Slashdot Mirror
UT Austin Hit By Massive Security Breach
mrpuffypants writes "Reported in the Austin-American Statesman: The University of Texas' security was compromised over the weekend, leaking out nearly 60,000 records on students, staff, and faculty. Official word from the school can be found here. Most troubling of all is that, like most schools, UT still uses SSNs for student ID numbers, and that was part of the information taken from them in the attack."
The UT link appears to be /.ed, but when I read it before it sounded like a simple brute force ssn lookup. The attacker simply generated random ssn and sent them against a page that returned information based on ssn. The attacker then simply harvested "positive" hits. The problem was that this interface was exposed to the public and that it had no means of throttling/preventing multiple requests/failed requests.
On another note, UT is phasing out SSN in many aspects of the students life. My wifes UT ID does not contain her ssn, it has a student # now. Though I assume that there are still many points of interface with the UT system that expects to see ssn.
They'll get the rest later using the SSN. That and a name are often all you need. Who cares about grades- when they know who you are and have your social you are screwed.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
While my university doesn't use the SSN for our student ID number, it still asks students to put it on countless forms and enter it into countless databases. It's always made me uneasy, and I hadn't even thought of the potential for a computer break-in. Rather, I was unsettled that any student worker who checked out a book for me at the library could see my SSN on his screen after scanning my ID card.
But nothing wakes up a university -- especially a state school -- like the threat of litigation. If the cracker followed up and committed full-scale identity theft, the students would have grounds for a lawsuit against the school. Consider the recent New Hampshire lawsuit that dealt with SSNs and other personal information. With the potential for bloodthirsty lawyers, universities might finally get serious about protecting their students' information.
UT says:
Someone is more than a little bit confused about the nature of digital storage if they think they can `recapture the stolen data'.
`Ah, cool, we've managed to delete the copy they made of our data.'
(whispers)
`Another copy? How many copies did they steal?'
In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
Why are Americans so paranoid about who knows their SSN?
Because I can use your SSN to apply for a credit card in your name and then, when the bill comes due, it falls on your head (until you explain that that wasn't actually you). Then I can do it again.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
It's like security through the obscurity of these numbers.
Why is it such a hassle for Unis to generate their own unique IDs for students?
As I undertsand, the SSN isn't even a *good* unique identifier - for one thing it has no built-in checksum, and it's possible that your number isn't unique (could be wrong on the latter, but it's not really my point..)
Just issuing consecutive numbers to students who enrol is just one extremely simple way to replace using SSNs.
My bank issues me a number that identifies my account, my mobile phone company gives me a number to identify my phone, why is it so hard for unis to issue numbers to identify students?
Why were the unis in Washington so unhappy with the change? Sure, a few thousand people need to be given numbers and that can take a while to physically issue - but if the law allowed, perhaps a phased implementation of the scheme, so new people are given one of the new numbers?
If someone is using a driver's license acquired in your name with your social security number, they could very well build up a criminal record in your name in some other state. A routine traffic stop could then lead to you getting arrested.
With that in mind, if someone asks you what yours is, the first thing that comes out of your mouth should not be that number. It should be "I don't think you need to know that information." Note that in the historical past (I don't know if this is still true) if you knew someone's name and birth date, you could use an Internet information service to find out their social security number and criminal history.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
1. Please mod the parent as insightful. (Or even funny). This is the best description of the problem I've ever heard.
2. It's an antiquated system. Back in the day, before massive amounts of information were available on computer, you'd occasionally hear about a guy who's number was stolen. It's a bad thing, but it was a rarity. The system worked because your number was secret, and there were few real ways to get it.
These days, SSN's are being compromised by thousands at a time. This is a broken system, and it should be fixed.
Perhaps thumbprints or retinal scans as a system of identification. But if you think about it, this leaves us with the same problem. The retinal or thumb image needs to be kept somewhere for the purposes of comparison. The files can be stolen just as easily as SSN's.
Maybe there is no solution.
Huh?
What we need is a honey pot full of fake SSNs ... when people try to use them (obviously stolen), the Feds go round and arrest the bastards.
Hm. So I need only your name and your SSN ??
;-)
Djeez. No wonder you all need a homeland security office and ultraparanoid officials everywhere, if the underlying 'security' mechanisms are SO easy to break.
It may surprise some of you but in the rest of the world you actually need to show some real identity document, like a passport or drivers license, to get anyone to actually trust your identity.
Maybe something to implement in the next, say, 20 years in the great USA ?
Yeah. This sounds like a flame. So sue me. Another thing US residents seem to be really good at
That's funny. Those ten or so credit card applications I get in the mail each week say nothing about coming to see them IN PERSON.
The DMCA--for corporations, the best copyright law money can buy.
There's a solution if you use cryptography. Assign everybody a social security number. Also, give them a private key (or better, let them pick their own). Then, publish everyone's social security numbers and the public keys that match up with their private keys. (The government could even provide a service that allows people to look up public keys based on social security number.)
Then, everyone's number is out in the open. Whenever you want to do something with it, you create a message along the lines of this:
Then you sign that message with your private key. Once you've done that, anyone can use your public key to verify the signature. That means they can be assured that, unless someone has stolen your private key or broken the crypto, it could only have been you that wrote that message.
Thus, your social security number becomes public knowledge, but that doesn't help anybody because they'd need your private key to do anything with it. And, most importantly, there never is any situation where you have to give your private key to anyone. Your secret remains your own. No third-party ever gets a copy of it. This is important for two reasons:
Aside from the fact that the custodian of the information certainly has a lot to blame in this, there is another big part of the problem. That problem is what people can actually do with the information.
An SSN is identity. It is nothing more than that. The problem is people make the incorrect assumption that it is authenticity (I can recite the number, or read it off a little card in my wallet, so it must be me), and authority (this account has your SSN and is overdrawn, so you are liable for it).
If any law change is needed, it is a law change that says that it is illegal for an SSN to be accepted for any purpose other than identity. What that means is that if I walk into a bank and open an account citing some SSN, the bank needs to understand that all this does is identify someone, and not necessarily me. If the bank causes harm to the real owner of the SSN by having provided any derogatory credit information based on that SSN, then the bank shall be fully liable for having not taking reasonable measures to ensure accuracy of information. And by that, what I mean is that the bank can't simply say that the victim needs to track down the perpetrator to cover the costs. The banks need to be forced to properly authenticate the information they use, especially when and where it might be used in a negative way.
And I don't mean to pick on banks (I just happen to have an open case with Chase Manhattan bank which continues to allow someone to operate a credit card account with my SSN, reported on my credit reports, without my consent, and after I have advised them of the fraud). Such a law should apply to anyone and everyone who accepts and uses SSN data for anything. It's the negative things that can be done (like bad credit info) that needs to be stopped (in addition to other stupidities like running computers insecurely and connecting systems to the internet that have no business being there).
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
In their newswire, Salon titled this story, "Computer crackers steal students social security numbers."
I thought the Slashdot community would appreciate Salon getting the terminology right on this one. It may seem like a silly point to some, but the distinction between "cracker" and "hacker" is huge in my mind, and it always makes me happy to see a journalistic outlet get it right, for a change.