AT&T Crack Part of a Phishing Operation

JohnGrahamCumming writes "According to a story in the San Francisco Chronicle the AT&T store crack was the prelude to a very sophisticated phishing operation. The phishers were aiming to use the information from the store to fool existing customers into divulging SSNs and other personal information." From the article: "'The information that was provided by customers who ordered DSL-related equipment included name, address, e-mail address, phone number, credit card number and credit card expiration,' the memo says, adding that the hacked data didn't include Social Security numbers or birth dates. But the hackers had a scheme to get this extra info. After accessing the customer data, they incorporated it into phishing messages that were promptly sent to AT&T's DSL customers ... Each message included a legitimate order number culled from the AT&T vendor's database to create an illusion of authenticity. Messages also included the recipient's home address and the last four digits of his or her credit card number. "

Comments

yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

well if I was getting paid 7$ an hour at an AT&T store, I'd probably find a way to rip people off as well!

Privacy violations rampant

[mabu]

This is just one of many, many issues of privacy violations that have happened in the last year. And the feds seem mainly interested in letting states regulate and report on security breaches. So far only a few states have legislation to notify consumers of database compromises, which is a shame. The sad part is many people may have had their information stolen and they will never know until the information has been exploited, all the while the corporations have been aware of this for a long time and choose not to reveal the violations in fear of a negative PR.

Re:Privacy violations rampant

[Meshach]

I have to say that I would never give any info to anyone who called me uncolicitated. Period.

That seems to be always how these scams work. Someone calls and uses some credentials to get people to reveal personal information. No company worth dealing with would ever initiate contact with customers over the phone were it not previously arranged.

When will this become common knowledge

Re:Privacy violations rampant

[lawpoop]

While this is a serious problem, I think the proposed solution that the politicians cook up will be much worse than the cure. I have the gnawing feeling that 'solution' for identity theft is going to be a national ID card, with biometric ids. And the public, not understanding electronic issues, will buy it. Then you will need crack only one system.

In an ideal world, we could build some kind of peer-to-peer GPG web of trust, where the person themself has full control of establishing their identity.

Re:Privacy violations rampant

[Code Master]

My wife had her credit card compromised a couple months ago and huge cash advances were placed on it. The card was never lost, nor did she give out any information. But, MasterCard did contact us unsolicited about it several times (when we were out). They would leave messages saying to call MasterCard security at a given number. The first couple times I heard the mesage, I ignored it because I figured they would never do that. So after looking at her card statement when it arrived, we saw the problem and initialted contact by the official number on the statement. Turns out it was a legitimate message. That is not good practise as trains people to respond to phishing attacks.

Re:Privacy violations rampant

[bluekanoodle]

Perhaps a better practice would be to make the unsolicited calls but ask customers to call back on the card loss number on the back of their card or to find the phone number on the last statement.

When I train individual on Social Engineering techniques, I always tell them that if they receive a message (voice or email) claiming to be from their bank, to do a call back using a known good number from their previous correspondence.

I've noted that some banks, when communicating via email, will tell you to log into your account by manually TYPING in an URL in your browser rather then providng any types of hyperlinks.

Re:Privacy violations rampant

[Xeger]

Alas, "uncolicit" would be something illegal between two parties. Because if the "-ate" suffix (which tends to turn an adjective into a verb, see "violate" -- to be reminiscent of a viola) I venture that the word "uncolicitated" refers to something that has not yet been made legal between two parties.

One thing's still true

[Wilson_6500]

You (should) still be immune to phishing scams if you refuse to give _any_ personal information out unless _you_ initiated the contact (and then only with known-good contact info for a business, such as calling a number printed on your phone bill). If you get an email like this, _call the company._ Yes, I know that it's usually impossible to get through, but even if you can't or don't, nothing bad will happen.

I wish we could get more people to realize this.

Re:One thing's still true

[mordors9]

But that is sort of the point. You initiate the contact with AT&T and order something. Then you get a response back almost right away, confirming your order, your credit card number all of that info you just entered, and advising they need these additional pieces of information. I think there are going to be an awful lot of people hoodwinked by this. Because we have always been told the same advice you just gave, don't give info unless you initiate contact, they think this qualifies and they give them what they are asked for.

Re:One thing's still true

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Excellent advice, but even that doesn't always work these days. Crooks are now using fraudulent call forwarding requests to divert calls from legitimate businesses that take credit cards over to the crooks's phone numbers. The pizza parlor call forwarding scam.

Isn't security fun?

Never give out your SSN

[paladinwannabe2]

The only people who should have your SSN are your employer, the government, and your bank(s). AT&T shouldn't have anyone's SSN except its own employees.

What's your personal information's potential?

[gameforge]

I go to school at Metro State College of Denver. About a year ago, a laptop got stolen that had much the same kinds of information in it on well over 50,000 students who had attended the college over several years.

My mother works for Wells Fargo Home Mortgage; an independent company that was auditing their health insurance had one of their laptops stolen with similar information for thousands of WFHM employees (possibly other Wells Fargo employees too).

Here's the bottom line: Expect every person in the world to try and get at your life in anyway they can. That said, it's your job to protect yourself. Inconvenience, lack of technical knowhow, lack of time and etc. are not valid excuses; it's just too damn important. If someone nabbed Newegg.com's database right now, how many of you would be in great risk? Particularly if your record was the only one they stole; a Newegg.com employee could probably do that without Slashdot or ABC News ever knowing about it.

If they got the card number you use at Newegg, how much money could they take? Is that a check card linked with your bank account? Your only bank account? Most credit card companies will immediately call you if there's all of a sudden a much greater than usual balance on your card. Banks won't call you of a large sum of money disappears out of your account.

So, is most of your money in a savings account that NOBODY has the information for (except you)? Is your home address well secured? Do your kids know how not to get kidnapped? You do check your own credit semi-frequently, don't you? Does (whatever company) really need your SSN to sell you their product? Do you think their system will blow up if that field is left blank when you throw a fit? Do you refuse to send sensitive information over e-mail or IM or SMS (with a preference for telphone or in-person business)?

Does your garage door opener hang proudly from your sun visor (with the corresponding home address on your registration & insurance in the unlocked glovebox)? Is a key to your house sitting in a Supra lockbox hanging on the door handle so the maid can get in? Or is it, perhaps, in that fake looking rock next to the porch? You know, the one your kid picks up every day when he gets home from school?

Think. It's your job, not your government's, not the sheriff's, and not some corporation's... yours. There may be laws in place to protect you; people will break them. And then you're still out your valuables. Really: think.

Education seems to be key.

[phulegart]

I'm already on record here with my opinions and stance on phishing. Education, as has been pointed out in several comments, is key. The uninformed are the targets phishers seek. So how do you educate everyone on the internet? Most barely know more than "point and click" operation of their computer.

Paypal, for instance does not need your SSN, but by supplying it, you can earn 5% interest on the money sitting in your account. There are countless other legitimate examples.

How do you educate the world on a single issue, especially when there are more pressing issues that are higher on the global priority list? Hell, I bet most of you have a few friends on your instant messenger friends list, who still pass on those mass messages threatening to shut down the service if the message is not forwarded to everyone? All 4 of the biggies, Y!, AIM, MSN, and ICQ all state clearly in multiple places they will never do this... they will never send out a system wide message that has to be forwarded. Yet people still don't know this, even after 7 years. And those messages don't even look nearly as legitimate as some phishing sites.

Re:SSN is needed for credit checking

[Qzukk]

An SSN number is needed for a credit check.

No, no it's not. It's needed for a credit check from lazy-assed credit companies who can't be bothered to do the legwork to actually identify you.

That's why we have this identity theft problem in the first place. If we threw away the SSN and replaced it with any other identifier, the exact same thing would happen. If we replaced it with biometric ID cards, the exact same thing would happen (it would just be a little more work. You might be [cardandathumbprint] in person, but in the computer you're still going to be card #555-55-5555).

If consumers started storming equifax and all these other credit companies' offices with pitchforks and torches for giving away their credit over such a lousy identifier, it'd get fixed. They would figure out a real way to identify the people. As it is, nobody even thinks "gee why did TransUnion tell MegaCorp that Mr. 555-55-5555 can handle taking a out a $422523523 loan without even making sure they were talking about the right person?"

Hell, if the debt laws would be fixed so that companies who fucked up and issued credit cards or loans to the wrong people were saddled with the bad debt writeoffs instead of being allowed to send collectors after the real person, they'd be the first in line to kick down doors and get this shit fixed.