Slashdot Mirror


Sony: 10 Million Credit Cards May Have Been Exposed

WrongSizeGlass writes "The LA Times is reporting that Sony has revealed that 10 million credit card accounts may have been exposed two weeks ago when a hacker broke into the company's computers in San Diego and stole data from 77 million PlayStation Network accounts. Sony said it will provide credit card protection services for the 10 million customers whose data were compromised. Sony last week said it had encrypted credit card data, but not other account information, including names, addresses, email addresses and birth dates."

17 of 251 comments (clear)

  1. Fundementally broken system by Anrego · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know this is beating a dead horse... but the core problem here isn't Sony's epic failure... it's that the credit system is so broken that this information that was stolen is enough to seriously fuck with someones life.

    I'm not trying to downplay Sony's screw up. I have a PSN account and as such am suitably nervous. This whole thing just reminds me of how messed up our system is.

    1. Re:Fundementally broken system by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Two big changes that would help:

      1. Make companies legally liable for data losses that are worsened by the companies own negligence. In the Sony case, they've already admitted the breach occured due to a known vulnerablity that they failed to patch. There's also been some suggestion they were storing CVV2 numbers, which they're expressly told not to do by the credit card providers.

      2. Make companies that process obviously fraudulent transcation liable for the losses instead of the card holder. E.g. if someone comes in and starts buying a ton of gift cards with an out of state credit card, and you don't do anything to verify their identity.

    2. Re:Fundementally broken system by jamesh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Credit Card system could be done a lot better. Sony shouldn't need your CC number, all they should need is a magic number that authorizes Sony to transfer funds from your account to theirs. I think that what should happen is something like this:

      . I go to Sony's website and sign up for a PSN account
      . Sony give me their billing number and ask for an authorization number
      . I go to the bank, log in to my account, and request an authorization number against Sony's billing number, for a maximum amount (eg $50/month)
      . I go back to Sony's web page and enter in the authorization number and maybe some other identifying details (eg my banks number)

      Sony now has a number that is _only_ good for transferring funds from my account to theirs. If someone obtained that number then the worst they could do with it is transfer up to my limit of $50/month to Sony.

      It's not bulletproof but at least Sony don't have my CC number to share with the rest of the world.

  2. Still won't stop people by skyphyr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It took years after the rootkit fiasco before I decided to extend some trust to Sony and spend money on their products. Then came the removal of otheros, and I ceased spending any money with them. Then their bully tactics when the console got hacked, and I was glad I'd not spent any further money with them. Now, I find even after not doing any business with them for such a period I'm still not free of their incompetence and poor management. What will happen to Sony as a result of this? Nothing. All the muppets out there will continue to do business with this incompetent, morally bankrupt, behemoth. Will I be dumb enough to become one of those muppets again? I hope not.

  3. Ok by drolli · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why does everybody collect and store all these data centrally?

    Just store it locally, on the playstation, electronically signed and encrypted in a way that the customer has to enter a passphrase to decrypt it when its really needed. make the "it is needed" message also necessarily signed by an independent system with no other function. Let this system do a statistic. trigger an alarm if the number of signatures per minute is deviating significantly from the expected number.

    1. Re:Ok by Jaime2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why does everybody collect and store all these data centrally?

      For recurring payments. With your scheme, every user would have to enter their password every month. The biggest problem for Sony would be that everyone would be making the decision to continue paying for the service every single month. If the number is on file, then the customer has to go out of his way to cancel, but has to do nothing to stay a customer.

    2. Re:Ok by notjustchalk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why does everybody collect and store all these data centrally?

      Because "paying for stuff" isn't the only reason Sony collects your data. There's also advertising (especially targeted/predictive), data mining, data sharing (both internally and externally), tracking/trending, etc. I think that data is a lot more valuable sitting on their servers than it is hidden in your console - hence, whatever the cost, it will remain there. That really goes for any internet aware service, not just Sony/PSN.

    3. Re:Ok by Jaime2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course you wouldn't. But the marketing department would never allow a system where you can passively unsubscribe.

  4. not just theory by e3m4n · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I just got up to speed on the whole PSN thing. I never once received an email from sony explaining the problems and I was too busy last week to spend an abundant amount of time on /. reading about the security breach. I just got a call today from fraud protection on my debit card tied to my main bank account. They got triggered to suspicious activity when multiple charges showed up in two different states at the same time. Someone had gone to 2 Home depots in FL and ran $100 gift cards 6 times in 2hrs today. This also happens to be the same card I had used to make a purchase from the PSN network a month ago for the DLC of fallout new vegas. To me this seems a little too coincidental to be the victim of some completely different fraud in the middle of this big stink with the 77 million accounts compromised from the PSN.

  5. Re:But the big question is... by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They previously announced that no credit card numbers were compromised. Can we get some outside verification on this because they obviously have no issue with lying to us.

  6. No it isn't.. by Junta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    An alternative is easy in concept, but the satus quo has the industry in a strangle hold. It's not like even a large consumer group acting together could *change* things from 'outside'

    We are talking about 16 'secret' numbers that allow whoever figures them out to charge however much they want against your account. Occasionally an additional view on the back are needed for some retailers, but at the end of the day to even buy $5 of something with your card you must trust the seller to not do bad things with your account *and* keep it safe from others. This might have been about the best you could do when the seller was doing a carbon copy and would phone in the slips at the end of the day, but now everyone *immediately* contacts a server for validation and nearly every person with a card also has a pocket sized computer device capable of independently talking to bank servers. It's completely reasonable to have point-of-sale equipment that pairs with a phone and have the phone connect directly to bank servers to *specifically* authorize a transaction amount and have the PoS verify that data as well without such a silly use of an account number and just exchangine public keys and per-transaction authorization data.

    The common defense is "oh, well, most card companies don't hold the customer liable for everything", ignoring:
    -Some companies will hold the cardholder liable for some of it
    -Sometimes they may argue that the cardholder didn't act promptly or other circumstance
    -Even when everything works as 'promised', there is a cost incurred *somewhere* and that impacts you, either in higher interest rates on credit, lower interest rates on checking, and/or merchant prices due to processing fees. I'm about convinced this last one is the biggest motivation not to change, they play funny games with margin and can blame identity theft.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    1. Re:No it isn't.. by MoonBuggy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's completely reasonable to have point-of-sale equipment that pairs with a phone and have the phone connect directly to bank servers to *specifically* authorize a transaction amount and have the PoS verify that data as well without such a silly use of an account number and just exchangine public keys and per-transaction authorization data.

      How should one generate an authorisation, though? Requiring a PIN is a good start, but since it's been introduced in the UK the banks have been using it to blame any and all fraud on the customer, because "the terminals can't be hacked" (demonstrably untrue, as I'm sure you guessed). Perhaps more importantly, many things that can be implemented on the terminals (such as a PIN requirement) are inappropriate for online use, meaning that when someone gets hold of your wallet (or your data from Sony's servers) they just run it through an offshore online casino.

      It's a genuinely difficult problem, largely because cards need to be fast to be usable. When I do direct bank-to-bank transfers, the bank provides a randomly generated numerical key on the screen, and an automated system calls my phone (within about a minute) and asks me to input the key before the transaction is authorised; it then auto-allows subsequent transfers to that account, but sends me a text message whenever they take place. It's a good system, but I certainly wouldn't like to be stuck in line with everyone going through that process to get their lunch. Maybe require a PIN for in-person transactions, and phone authorisation for online. I guess auto-allowing transactions only below a certain threshold could work, too, but then they already have systems to block 'suspicious' transactions... I don't know. Like I said, it's a tough one.

  7. Re:Say it aint so! by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What I recall hearing them say was that they couldn't rule out the possibility that they had been exposed, but that they couldn't at that time confirm that it had happened either. I know we all like trolling Sony because they deserve it, but at least pick one of the many valid reasons for doing so, rather than making up one that doesn't exist.

  8. Re:Say it aint so! by ect5150 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A month of PSN Plus? All they have to do is take the deals of the month away to make that deal worthless.

    It's a good thing I already changed my credit card number and all of my passwords, just in case.

    By the way, I just happened to use the same login and password on the PSN as I did for my GMail account. Gmail informed me the other day that someone had accessed the account from an IP in China. That when I started changing EVERYTHING and started watching my accounts like a hawk.

    --
    I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.
  9. New Information Revealed by rudy_wayne · · Score: 5, Funny

    It has been revealed that the whole problem began when a PSN admin inserted a Sony music CD. The installed rootkit then allowed hackers to access the network.

  10. beating wrong horse by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What would fix this is to have credit cards generate a contract not tap an open vein. that is, the credit card is used to authorize a one time transaction (after which the credit card number itself can be discarded for the transaction ID). For recurring charges the transaction authorized should only enable payments to sony, for goods provided to a specific address or online account, and include a cap. that is non-transferable transactions are the thing we should keep on record.

    There needs to be a mechanism for generating these transaction IDs.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  11. they never said no CC#s were compromised by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sony never said no credit card numbers were compromised, they said that credit card numbers were in a separate encrypted database and probably were not accessed. But they can't be sure.

    And they are saying the exact same thing now.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95