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.

Comments
Target Breach Widens: 70 Million Warned
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
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
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
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. 
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

 

 
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.

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.



Data Leak Week: Billions of Sensitive Files Exposed Online
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  12/10/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Our Endpoint Protection system is a little outdated... 
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
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-2019-19767
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-12
The Linux kernel before 5.4.2 mishandles ext4_expand_extra_isize, as demonstrated by use-after-free errors in __ext4_expand_extra_isize and ext4_xattr_set_entry, related to fs/ext4/inode.c and fs/ext4/super.c, aka CID-4ea99936a163.
CVE-2019-19768
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-12
In the Linux kernel 5.4.0-rc2, there is a use-after-free (read) in the __blk_add_trace function in kernel/trace/blktrace.c (which is used to fill out a blk_io_trace structure and place it in a per-cpu sub-buffer).
CVE-2019-19769
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-12
In the Linux kernel 5.3.10, there is a use-after-free (read) in the perf_trace_lock_acquire function (related to include/trace/events/lock.h).
CVE-2019-19770
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-12
In the Linux kernel 4.19.83, there is a use-after-free (read) in the debugfs_remove function in fs/debugfs/inode.c (which is used to remove a file or directory in debugfs that was previously created with a call to another debugfs function such as debugfs_create_file).
CVE-2019-19771
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-12
The lodahs package 0.0.1 for Node.js is a Trojan horse, and may have been installed by persons who mistyped the lodash package name. In particular, the Trojan horse finds and exfiltrates cryptocurrency wallets.