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.

Database Security
Authentication
Mobile
Privacy
Compliance
Careers and People
Identity & Access Management
Security Monitoring
Advanced Threats
Insider Threats
Vulnerability Management
Comments
OPM Data Breach Lawsuit Tossed, Fed Plaintiffs will Appeal
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Joe Stanganelli
Joe Stanganelli,
 User Rank: Ninja
9/26/2017 | 12:59:15 PM
Re: Interesting
Alas, the main reason it doesn't make sense is because reporters misreport and don't care enough to understand it themselves. (Scientists refer to this phenomenon as "Wet Roads Cause Rain".)

The law is not barring people from suing organizations who have wronged them by contributing to the compromise of their data. But if you have no actual damages to show/prove, then you generally have no remedy under the common law.

 A victim of actual identity theft or the like would have to be the plaintiff in such a case.

Does this seem draconian in the modern data age? Perhaps. But the common law doesn't concern itself with hypotheticals so much as actual damage. Maybe it's time for legislation to create a separate right of action for individuals independent of the common law, but fat chance seeing that, I suspect.

Joe Stanganelli
Joe Stanganelli,
 User Rank: Ninja
9/26/2017 | 12:52:31 PM
Re: Interesting
That's not really the point. It's not about standing to sue.

The point is that one of the essential elements to prove a negligence case is damages. If damages cannot be proven/shown, then a negligence suit must fail as a matter of law.

And even other types of common-law actions generally won't yield favorable plaintiff results if actual damage cannot be shown.

And this will remain the case until and unless legislation gets passed giving private citizens a separate private right of action in these data-breach cases, with its own damages/award rubric that is independent of common-law actions.

(Disclaimer: This post/comment is provided for informational, educational and/or entertainment purposes only. Neither this nor other posts/comments on this website constitute legal advice or the creation, implication or confirmation of an attorney-client relationship. For actual legal advice, personally consult with an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction.)
REISEN1955
REISEN1955,
 User Rank: Ninja
9/25/2017 | 1:55:12 PM
One real question ... Thefr of "what" exactly
If a thief takes a physical thing - car, wallet, jewelry, etc --- then that can be defined with a serial number and such and retrieved, also with a hard currency value for the loss.   DATA is somehing else and to a degree, even a license plate on our car exposes us.  This is VISIBLE stuff, not hard value stuff, so what is stealing it?  Writing down with pen and paper?  Nope.  It gets nasty when thieves break into a secure value (Equifax) and steal data which is theft from Equifax of propety under contract.   Technically, the law should probably extend Contract law to include the invidiaul whose data has been compromised.  Fine legal argument there.  But a VALUE cannot be placed on the data UNLESS probably it is USED to something else.  Then the LOSS value kicks in.  If I have a lost credit card but do NOT use it, I have not invoked a loss per se.  I have no bought anything.  What harm then is done?  Now, if I then start to buy stuff ON the stolen card, a hard dollar value can be kicked in for recovery.  

Interesting fine points indeed. 
Dr.T
Dr.T,
 User Rank: Ninja
9/25/2017 | 11:48:12 AM
Re: Based on outcome
“ An actor may wait weeks or months or have to dig through the 143 million stolen from Equifax before action is indeed taken” I would agree, otherwise why attack in the first place, they will eventually use it what they captured.
Dr.T
Dr.T,
 User Rank: Ninja
9/25/2017 | 11:46:48 AM
Re: Based on outcome
“lack of evidence that attackers maliciously used the data in question but is there a statute of limitation for instances like this?” This would be a good question to ask, they may not have used it yet, that does not mean they will not.
Dr.T
Dr.T,
 User Rank: Ninja
9/25/2017 | 11:44:51 AM
Re: Interesting
“Equifax should not be allowed to continue as a business” I think there should be consequence for them, we are not sue how secure other two credit status firms’s network.
Dr.T
Dr.T,
 User Rank: Ninja
9/25/2017 | 11:43:17 AM
Re: Interesting
“This is a common probelm, the judiciary does not understand technology and they consequently make idiotic rulings based on that lack of understanding.” That makes sense. It would be hard to find a judge who understands the technology well enough tough.
Dr.T
Dr.T,
 User Rank: Ninja
9/25/2017 | 11:41:55 AM
Re: Interesting
“ a precedent that Equifax will surely jump on to ward off the class action suits against them.” That would be my guess too. This will be a long legal battle I would guess.
Dr.T
Dr.T,
 User Rank: Ninja
9/25/2017 | 11:40:13 AM
Re: Information vs Money
“The answer to your question is WHO was guarding the vault? Who has responsibility for the vault?” I would say that is the organization itself. Data maybe in all over the network, no breach should have happened.
Dr.T
Dr.T,
 User Rank: Ninja
9/25/2017 | 11:38:51 AM
Re: Information vs Money
“information theft is invisible if compared to car or money theft” That makes sense however data/information is value to the owners of that, and stolen so there should be consequence on that.
Page 1 / 2   >   >>


Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
I Smell a RAT! New Cybersecurity Threats for the Crypto Industry
David Trepp, Partner, IT Assurance with accounting and advisory firm BPM LLP,  7/9/2021
News
Attacks on Kaseya Servers Led to Ransomware in Less Than 2 Hours
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/7/2021
Commentary
It's in the Game (but It Shouldn't Be)
Tal Memran, Cybersecurity Expert, CYE,  7/9/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
How Machine Learning, AI & Deep Learning Improve Cybersecurity
Machine intelligence is influencing all aspects of cybersecurity. Organizations are implementing AI-based security to analyze event data using ML models that identify attack patterns and increase automation. Before security teams can take advantage of AI and ML tools, they need to know what is possible. This report covers: -How to assess the vendor's AI/ML claims -Defining success criteria for AI/ML implementations -Challenges when implementing AI
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2022-42247
PUBLISHED: 2022-10-03
pfSense v2.5.2 was discovered to contain a cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the browser.php component. This vulnerability allows attackers to execute arbitrary web scripts or HTML via a crafted payload injected into a file name.
CVE-2022-41443
PUBLISHED: 2022-10-03
phpipam v1.5.0 was discovered to contain a header injection vulnerability via the component /admin/subnets/ripe-query.php.
CVE-2022-33882
PUBLISHED: 2022-10-03
Under certain conditions, an attacker could create an unintended sphere of control through a vulnerability present in file delete operation in Autodesk desktop app (ADA). An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to escalate privileges and execute arbitrary code.
CVE-2022-42306
PUBLISHED: 2022-10-03
An issue was discovered in Veritas NetBackup through 8.2 and related Veritas products. An attacker with local access can send a crafted packet to pbx_exchange during registration and cause a NULL pointer exception, effectively crashing the pbx_exchange process.
CVE-2022-42307
PUBLISHED: 2022-10-03
An issue was discovered in Veritas NetBackup through 10.0.0.1 and related Veritas products. The NetBackup Primary server is vulnerable to an XML External Entity (XXE) Injection attack through the DiscoveryService service.