Attacks/Breaches
1/22/2014
02:45 PM
Ira Winkler
Ira Winkler
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail
100%
0%

Target Mocks, Not Helps, Its Data Breach Victims

The only thing consumers did wrong is to shop at Target. Why are they being blamed for the retailer's security failings?

At face value, Target's $5 million contribution to organizations that educate consumers on computer safety makes sense. There was a computer compromise -- one that compromised weak computer security -- so Target should look to strengthen it. Unfortunately, the error pointed out a weakness in Target's security efforts, not those of its customers. The only thing that consumers did wrong is shop at Target.

If Target wanted to help its victims, it would have contributed $5 million to resources that help victims of the crimes that resulted from Target's own security failures. For example, the funds would be much more effective in the hands of the Identity Theft Resource Center, a nonprofit that provides counseling to victims of identity theft, which Target's customers have become.

Instead, Target mocks and marginalizes its victims by sending a message that everyone -- consumers and retailers -- has equal responsibility when it comes to data breaches. To a limited extent, that is true, but the donation is a blatant attempt by Target to repair its image without taking responsibility for its security failings.

Worse, the action implies that, if customers (the victims of the identity theft) had only engaged in better security practices, they would not have been attacked in the first place. If Target were truly interested in repairing its image, it would reframe the discussion and take responsibility for the fact that its own internal weaknesses compromised user data.

More class, less action
Some make the case that it's not wrong for Target to make a large donation to some very good organizations, but the truth is that Target knows that it will likely have to donate money to some nonprofit as part of a class action settlement when the dust settles. If it pays that money now, while it is in the middle of a public relations nightmare, there's really no down side.

The reality of class actions is that consumers rarely benefit from them. Yes, it sounds good that Target will ultimately pay tens of millions of dollars in settlement fees. But what I've discovered, after researching many such lawsuits, is that most consumers walk away with nothing tangible. Let's assume, for example, that Target agrees to pay $30 million for consumers to obtain a year of free credit monitoring. Many people already have this service, and few take advantage of it. So Target will likely end up paying less than $5 million of that sum.

Target will also probably give some discount coupons or credit vouchers that let customers believe they will receive $50 million in payouts. These payouts will require consumers to go through extensive measures to prove they suffered a loss. Then they will be required to go into and spend more money at Target. Assuming consumers actually take advantage of the payouts, that spending could represent a net gain for Target. Then there is the $5 million donation, which is a drop in Target's marketing budget. Of course, the big money -- $10-$20 million or so -- will probably go to the attorneys supposedly representing the class in the action

Well-meaning but irrelevant nonprofits help Target mock its victims while attorneys get rich filing paperwork. Target needs to stop implying that its victims are to blame. It needs to start providing real help that repairs the real damage it caused through its failure to provide adequate security for its customers' data.

Ira Winkler is co-founder and president of Secure Mentem Inc. and president of the Internet Security Advisors Group. Described as a modern day James Bond, he began his career at the National Security Agency and is recognized as an expert in Internet security and cybercrime.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
<<   <   Page 3 / 3
dak3
50%
50%
dak3,
User Rank: Moderator
1/22/2014 | 5:16:25 PM
Re: Credit monitoring
In fact, Target has already offered all of its customers a year of free credit monitoring. And I, for one, applaud their action in attempting to help educate the vast number of consumers who have no clue about security - how can that be a bad thing?
Thomas Claburn
100%
0%
Thomas Claburn,
User Rank: Moderator
1/22/2014 | 4:46:28 PM
Credit monitoring
The whole notion of credit monitoring as a service is offensive because it shifts responsibility for data integrity from the data gather to the consumer. If you're going to compile data, you should be obligated to maintain it and represent it accurately.
<<   <   Page 3 / 3
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Dark Reading Tech Digest, Dec. 19, 2014
Software-defined networking can be a net plus for security. The key: Work with the network team to implement gradually, test as you go, and take the opportunity to overhaul your security strategy.
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2014-4467
Published: 2015-01-30
WebKit, as used in Apple iOS before 8.1.3, does not properly determine scrollbar boundaries during the rendering of FRAME elements, which allows remote attackers to spoof the UI via a crafted web site.

CVE-2014-4476
Published: 2015-01-30
WebKit, as used in Apple iOS before 8.1.3; Apple Safari before 6.2.3, 7.x before 7.1.3, and 8.x before 8.0.3; and Apple TV before 7.0.3, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (memory corruption and application crash) via a crafted web site, a different vulner...

CVE-2014-4477
Published: 2015-01-30
WebKit, as used in Apple iOS before 8.1.3; Apple Safari before 6.2.3, 7.x before 7.1.3, and 8.x before 8.0.3; and Apple TV before 7.0.3, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (memory corruption and application crash) via a crafted web site, a different vulner...

CVE-2014-4479
Published: 2015-01-30
WebKit, as used in Apple iOS before 8.1.3; Apple Safari before 6.2.3, 7.x before 7.1.3, and 8.x before 8.0.3; and Apple TV before 7.0.3, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service (memory corruption and application crash) via a crafted web site, a different vulner...

CVE-2014-4480
Published: 2015-01-30
Directory traversal vulnerability in afc in AppleFileConduit in Apple iOS before 8.1.3 and Apple TV before 7.0.3 allows attackers to access unintended filesystem locations by creating a symlink.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
If you’re a security professional, you’ve probably been asked many questions about the December attack on Sony. On Jan. 21 at 1pm eastern, you can join a special, one-hour Dark Reading Radio discussion devoted to the Sony hack and the issues that may arise from it.