Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Attacks/Breaches

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
Why Cyber-Risk Is a C-Suite Issue
Marc Wilczek, Digital Strategist & CIO Advisor,  11/12/2019
Unreasonable Security Best Practices vs. Good Risk Management
Jack Freund, Director, Risk Science at RiskLens,  11/13/2019
Breaches Are Inevitable, So Embrace the Chaos
Ariel Zeitlin, Chief Technology Officer & Co-Founder, Guardicore,  11/13/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Navigating the Deluge of Security Data
In this Tech Digest, Dark Reading shares the experiences of some top security practitioners as they navigate volumes of security data. We examine some examples of how enterprises can cull this data to find the clues they need.
Flash Poll
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Frustrated with recurring intrusions and breaches, cybersecurity professionals are questioning some of the industrys conventional wisdom. Heres a look at what theyre thinking about.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-13581
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-15
An issue was discovered in Marvell 88W8688 Wi-Fi firmware before version p52, as used on Tesla Model S/X vehicles manufactured before March 2018, via the Parrot Faurecia Automotive FC6050W module. A heap-based buffer overflow allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service or execute arbitrary ...
CVE-2019-13582
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-15
An issue was discovered in Marvell 88W8688 Wi-Fi firmware before version p52, as used on Tesla Model S/X vehicles manufactured before March 2018, via the Parrot Faurecia Automotive FC6050W module. A stack overflow could lead to denial of service or arbitrary code execution.
CVE-2019-6659
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-15
On version 14.0.0-14.1.0.1, BIG-IP virtual servers with TLSv1.3 enabled may experience a denial of service due to undisclosed incoming messages.
CVE-2019-6660
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-15
On BIG-IP 14.1.0-14.1.2, 14.0.0-14.0.1, and 13.1.0-13.1.1, undisclosed HTTP requests may consume excessive amounts of systems resources which may lead to a denial of service.
CVE-2019-6661
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-15
When the BIG-IP APM 14.1.0-14.1.2, 14.0.0-14.0.1, 13.1.0-13.1.3.1, 12.1.0-12.1.4.1, or 11.5.1-11.6.5 system processes certain requests, the APD/APMD daemon may consume excessive resources.