Cloud

12/21/2017
12:23 PM
50%
50%

US Census Bureau: Data Exposed in Alteryx Leak Already Public

The US Census Bureau says no personally identifiable information it collected was compromised in this week's Alteryx leak.

Data analytics firm Alteryx made headlines this week when UpGuard discovered a misconfigured Amazon Web Services S3 storage bucket exposed sensitive information of 123 million households. The leak exposed information from Experian and the US Census Bureau.

The US Census Bureau today issued a statement following reports claiming Alteryx exposed personally identifiable information (PII) collected by the Bureau. The agency said Alteryx only had access to publicly available data from census.gov, including published data from the 2010 Census.

"The company implicated had no access to PII collected by the Census Bureau, nor did the reported data leak involve Census Bureau servers or Census Bureau data stored through cloud services," the Bureau said.

Read more details here.

Dark Reading's Quick Hits delivers a brief synopsis and summary of the significance of breaking news events. For more information from the original source of the news item, please follow the link provided in this article. View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
12/31/2017 | 9:54:51 PM
Re: Incorrectly Configured S3 Bucket
@Ryan: Well, they already have, as we've started to see. Whether it's enough, however, remains to be seen.
Cadopac
50%
50%
Cadopac,
User Rank: Apprentice
12/27/2017 | 7:12:53 AM
Re: Incorrectly Configured S3 Bucket
Agreed !
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
12/26/2017 | 8:49:36 AM
Re: Incorrectly Configured S3 Bucket
@Dr T. "Secure VPC's"

My assumption is that amazon does this by default and then customers, unfortunately, reduce the security parameters. Based on earlier discussion on brand reputation I would be surprised if Amazon made customers pay more for a secure deployment.
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
12/26/2017 | 8:46:23 AM
Re: Incorrectly Configured S3 Bucket
@Joe. That's a great point. Question is, what is the catalyst to start Amazon on the path of completely locking down their UI/UX from a hardening perspective? Is this exposure enough to facilitate a change?
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
12/25/2017 | 7:15:21 PM
Re: Incorrectly Configured S3 Bucket
Anytime Amazon sees its name in the news articles about data breaches -- even if it's "not their fault" -- it's brand damaging. That is a good point and true. Nobody wants to be in the news because of breaches.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
12/25/2017 | 7:13:34 PM
Re: Incorrectly Configured S3 Bucket
Ultimately, the fault lies with the users/customers That would be the case, if system is breached because data is not encrypted at rest it, consumers and argue with that.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
12/25/2017 | 7:11:31 PM
Re: Incorrectly Configured S3 Bucket
Amazon, by default, should be deploying secure VPC's. I think Amazon already provides that, it may cost the consumer tough.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
12/25/2017 | 7:09:50 PM
Re: Incorrectly Configured S3 Bucket
Can someone elaborate as to if this was a fault of amazon or the company leveraging those services? That is the question in the cloud, it depends on the cloud service provider I guess
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
12/25/2017 | 7:08:16 PM
Public data
It can be public data but if protected and accessed by hackers that would still constitute a breach and should be avoided
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
12/23/2017 | 5:39:41 PM
Re: Incorrectly Configured S3 Bucket
@Ryan: Since an outbreak of high-profile breaches due to misconfigured S3 buckets, Amazon has made some efforts to make things easier to configure and more transparent/visible. Ultimately, the fault lies with the users/customers -- but Amazon does bear some responsibility from a UI/UX perspective, no doubt. Anytime Amazon sees its name in the news articles about data breaches -- even if it's "not their fault" -- it's brand damaging.
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Government Shutdown Brings Certificate Lapse Woes
Curtis Franklin Jr., Senior Editor at Dark Reading,  1/11/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
The Year in Security 2018
This Dark Reading Tech Digest explores the biggest news stories of 2018 that shaped the cybersecurity landscape.
Flash Poll
How Enterprises Are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How Enterprises Are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
Data breach fears and the need to comply with regulations such as GDPR are two major drivers increased spending on security products and technologies. But other factors are contributing to the trend as well. Find out more about how enterprises are attacking the cybersecurity problem by reading our report today.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2015-9276
PUBLISHED: 2019-01-16
SmarterTools SmarterMail before 13.3.5535 was vulnerable to stored XSS by bypassing the anti-XSS mechanisms. It was possible to run JavaScript code when a victim user opens or replies to the attacker's email, which contained a malicious payload. Therefore, users' passwords could be reset by using an...
CVE-2015-9277
PUBLISHED: 2019-01-16
MailEnable before 8.60 allows Directory Traversal for reading the messages of other users, uploading files, and deleting files because "/../" and "/.. /" are mishandled.
CVE-2015-9278
PUBLISHED: 2019-01-16
MailEnable before 8.60 allows Privilege Escalation because admin accounts could be created as a consequence of %0A mishandling in AUTH.TAB after a password-change request.
CVE-2015-9279
PUBLISHED: 2019-01-16
MailEnable before 8.60 allows Stored XSS via malformed use of "<img/src" with no ">" character in the body of an e-mail message.
CVE-2015-9280
PUBLISHED: 2019-01-16
MailEnable before 8.60 allows XXE via an XML document in the request.aspx Options parameter.