Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Citibank Denies Reported Breach Linked To Russian Gang

Posted by kdawson on from the no-russians-in-here-no-siree dept.

alphadogg writes "US authorities are investigating the theft of an estimated tens of millions of dollars from Citibank by criminals using Russian software tailored for the attack, according to the Wall Street Journal (subscription required to access that link — CNET's coverage here). The security breach at the major US bank was detected mid-year based on traffic from Internet addresses formerly used by the Russian Business Network gang, the WSJ reported today, citing unnamed government sources. The Russian Business Network is a well-known group linked to malicious software, hacking, child pornography, and spam. The FBI is probing the case, the report said. It was not known whether the money had been recovered and a Citibank representative said the company denied any system breach or losses, according to the report."

10 of 53 comments (clear)

  1. WSJ article was misleading by plover · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The reporter was trying to link a bunch of separate things together.

    1. Black Energy conducted a DDoS against Citibank, but did not steal tens of millions of dollars from them.

    2. Last year, Citi lost tens of millions of dollars from skimmers attached to ATMs.

    3. The hacker Cr4sh is the author of Black Energy, but there is no evidence he was involved in the attack on Citi.

    There is nothing relating these three incidents other than the wishes of an aggressive reporter wanting to build some kind of story against City; *perhaps* he's trying to pump up a case to make it appear they are risking bailout money. But at least when I type this kind of crap I'm labeling it for what it is: PURE SPECULATION.

    --
    John
    1. Re:WSJ article was misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The thing the banks really don't talk about is that losses from in-house embezzlers far exceed losses form outside agents. And of course we won't speak of the enormous losses caused by management greed and stupidity.

    2. Re:WSJ article was misleading by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      2. Last year, Citi lost tens of millions of dollars from skimmers attached to ATMs.

      2. Last year, Citi customers lost tens of millions of dollars from skimmers attached to ATMs.

      (emphasis mine)
      Not individually, but as a group customers always pay the bill for incompetent management / inadequate security.

    3. Re:WSJ article was misleading by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How exactly would it recoup it's losses from customers? By lowering it's interest rates? If it could increase profits by doing that they would already have done so.

      Directly only the investors lose out.

    4. Re:WSJ article was misleading by plover · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The thing the banks really don't talk about is that losses from in-house embezzlers far exceed losses form outside agents.

      Really? Have you recent facts to back that claim up? It may have been true in the 1950s, but is it still true in today's world, where a hacker can gain essentially "insider" authority?

      And of course we won't speak of the enormous losses caused by management greed and stupidity.

      There's an assertion I don't have to ask you to back up, as it's been pretty well covered in the press. But there's a lot of greed and stupidity going around, and some of it comes from the shareholders, Congress, lawyers, etc. It's not just limited to management.

      --
      John
    5. Re:WSJ article was misleading by FooAtWFU · · Score: 2, Insightful
      For the bigwigs: Why embezzle when you can go legit and get the board to pay you snazzy seven-figure bonuses for your continued, valuable contributions to the company's bottom line? I don't think taking that sort of a gamble is consistent with your probable risk profile. Maybe if you're Bernie Maddoff and your firm has lost a ton of money and are too attached to your career and terrified of professional embarrassment or something, but even that's more outright fraud than embezzlement.

      For the medium-wigs: Just how much do you think you could get away with embezzling? You probably don't have *that* great of access to funds. And do you really think the bigwigs don't have people watching you pretty carefully when you're trying to make off with company money?

      For the not-so-big-wigs: Do you even have access to embezzling money?

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  2. Cash loss is better than trust lost by assemblerex · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Cash is replenishable, trust is not as it has to be earned.

  3. Re:Citibank != Russian Gang ? by _merlin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Speak with awesome hardarse Russian gangster accents ... fail

  4. Denial seems to be in this year by HangingChad · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Citibank representative said the company denied any system breach or losses, according to the report.

    My web host provider *cough*inmotion*cough* got hacked a couple months ago and they denied it across the board, tried to turn it back on the users by claiming all the accesses were routine FTP connections.

    Makes me wonder if denial is the new trend?

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  5. Re:Can the FBI/CIA actually do anything about it? by witherstaff · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Since when has congress cared about that old thing called the constitution? It sure hasn't stopped them with health care "reform".