Attacks/Breaches
7/24/2014
02:17 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Travel Agency Fined £150,000 For Violating Data Protection Act

That'll teach them not to retain credit card data in perpetuity.

The UK Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has fined the online travel company Think W3 ₤150,000 ($254,610.75) for violating the country's Data Protection Act, as well as the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI-DSS). This penalty was issued in response to a December 2012 SQL injection attack that breached a Think W3 website and nabbed credit card numbers and other personally identifiable information on more than 1 million customers.

The site in question was a staff car parking system (for maintaining costs and availability of parking) that was created in 2006 and meant for internal use only. Unfortunately, it was installed on the same server that contained the company's main e-commerce application used to store customer personal data.

The car parking system had not undergone penetration testing or internal vulnerability scans before or after implementation -- the argument being that security testing was unnecessary, because it wasn't an external-facing site, and it required users to log in.

By compromising that site, however, attackers were able to obtain admin access to the common server. They then created a custom query to extract and decrypt cardholder data using the encryption key, which was not stored securely on the web server. After grabbing the credit card data (excluding CVV numbers), the attackers went on to lift the associated names, addresses, email addresses, and phone numbers.

The car parking system had never been updated, and the customer data had never been deleted, so when the attackers penetrated in December 2012, they were able to obtain records dating all the way back to 2006. Altogether they lifted 1,163,996 credit and debit card records, 733,397 of which were expired.

Investigators found none of these records were ever put to use for financial fraud.

Under the Data Protection Act, a "data controller" can be slammed with a monetary penalty if there is a "serious contravention" of the act, if it was "likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress," and if it was deliberate, or if the data controller knew or should have known such a thing would occur, or if the controller "failed to take reasonable steps to prevent" it.

The highest penalty allowed by the law is ₤500,000.

Some of the factors that contributed to the size of the ₤150,000 penalty included the fact that the company failed to comply with PCI-DSS, test the site's security, patch software, update anti-virus software, and implement suitable intrusion detection systems, file-integrity monitoring software, encryption key management, and internal policies.

Another data controller was just fined for a Data Protection Act violation. Jayesh Shah, a marketing company owner from Pune, India, was fined ₤4,000 for failing to notify the ICO that he was changing his notification. He allegedly sent "millions of unsolicited text messages," but the offense was not for spamming, but rather for selling data on individuals to other parties.

Sara Peters is Senior Editor at Dark Reading and formerly the editor-in-chief of Enterprise Efficiency. Prior that she was senior editor for the Computer Security Institute, writing and speaking about virtualization, identity management, cybersecurity law, and a myriad ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Thomas Claburn
50%
50%
Thomas Claburn,
User Rank: Moderator
7/24/2014 | 4:05:36 PM
data is a liability as well as an asset
When it comes to data storage, less is more.
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Dark Reading December Tech Digest
Experts weigh in on the pros and cons of end-user security training.
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2014-5395
Published: 2014-11-21
Multiple cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerabilities in Huawei HiLink E3276 and E3236 TCPU before V200R002B470D13SP00C00 and WebUI before V100R007B100D03SP01C03, E5180s-22 before 21.270.21.00.00, and E586Bs-2 before 21.322.10.00.889 allow remote attackers to hijack the authentication of users ...

CVE-2014-7137
Published: 2014-11-21
Multiple SQL injection vulnerabilities in Dolibarr ERP/CRM before 3.6.1 allow remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary SQL commands via the (1) contactid parameter in an addcontact action, (2) ligne parameter in a swapstatut action, or (3) project_ref parameter to projet/tasks/contact.php; (4...

CVE-2014-7871
Published: 2014-11-21
SQL injection vulnerability in Open-Xchange (OX) AppSuite before 7.4.2-rev36 and 7.6.x before 7.6.0-rev23 allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary SQL commands via a crafted jslob API call.

CVE-2014-8090
Published: 2014-11-21
The REXML parser in Ruby 1.9.x before 1.9.3 patchlevel 551, 2.0.x before 2.0.0 patchlevel 598, and 2.1.x before 2.1.5 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU and memory consumption) a crafted XML document containing an empty string in an entity that is used in a large number of nes...

CVE-2014-8469
Published: 2014-11-21
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Guests/Boots in AdminCP in Moxi9 PHPFox before 4 Beta allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the User-Agent header.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Now that the holiday season is about to begin both online and in stores, will this be yet another season of nonstop gifting to cybercriminals?