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

Equifax to Pay Up to $700M for Data Breach Damages

In a settlement with the FTC, consumers affected by the breach are eligible for up to $20,000 in a cash settlement, depending on damages they can prove.

In 2017, Equifax suffered one of the most infamous data breaches in US history. Personal information of roughly 148 million people was compromised, and the company since has paid for the breach in terms of reputation damage and careers harmed, and now another bill is coming due — this one from the US Federal Trade Commission.

The FTC has announced a settlement with Equifax that will result in the company paying at least $575 million and as much as $700 million to the agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and 50 US states and territories.

Variation in the total amount comes from uncertainty over just how many consumers will take advantage of the settlement's cash terms. Individuals are eligible for up to $20,000 in a cash settlement depending on the damages they can prove.

In addition, Equifax has agreed to provide at least four years' monitoring of credit reports at the three major credit bureaus, and up to ten years' credit monitoring at Equifax, for every US consumer. Those who were minors in May 2017 are eligible for 18 years of credit monitoring.

Both the fine and its sheer size are significant, according to Alex Calic, strategic technology partnerships officer for The Media Trust. "Companies need to be aware that they can't wait for the breach to occur anymore and just say 'sorry.' They know there's going to be a financial penalty," he says.

That financial penalty has surprised some because of its size — though whether they're surprised because it's so large or so small depends on their point of view. Not everyone was caught off guard, though: "The size didn't surprise me. I wouldn't have been surprised to see several times large, or half this size," admits Rob Clyde, board director and past chair of ISACA. "Below that amount would have raised eyebrows, but you also don't want to destroy the company. There's a balance to be hit."

The FTC appears to want to prevent other companies finding themselves in situations similar to Equifax's breach. "The Equifax fine was to punish people for not paying attention," says Kiersten Todt, managing director of the Cyber Readiness Institute. "If I'm reading the tea leaves, the FTC wants companies to invest in resiliency, not just in response."

She points out the difference in this case and the 2013 Target breach. The difference, she says, is that "after, Target executives were more willing to pay for response than prevention. But now the scale is shifting."

It remains unclear if the Equifax fine by the FTC is a sign of things to come. "We'll see more and more regulators 'bring the hammer down' and levy some of the largest fines ever seen to raise the sense of urgency. This time it’s the FTC, next could be European GDPR, then the upcoming California Consumer Privacy Act," says Pravin Kothari, CEO of CipherCloud.

The fine isn't likely to have a devastating operational impact on Equifax, experts say."The best outcome isn't Equifax making the situation right - although that is important for all of those affected - it's everyone else learning that the price to be paid outweighs the inconvenience of ensuring proper measures are taken to secure the data that puts them at risk in the first place," says Adam Laub, CMO of STEALTHbits Technologies. "It's got to be from the ground up, too. There's no silver bullet."

Related Content:

 

Black Hat USA returns to Las Vegas with hands-on technical Trainings, cutting-edge Briefings, Arsenal open-source tool demonstrations, top-tier security solutions, and service providers in the Business Hall. Click for information on the conference and to register. 

Curtis Franklin Jr. is Senior Editor at Dark Reading. In this role he focuses on product and technology coverage for the publication. In addition he works on audio and video programming for Dark Reading and contributes to activities at Interop ITX, Black Hat, INsecurity, and ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
lunny
50%
50%
lunny,
User Rank: Strategist
7/23/2019 | 1:57:13 PM
When Does it Become Criminal Negligence?
While we don't want to destroy the company, these breaches will continue so long as companies see the fines as an acceptable cost of doing business (not unlike shoplifting and fraud).  At what point are board members and C-level executives going to be held accountable for damaging the company, its shareholders, its customers, partners, and its employees?  Real people suffer real harm here.  $20,000 isn't meaningful when it will cost you that much in time, hassle, and legal services to prove you were harmed.  This will change only when someone goes to jail for willfully not doing what they knew they must do to protect that which they are being well compensated to protect.
tdsan
50%
50%
tdsan,
User Rank: Ninja
7/24/2019 | 1:44:29 AM
Re: When Does it Become Criminal Negligence?
Wow, someone who finally gets it. This is what I was referring to a prior post, when will the executives be prosected because they knew there was a problem and did nothing about it. I am sure the engineering staff stated they found issues in the infrastructure and cybersecurity issues before all of these attacks took place.

Remember, before someone hacks into your environment, they look for vulnerabilities, so they saw the attempts the external actors were attempting because you see it in the logs. But to the point made by the respondent, the list goes on where executives were over looked and not prosecuted, some went to other companies and were hired again:
  • Georgia and Florida Government Agencies (Ransomeware attacks)
  • City of Atlanta and Baltimore (Ransomeware attacks that left the city demoralized)
  • Attunity and Accenture Federal Services (S3 buckets open to the public)
  • Sony (was told not to push the movie, but was punished when they did)
  • SuperMicro (Lost business but affected major govt and private sector organizations)
  • OPM (Executive was able to retire)

The list goes on and on, hopefully we will start taking looking into the fines imposed by GDPR and the steps taken to protect the rights of individuals and their personal information.

Todd

 
Mobile Banking Malware Up 50% in First Half of 2019
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/17/2020
Active Directory Needs an Update: Here's Why
Raz Rafaeli, CEO and Co-Founder at Secret Double Octopus,  1/16/2020
New Attack Campaigns Suggest Emotet Threat Is Far From Over
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  1/16/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
The Year in Security: 2019
This Tech Digest provides a wrap up and overview of the year's top cybersecurity news stories. It was a year of new twists on old threats, with fears of another WannaCry-type worm and of a possible botnet army of Wi-Fi routers. But 2019 also underscored the risk of firmware and trusted security tools harboring dangerous holes that cybercriminals and nation-state hackers could readily abuse. Read more.
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
Organizations have invested in a sweeping array of security technologies to address challenges associated with the growing number of cybersecurity attacks. However, the complexity involved in managing these technologies is emerging as a major problem. Read this report to find out what your peers biggest security challenges are and the technologies they are using to address them.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-5216
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
In Secure Headers (RubyGem secure_headers), a directive injection vulnerability is present in versions before 3.9.0, 5.2.0, and 6.3.0. If user-supplied input was passed into append/override_content_security_policy_directives, a newline could be injected leading to limited header injection. Upon seei...
CVE-2020-5217
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
In Secure Headers (RubyGem secure_headers), a directive injection vulnerability is present in versions before 3.8.0, 5.1.0, and 6.2.0. If user-supplied input was passed into append/override_content_security_policy_directives, a semicolon could be injected leading to directive injection. This could b...
CVE-2020-5223
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
In PrivateBin versions 1.2.0 before 1.2.2, and 1.3.0 before 1.3.2, a persistent XSS attack is possible. Under certain conditions, a user provided attachment file name can inject HTML leading to a persistent Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability. The vulnerability has been fixed in PrivateBin v1.3...
CVE-2019-20399
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
A timing vulnerability in the Scalar::check_overflow function in Parity libsecp256k1-rs before 0.3.1 potentially allows an attacker to leak information via a side-channel attack.
CVE-2020-7915
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-22
An issue was discovered on Eaton 5P 850 devices. The Ubicacion SAI field allows XSS attacks by an administrator.