Attacks/Breaches
1/10/2014
11:50 AM
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail

Target Breach Widens: 70 Million Warned

Target discovers that personal information -- including names and contact information -- for 70 million customers was compromised in recent data breach.
2 of 2

2 of 2
Comment  | 
Print  | 
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Ariella
50%
50%
Ariella,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/13/2014 | 9:15:02 AM
Re: Would smart cards have prevented the Target breach?
@Marilyn IBM predicts that in 5 years it will have the problem licked with what it calls a digital guardian. It explains it like this:

Protecting your patterns

Hopefully, it won't come to the point of a breach in the first place. IBM and its partners are layering in "always aware" intelligence. You can't be in two places at once. So, if the smartphone you accidentally left at a restaurant is being fondled by fraudulent fingers, the pervasive system will recognize the offender's different touch pattern (even if your phone is unlocked) and lock your account.

In another example, imagine two purchases: $40 at a gas station, and $4,000 at Tiffany & Co. Today's fraud monitoring might see the diamond purchase as highly suspicious, and ignore the charge at the pump. But your digital guardian will know that your car has a near-full tank of fuel; that you don't usually re-fuel until you're down to about one quarter tank; not to mention that you're at the office when this charge appears. It will also know that you've been shopping for an engagement ring and have been spending your lunch hour window shopping outside the store.

This and other emerging learning systems will know you, help you, and protect you as we continue to generate more and more data, and put more and more of our lives online.

Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
1/13/2014 | 7:59:03 AM
Would smart cards have prevented the Target breach?
Although Target is offering a year of free credit monitoring and identity theft protection in the wake of the breach, The Wall Street Journal reported this morning that the  incident  (along with another consumer credit card theft at Neiman Marcus)  the Senate banking committee will be holding hearings in the coming weeks about the larger issue of who should bear responsibility for the costs of a cybersecurity breach. The Journal wrote: 

Banks and credit unions have been pushing for years for legislation that would explicitly require the company responsible for a breach to cover its costs, but they have run into resistance from the retail industry, which argues that card issuers should improve their technology so cards can't be compromised.

Shout out to readers -- If credit card technology was more secure  (e.g. smart cards), would identify theft decrease? Lets chat about it in the comments.

mak63
50%
50%
mak63,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/11/2014 | 4:31:52 PM
Re: 100% Proof of who and what caused the Target breach
@IT-security-gladiator

Double post.
Anyway, I believe you're deluded if you think that a particular OS has anything to do with the breach. No server is immune to hacking

 

 
danielcawrey
50%
50%
danielcawrey,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/11/2014 | 11:46:50 AM
Re: 100% Proof of who and what caused the Target breach
This sounds very much like a cautionary tale for other retailers to pay attention to.

I just read that Nieman Marcus is now dealing an issue with their systems. A breach, it sounds like. Not good. 
IT-security-gladiator
100%
0%
IT-security-gladiator,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/10/2014 | 12:30:13 PM
100% Proof of who and what caused the Target breach
Yup Microsoft servers again: http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=4000009407
IT-security-gladiator
100%
0%
IT-security-gladiator,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/10/2014 | 12:30:03 PM
100% Proof of who and what caused the Target breach
Yup Microsoft servers again: http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Case_Study_Detail.aspx?CaseStudyID=4000009407
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Dark Reading Must Reads - September 25, 2014
Dark Reading's new Must Reads is a compendium of our best recent coverage of identity and access management. Learn about access control in the age of HTML5, how to improve authentication, why Active Directory is dead, and more.
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2012-5485
Published: 2014-09-30
registerConfiglet.py in Plone before 4.2.3 and 4.3 before beta 1 allows remote attackers to execute Python code via unspecified vectors, related to the admin interface.

CVE-2012-5486
Published: 2014-09-30
ZPublisher.HTTPRequest._scrubHeader in Zope 2 before 2.13.19, as used in Plone before 4.3 beta 1, allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary HTTP headers via a linefeed (LF) character.

CVE-2012-5487
Published: 2014-09-30
The sandbox whitelisting function (allowmodule.py) in Plone before 4.2.3 and 4.3 before beta 1 allows remote authenticated users with certain privileges to bypass the Python sandbox restriction and execute arbitrary Python code via vectors related to importing.

CVE-2012-5488
Published: 2014-09-30
python_scripts.py in Plone before 4.2.3 and 4.3 before beta 1 allows remote attackers to execute Python code via a crafted URL, related to createObject.

CVE-2012-5489
Published: 2014-09-30
The App.Undo.UndoSupport.get_request_var_or_attr function in Zope before 2.12.21 and 3.13.x before 2.13.11, as used in Plone before 4.2.3 and 4.3 before beta 1, allows remote authenticated users to gain access to restricted attributes via unspecified vectors.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
In our next Dark Reading Radio broadcast, we’ll take a close look at some of the latest research and practices in application security.