see Art. 35 (5) GDPR.

For example, in the following cases the Belgian authority requires a DPIA:

  • Processing, that involves biometric data uniquely identifying in a space—public or private—which is publicly open,
  • Personal data from a third party that determines whether an applicant is hired or fired,
  • Personal data collected without given consent by the data subject (e.g. electronic devices like smart phones, auditory, and/or video devices),
  • Processing done by medical implant. This data may be an infringement of rights and freedoms.
  • Personal data that affects the vulnerable members of society (e.g., children, mentally challenged, physically challenged individuals),
  • Highly personal data such as financial statement; employability; social service involvement; private activities; domestic situation.
Category: Article 29 WP · Belgium · Data breach · EU · GDPR

Risk of identity theft for a billion people in India

5. January 2018

A billion people in India may be victims of identity theft. The Tribune newspaper uncovered a security breach in the country’s vast biometric database. The database contains personal data of almost every citizen in India. The biometric ID program called Aadhaar is a flagship policy of Prime Minister Narendra Modi against corruption.
The reporters of the newspaper were able to access names, email addresses, phone numbers and postal codes by typing in 12-digit unique identification numbers of people in the government’s database, after paying about 6,50 € ($8, 500 rupees).
The seller also sold software to print out unique identification cards, called Aadhaar cards that can be used to access various government services.
The seller had gained access to the database through former workers who were initially tasked with making the Aadhaar cards.
India’s Unique Identification Authority said in an official statement “Claims of bypassing or duping the Aadhaar enrollment system are totally unfounded. Aadhaar data is fully safe and secure and has robust, uncompromised security.” The governing Party officially tweeted that the report was fake news.

Pages: 1 2 3 Next
1 2 3