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

6/26/2017
05:16 PM
50%
50%

Anthem Agrees to $115 Million Settlement for 2015 Breach

If approved, it will dwarf settlements paid by Target, Home Depot, and Ashley Madison.

On Friday, June 23, Anthem Healthcare agreed to settle a series of lawsuits related to the company's 2015 data breach, which impacted 78.8 million individuals. The settlement includes a payment of $115 million and three years of additional security protections.

Most of the money will be allotted to an additional two years of credit monitoring and identity protection services, and $15 million will be allocated to pay out-of-pocket costs, up to a certain amount. Class members who claim out-of-pocket costs may receive compensation of $36 to $50. 

If approved by the judge, who is scheduled to hear the motion on Aug. 17, the settlement would be far larger than other recent settlements made for large-scale data breaches: Target agreed to pay $18.5 million last month for a 2013 breach of 41 million customer records, Ashley Madison agreed to pay $17.5 million in December for the doxing attack that affected 37 million customers, and Home Depot paid $43.5 million over two separate settlements (to banks and customers) for a 2014 breach affecting 50 million customers.

According to a statement on the Anthem website, "as part of the settlement, Anthem has agreed to continue the significant information security practice changes that we undertook in the wake of the cyber attack, and we have agreed to implement additional protections over the next three years." According to a preliminary motion filed by attorneys, many details of these protections will remain confidential.

The Anthem attack was reported in February 2015 and leaked customers' income data and Social Security numbers, but likely not medical information. A report by the California Department of Insurance, released in January of this year, stated that an investigation found "with a significant degree of confidence" that a foreign government was behind the attack. Earlier research specifically implicated threat actors operating from China.

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
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
Joe Stanganelli
100%
0%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
6/26/2017 | 6:38:32 PM
Ashley Madison comparison
Of course, Anthem still has a profitable and viable business model -- unlike, in all likelihood, Ashley Madison these days. The Ashley Madison breach did FAR more damage to the company than the legal costs.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
6/27/2017 | 4:34:12 PM
Re: Ashley Madison comparison
"Anthem still has a profitable and viable business model"

I would think so, they might also still be suing old technologies.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
6/27/2017 | 4:35:40 PM
Re: Ashley Madison comparison
"The Ashley Madison breach did FAR more damage"

And also embarrassment to the users of the site.
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
6/28/2017 | 12:18:35 PM
Re: Ashley Madison comparison
@Joe Very much agree with your comparison. Ashley Madison would have tarnished their brand reputation as well. Similar to Arthur Andersen back in the Enron days, these indirect costs can cripple an organizaiton into extinction. We shall see how AM fairs in the years to come.
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
6/29/2017 | 9:43:04 AM
Re: Ashley Madison comparison
@RyanSepe: Not that I'd be one to know (ahem), but it seems to me that Ashley Madison would need to make a major pivot (to say the least) to resume relevance in this, the age of Tinder -- security breach or no.
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
6/29/2017 | 10:00:00 AM
Re: Ashley Madison comparison
@Joe Just need to rebrand....I was told by some people I know that Tinder is a "dating service", which I guess on some levels is fundamentally true. Like Comcast with Xfinity, just change the overall branding and everyone will forget what happened in the past :)  
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
7/1/2017 | 12:51:41 PM
Re: Ashley Madison comparison
@Ryan: This goes to my fundamental marketing philosophy: You don't define your brand; your audience does.

As people have started to use Tinder for less ephemeral relationships (i.e., using it for more than, er, what it has become best known for), the app's/company's brand has fundamentally changed.

Similarly, as people have become more interested in the immediacy that Tinder has to offer, competition like OKCupid has had to adjust.

Ashley Madison?  Soooo 2011.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
6/27/2017 | 4:29:09 PM
Settlement
78.8 million individuals impacted and only $115 Million, this sounds not that much.
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
6/27/2017 | 4:31:12 PM
out-of-pocket cost
"Class members who claim out-of-pocket costs may receive compensation of $36 to $50."

This is like a joke, lost my personal data and they pay me $50? Am I getting this right?
Sara Peters
50%
50%
Sara Peters,
User Rank: Author
6/28/2017 | 10:36:21 AM
Re: out-of-pocket cost
@Dr. T:  I'm with you. These settlements sound big at first, but once you factor in the number of people involved, it becomes pretty pitiful.

And yet this is a, comparatively, very big settlement, against a company that actually handled their breach response quite admirably. Other companies that did a lousy job from start to finish and showed no regard for their customers (Ashley-Madison) got away with smaller settlements.

 
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
6/29/2017 | 9:32:44 AM
Re: out-of-pocket cost
@Sara: But health data is a more legally protected class of information than whether one is looking to cheat on a partner. Plus, I daresay that Anthem has *waaaaay* more customers than Ashley Madison ever did. On a related note, potential HIPAA violations created tons of potential liability that Anthem wanted to avoid seeing a day in court over. So the difference in the settlement amounts makes sense for these reasons alone.

Also, as I understand it, the Ashley Madison breach involved an insider attack -- which, unfortunately, one can only do so much to prevent. The Anthem breach, however, involved a series of major security missteps. ( See, e.g., enterprisenetworkingplanet.com/netsecur/anthem-could-face-legal-fallout-from-hack.html ). And even then, months passed between the time evidence of a likely attack became known (thanks to independent security researchers) and Anthem actually did anything.
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
6/28/2017 | 12:22:41 PM
Re: out-of-pocket cost
@Dr.T, as Sarah stated when the hard numbers are broken down the numbers aren't a good reflection of how an individual should be compensated for a loss of their information. The numbers are most definitely jokeworthy. But playing devil's advocate, what should the numbers be for a payout for losing personal data? Based on the amount of users would Anthem be able to support this claim and stay in business? 
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
6/29/2017 | 9:41:22 AM
Re: out-of-pocket cost
@Ryan: Sure, I agree with you...but look at it this way:

The damage the individual suffers potentially can be much higher -- but is often well mitigated with credit monitoring and similar services. Bought in bulk for thousands or millions of data-breach victims, that helps bring costs down.

The value the attacker gets for a single person's health credentials is probably on the order of about $25.

And then, of course, there are the additional statutory damages. And, of course, the overall cost to society as a whole.

Makes it all seem rather piddling, looked at this way. We're not talking about a toxic tort case like from A Civil Action or Erin Brockovich, after all.

But, of course, when you look at it more empathetically and/or subjectively, those numbers tend to become mentally adjusted much higher. How would you want to be compensated if your medical records were given to someone else?

Which is why settlements happen. Nobody in Anthem's position wants to go to a trial -- and probably not even arbitration.

(Incidentally, this is why official class representatives tend to get compensated far higher than Johnny-come-latelies who join the class afterwards upon learning of their eligibility -- because the class representatives are more directly involved in the litigation.)

RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
6/29/2017 | 9:49:26 AM
Re: out-of-pocket cost
@JoeStanganelli. Great response. I would be less likely to find concern over loss of my medical records than if my identity information were to be breached. But I very much understand where individuals may be concerned.

What were the individual data sets that were lost during this breach? Thanks,
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
7/1/2017 | 12:53:37 PM
Re: out-of-pocket cost
@Ryan: Ah, so as I refresh myself from some notes, it seems that more than just health information was compromised. PII was compromised of both patients and employees.

Here's a piece I wrote at the time on the what and the how: enterprisenetworkingplanet.com/netsecur/anthem-could-face-legal-fallout-from-hack.html
Dr.T
50%
50%
Dr.T,
User Rank: Ninja
6/27/2017 | 4:35:57 PM
medical information
 

"but likely not medical information."

Why is this still "likely", there is a settlement and we still do not know if medical data was breached. 
Zero-Factor Authentication: Owning Our Data
Nick Selby, Chief Security Officer at Paxos Trust Company,  2/19/2020
44% of Security Threats Start in the Cloud
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  2/19/2020
Firms Improve Threat Detection but Face Increasingly Disruptive Attacks
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  2/20/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
6 Emerging Cyber Threats That Enterprises Face in 2020
This Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at six emerging cyber threats that enterprises could face in 2020. Download your copy today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
How Enterprises Are Developing and Maintaining Secure Applications
The concept of application security is well known, but application security testing and remediation processes remain unbalanced. Most organizations are confident in their approach to AppSec, although others seem to have no approach at all. Read this report to find out more.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-8813
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-22
graph_realtime.php in Cacti 1.2.8 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary OS commands via shell metacharacters in a cookie, if a guest user has the graph real-time privilege.
CVE-2020-9039
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-22
Couchbase Server 4.x and 5.x before 6.0.0 has Insecure Permissions for the projector and indexer REST endpoints (they allow unauthenticated access).
CVE-2020-8860
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-22
This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of Samsung Galaxy S10 Firmware G973FXXS3ASJA, O(8.x), P(9.0), Q(10.0) devices with Exynos chipsets. User interaction is required to exploit this vulnerability in that the target must answer a phone call. T...
CVE-2020-8861
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-22
This vulnerability allows network-adjacent attackers to bypass authentication on affected installations of D-Link DAP-1330 1.10B01 BETA Wi-Fi range extenders. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within the handling of HNAP login requests. The issue ...
CVE-2020-8862
PUBLISHED: 2020-02-22
This vulnerability allows network-adjacent attackers to bypass authentication on affected installations of D-Link DAP-2610 Firmware v2.01RC067 routers. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within the handling of passwords. The issue results from the ...