Slashdot Mirror


IRS Freely Gives Out Employee User Name/Password Info

An anonymous reader writes "The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration reports that its inspectors were able to get IRS employees to improperly disclose their user names and passwords over 61% of the time. 60,000 of the IRS's 100,000 employees and contractors thus are susceptible to computer hackers, putting personal taxpayer information at risk for unauthorized disclosure, theft and fraud. 'Only eight of the 102 employees contacted either the inspector general's office or IRS security offices to validate the legitimacy of the caller ... The IRS agreed with recommendations from the inspector general that it should take steps to make employees more aware of hacker tactics such as posing as an internal employee and to remind people to report such incidents to security officials.'"

28 of 146 comments (clear)

  1. Misleading title... by Tokimasa · · Score: 5, Informative

    No taxpayer information was given out...just the IRS employee's user name and password for the internal IRS system (through which someone could potentially gain access to taxpayer information).

    --
    --Thomas J. Owens
    1. Re:Misleading title... by Mistlefoot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Which means a lot. As someone who works for a company where log-ins are important I see huge issues with this. Any disgruntled employee who knows the password information of someone else can freely do incredible damage. While changes to any account (in our system) are trackable - those tracks lead to the person who logged in and made the changes.

      What's to stop one of those 100,000 employees from doing something to their hated neighbour, mechanic, or whomever; while logged in as someone who gave out their password?

    2. Re:Misleading title... by Urza9814 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ok, so I'm replying to this guy twice, but I just noticed he has a +5 informative rating on this post, which is completely ridiculous.
      I should go post on the 'The Study of Physical Hacks at DefCon' saying the title is misleading because it implies that the hacks are taking place on a computer. Except...no, that would actually make some sense, since that's a common usage of hack. People would actually understand where I'm coming from on that one. The above statement is mind-blowing in the sense that it is completely impossible to figure out what the hell they were thinking. I mean really. Holy hell. I've seen more coherent, appropriate, understandable thoughts posted by bots that just throw down random words.

      The noun is 'IRS'
      The verb phrase is 'freely gives out'
      The direct object is 'Employee User Name/Password Info'
      'Employee' is an adjective modifying 'User Name/Password Info'
      'User Name/Password' is also an adjective modifying 'Info'
      I'm not sure how correct any of that is, considering I am HORRIBLE at grammar stuff. But the point is, NOWHERE in the title does it mention taxpayers. Nor are they mentioned in the summary. How the hell you are getting anything at all related to taxpayers completely boggles the mind. You must have SERIOUSLY misread that, and rushed to get first post. I can't see any other explanation.

  2. The Human Hack by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I worked in the physical security industry for a while... designing and installing card-swipe style security systems for buildings etc. What we found with some of our research was that no matter what your physical security set up, the major holes in the operating security system were due to people. Security staff would buzz people through with no card. Tailgaters would get through on someone elses card. People would pass back their card for someone else to get in.

    The greatest security measure of all time was probably the Great Wall of China. That got breached by bribing a gate guard (OK, bribing him with his life...).

    With all the fancy immobilisers etc, many cars still get ripped off because people leave their doors open or their keys in the lock.

    Security in computing etc only changes where the action happens. People still fundamentally operate the same way.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:The Human Hack by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 2, Funny

      Mods.. wake up and take your meds!
      They have taken their "meds". That's why they are modding like this :-p
  3. 60% "susceptible to computer hackers" by multisync · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not to mention CEOs.

    --
    I don't care why you're posting AC
  4. Holy $h!t!!! by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The IRS has 100,000 employees! What a drag on the economomy! Imagine if each one costs $5-10K an average per month in salary, health care, space, pension -- what that all adds up to.

    Ron Paul is right, get rid of that juggernaut.

    1. Re:Holy $h!t!!! by Invidious · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Average employee costing $5-10K a month? LOL! The largest portion of IRS employees are GS 3-6, making, at the top end of that scale, about $17/hr (and that's if you're in NY or somewhere else that qualifies for the largest locality pay increases.) Tack on witholding (which just goes back to the IRS, at least temporarily, and you can bet your ass they're getting interest on that) and deductions for health care, SSA, TSP investment and such, and the average employee is taking home 2K/month. If they've got health insurance -- and a lot of the employees don't, particularly among the part-timers, temp, and term employees -- that's maybe an extra $300-500 in premiums covered by the gov't.

    2. Re:Holy $h!t!!! by rolfwind · · Score: 2, Informative

      However, future entitlements have to be factored in, pensions which I think you are underestimating, and space. People don't work in the outdoors. They were in buildings that have to built and paid for, with airconditioning and maintenance, and do they use computers? A car?

      I looked up the budget for the IRS in 2008, a little more than $11B. Divided by 100K employees, that is $9167 per employee per month to operate - so I guess I am correct.

    3. Re:Holy $h!t!!! by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And the GNP is $40T. Really, who cares about a cost of collections of .025%?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    4. Re:Holy $h!t!!! by QuantumRiff · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hate to hop into this argument, but wouldn't the cost of collections be taken from the $3T they actually collect? So its more like .3%.. Still a small amount, but still several times higher.. GNP is a big number people like to use to make other things seem soo much smaller and insignificant..

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    5. Re:Holy $h!t!!! by jcr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The cost of IRS employees is noise. The real drag on the economy is excessive government spending, but even without getting a lid on the congress's profligate ways, there's a better way to collect the money, while doing far less damage. See here.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    6. Re:Holy $h!t!!! by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 3, Funny

      You misspelled "worse way", "more damage", and "I don't know anything about economics".

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    7. Re:Holy $h!t!!! by AaronLawrence · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Salary/wages are usually less than 50% of the total cost of an employee. The cost of the office rent, power, PCs, desks, support systems, infrastructure, and all the people who maintain those things is at least as much as their salary. So your figure of 2k probably comes out to 5k in total costs.

      --
      For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
  5. It took this long for this to hit /.? by Invidious · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually, I work for the IRS, so let me set the record straight. I've seen the original paper, which was published months ago: the users involved didn't give out their passwords, they changed them to one requested by the "tech support" person (and these calls came in to extensions which the public doesn't really have access to, for the most part.) Still highly stupid, but most of the people at the IRS don't know much about computers, and while they've generally got "don't give out your password" down, they didn't seem to equate this to "if you change your password to something someone suggests, that's the same thing."

    Also, this is mostly an internal threat; without access to the IRS intranet, I'd say that 99% of those compromised accounts would be useless to someone outside the IRS.

    But, whatever. This is what happens when you have what amounts to a major data center staffed primarily by people who're just barely computer literate. AFAIK, memos about the problem have gone out to ~everyone and meetings have been held at the lowest levels to inform the staff that doing this is Bad.

    What's really fucked up is that several of the employees that fell for this were at the highest GS levels. I can understand how the problem would be prevalent among the lower-level off-the-street employees, but you'd think that someone who was getting paid $100K+ a year would have a clue about data security.

  6. People might misunderstand you by rolfwind · · Score: 3, Funny

    when you start speaking with a Lisp.

  7. they should be sacked... by advocate_one · · Score: 2, Interesting

    then the rest might just start taking things seriously...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  8. Stupid? by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, he did his undergrad at Yale and has a Harvard MBA. He flew fighter jets (F-102s) in the national guard.

    Can you fly a fighter jet? I can't.

    You would have an easy time convincing me that several negative adjectives describe President Bush. However, you will have difficulty convincing me that the man is stupid.

    --
    They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    1. Re:Stupid? by iminplaya · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Can you fly a fighter jet? I can't.

      He couldn't either before he was trained to. Could you learn to fly a fighter jet? Probably.

      As far as his school is concerned, that's just rinding daddy's coattails. And his business deals with Enron and the Rangers shows just the kind of education he received. It's too bad he's not stupid. That would be his only saving grace.

      --
      What?
    2. Re:Stupid? by localman · · Score: 2, Informative

      You think flying a jet makes you "smart"? Sure... smarter than your average bear, but we're talking about the president of the US here. I don't think being a fighter pilot indicates that you have the strategic thinking abilities and grasp of subtlety needed to lead the country.

      I've worked with a number of Harvard folks, MBAs and more. Yeah, they're smart, but they can be stupid in many situations, like anyone. I doubt any one of them would be a particularly smart president. And neither is Bush. He's blown it. Even by his own standards. He's a lousy leader and he is, in this role... stupid.

      Have our standards really fallen so low? Sigh.

    3. Re:Stupid? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Can you fly a fighter jet? I can't.

      I probably can. This means that I could probably get in one, take off, fly in a big circle and possibly land without killing myself (landing's the hard part). If I was rated on a medium sized prop plane, I'd upgrade that to 'definitely'. Still doesn't tell you if I'm at all smart.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  9. People need to grow some balls by HalAtWork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People need to grow some balls when it comes to these situations. They're afraid of offending the person on the other end, they think they're suggesting that they're liars or frauds. Really, it's just a precaution for your own ass (you'll get fired) and your business (their normal operations can't be disrupted by random people).

    Then again, administrators, executives, etc need to be more patient and understanding when what they say is challenged. They can't get an attitude or it will cause people to react by defending their character; i.e. if a less confident individual is accused of incompetence, audacity, or whatever for challenging another, then they will be more likely to feel that it is audacious or incompetent to verify a workplace activity.

    Using social engineering to get people to give up their passwords? People were already socially engineered to be susceptible, and afraid. Places of businesses need to have employees treat each other with respect and make it clear to the employees that they have a right to challenge the legitimacy of any workplace situation.

  10. There are bigger risks for the IRS by Alain+Williams · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yes: people should know better; training should be better. However with 100,000 employees there will be many who can be 'bought', they may have finance problems (drugs, gambling, divorce, ...). For a bit of cash you could get the info that you want without having to get access to internal systems and know any passwords.

  11. Social Engineering by nurb432 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is always the most effective way into a 'system'.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  12. To be fair to the employees... by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 5, Funny

    Caller: Give me your username and password.
    IRS Employee: What?! Are you insane?!?! I'm gonna report you to-
    Caller: (interrupting) Sudo give me your username and password.
    IRS Employee: Okay, it's...(gives info)
    Caller: Thank you very much. Sudo not report this interaction.

    --
    Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    1. Re:To be fair to the employees... by Khashishi · · Score: 2, Funny
  13. Re:Now with added credit to... by IAmGarethAdams · · Score: 2, Funny

    Bah, that'll teach me for queueing up several stories to read at once.

    Sudo forget I ever posted this...

  14. Some balls ... a little story by pbhj · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I part-own a ceramic cafe. A sales person visited to encourage us to switch to accepting Amex (IIRC). After all the blah-blah I said "sounds fine", he says give us your bank details (on the form for Amex).

    So, I wanted to get some verification of his ID. He shows me a photo card, OK. Can I ring your boss? He didn't have a number I could call (eg on the Amex literature) only some number on his business card (I spoke to the guy on the other end, but all this shows is he knows someone with a phone!). Even if I could have had that number on the literature how would that verify him, me thinks, easily faked.

    It turns out he was genuine (or an Amex insider!) - I eventually managed to chase him through the Amex phone system. But without some means to check his ID the transaction never happened.

    The thing is this. Clearly no-one else ever bothered to ask for (proper) identification - there was no system in place. And this for a major financial institution that relies on proper ID.