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.

Endpoint

5/21/2010
03:22 PM
Connect Directly
Google+
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

ID Theft Victims Spending Less In Cleanup Aftermath

New Identity Theft Resource Center (ITRC) report shows victims spending less time, money to clear their names

Nearly one-third of all identity theft victims say they are unable to completely clear up damaged credit or criminal records in the aftermath of their identities being abused. But the good news is they're spending much less time and money cleaning up the fraud perpetrated against them in their names, according to a newly released report.

The Identity Theft Resource Center (ITRC)'s "Identity Theft: The Aftermath 2009" report found that ID theft victims spent about $527 dollars out of pocket for an existing account compromised by an attacker, down from $741 in 2008. They also spent less time repairing the damage from a compromised account -- an average of 68 hours versus 76 hours in 2008.

It takes more time to clean up a newly opened financial account or a case involving criminal or governmental issues -- 141 hours last year, which was an improvement over '08, when it took an average of 265 hours.

The ITRC report (PDF) surveyed 183 victims nationwide. Nearly 24 percent say they believed they knew their identity thief, who was either a relative, friend, roommate, ex-spouse, or ex-significant other. And 10 percent say their cases were traced to an employee at a business who had their identity information.

Most ID thieves (55 percent) used the stolen identities to open new lines of credit, followed by making purchases on stolen credit and debit cards, 34 percent. Check fraud increased last year over 2008; 42 percent of the victims say their checks were stolen and their signatures forged, up from 35 percent the previous year. Additionally, 65 percent said thieves used the stolen account information to create fake checks for their use, up from 25 percent in '08.

The ITRC says the bottom line is you can't completely prevent ID theft. "Despite proactive measures victims may take, there is always the possibility that the creative and innovative identify thief can get around any security measures a victim may implement. This is why the ITRC strongly believes you cannot prevent identity theft," says Karen Barney, communications coordinator for the ITRC.

Have a comment on this story? Please click "Discuss" below. If you'd like to contact Dark Reading's editors directly, send us a message.

Kelly Jackson Higgins is Executive Editor at DarkReading.com. She is an award-winning veteran technology and business journalist with more than two decades of experience in reporting and editing for various publications, including Network Computing, Secure Enterprise ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
How Attackers Infiltrate the Supply Chain & What to Do About It
Shay Nahari, Head of Red-Team Services at CyberArk,  7/16/2019
US Mayors Commit to Just Saying No to Ransomware
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/16/2019
The Problem with Proprietary Testing: NSS Labs vs. CrowdStrike
Brian Monkman, Executive Director at NetSecOPEN,  7/19/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Building and Managing an IT Security Operations Program
As cyber threats grow, many organizations are building security operations centers (SOCs) to improve their defenses. In this Tech Digest you will learn tips on how to get the most out of a SOC in your organization - and what to do if you can't afford to build one.
Flash Poll
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
The State of IT Operations and Cybersecurity Operations
Your enterprise's cyber risk may depend upon the relationship between the IT team and the security team. Heres some insight on what's working and what isn't in the data center.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-12551
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-22
In SweetScape 010 Editor 9.0.1, improper validation of arguments in the internal implementation of the Memcpy function (provided by the scripting engine) allows an attacker to overwrite arbitrary memory, which could lead to code execution.
CVE-2019-12552
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-22
In SweetScape 010 Editor 9.0.1, an integer overflow during the initialization of variables could allow an attacker to cause a denial of service.
CVE-2019-3414
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-22
All versions up to V1.19.20.02 of ZTE OTCP product are impacted by XSS vulnerability. Due to XSS, when an attacker invokes the security management to obtain the resources of the specified operation code owned by a user, the malicious script code could be transmitted in the parameter. If the front en...
CVE-2019-10102
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-22
tcpdump.org tcpdump 4.9.2 is affected by: CWE-126: Buffer Over-read. The impact is: May expose Saved Frame Pointer, Return Address etc. on stack. The component is: line 234: "ND_PRINT((ndo, "%s", buf));", in function named "print_prefix", in "print-hncp.c". Th...
CVE-2019-10102
PUBLISHED: 2019-07-22
aubio 0.4.8 and earlier is affected by: null pointer. The impact is: crash. The component is: filterbank. The attack vector is: pass invalid arguments to new_aubio_filterbank. The fixed version is: after commit eda95c9c22b4f0b466ae94c4708765eaae6e709e.