Slashdot Mirror
Over 1M BeautifulPeople Dating Site User Details Leak Online (thenextweb.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Personal information of over one million users stored by popular dating site BeautifulPeople has leaked, and is now accessible online. We already knew that BeautifulPixel.com was hacked (it happened in November 2015), but this is the first confirmation from a security researcher that the details are legitimate. (BeautifulPeople had downplayed it at the time, saying that it was a staging server, and not a production server, that was hacked.) Security researcher Troy Hunt, citing a source, noted that the data has been sold online. The leaked personal information include email addresses, phone numbers, as well as hair color, weight, job and other details.Troy also noted that of the 1.1 million users details,170 of them have government email addresses. Some of you may remember BeautifulPixel as the creator the "Shrek" virus.
Ever been to the DMV lately? I'm not surprised there's only 170 total beautiful people in all of government.
On 1MM addresses, I am amazed that ONLY 170 are gov addresses, but that is not it was worded. Some people just smart enough to not enter their own email address for reason (perhaps they do not have a PC or no Internet at home), but are not smart enough or do not make their Gmail or Hotmail address.
So unless it is some seriously high member of Gov, this is absolute irrelevant information and to me that means that the rest is likely also irrelevant information.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
"a site dedicated to letting people see if they’re details are available online,"
I don't respond to AC's.
finally a data breach I don't need to be concerned I am included in.
Why isn't there condemnation on Slashdot for the hackers doing this?
As of the time you posted your comment (15 minutes after the story went live), there was no one on Slashdot saying the victims deserved to be punished. There was one post asking how they determined if someone was attractive enough, which is just an inquiry not a condemnation. Did you post this just assuming there would be a lot of victim shaming in the next few hours?
I for one agree there is nothing wrong with this site. I doubt I would make the cut, but what's wrong with that? When I was on Match.com (where I met my wife) I passed over many people I was not attracted to and I assume many women did the same to me. Sites that cater to a certain group, whether it be religious affinity, wealth, attractiveness, etc. don't strike me as more demeaning than the standard rituals of dating already are. They just make it more efficient.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Beautiful people, ugly passwords.
640k ought to be enough for anyone.
I was a victim of a hack last year and it was very annoying. Who did I blame? That's right, the company whose woeful security allowed the data to be stolen.
Sure, the hackers are a pain in the arse, but the fact that my data was accessed from something as basic as an SQL injection makes my blood boil.
It's been shown in the past that a large number of "members" of these sites, often the majority, are fake, either created by the site itself for marketing purposes (fraud), or "professionals" i.e. hookers.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Why isn't there condemnation on Slashdot for the hackers doing this? Through no real fault of their own, people have to assume that sites they share information with are secure. If you're posting here, you do it, too. You're trusting Slashdot to not compromise your personal information. These 1+ million people haven't done anything wrong, yet their personal information has been exposed by hackers. Ethics are an important part of technology and that means not using your skills to harm other people. We wouldn't look favorably upon locksmiths using their skills to also be burglars. Why, then, isn't there widespread condemnation of hackers like this on Slashdot? Why is it okay for the people whose information has been exposed to be collateral damage to prove that a site isn't secure?
Because we are all too ugly to join and are all therefore far too busy revelling in schadenfreude to care about the personal details of a bunch of egotistical snobs who measure human worth in how closely a person conforms to the bodily fashion ideals of the moment being leaked onto the internet. Anybody who responded to the Shrek virus gimmick and joined that site quite frankly has it coming.
People have to assume that sites they share information with are secure.
No we dont.
You're trusting Slashdot to not compromise your personal information.
Hahahaha no. There is not a bit of my personal information in my slashdot account that I am not explicitly making public.
Why is it okay for the people whose information has been exposed to be collateral damage to prove that a site isn't secure?
Who says it is ok? A bunch of people going "shame on you!" isn't going to make hacks happen less often. What we need to do is hold companies that let private data go public to the fire.
Yes, there were a bunch of hypocrites cheering at the Ashley Madison breach, and maybe people jealous of users of this site? But these are not people that care about information security, they are just for any security breach that helps their agenda.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
... were they really beautiful people or is this just another dating site that engages in false advertising?
In this case a leak of the images and of the votes each person gave on potential new users would be far more interesting than just a users table dump. It could make for an interesting computer vision project identifying attractiveness. Or a project showing how a user's ethnicity affects his/her rating of people of different ethnicities. Plenty of non-PC research topics to go around.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
I assume that some of the sites I share information with are secure.
I don't care if Wikileaks publicizes all the information on my Slashdot and Facebook accounts, and goes through several other data sources. I assume that Facebook, in particular, is completely insecure, so nothing I don't want on the front page of tomorrow's New York Times goes on it.
However, I have accounts that I really don't want public. I don't want anyone getting into my bank accounts and doing anything with my money (I actually don't care if they know what I spend money on). I use my account on my health care provider's site fairly frequently, and although there's stuff I don't care if anyone knows (I'm going in for a sleep study looking for apnea on Wednesday, for example) there's stuff I really don't want to discuss in public (examples withheld).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Thank goodness all of us here at Slashdot are in the clear.
Sorry....but you know someone had to make the joke.
Well that could also exclude muscular people.
Also Fat people in the right spots can be attractive too.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
So, personal details are released. No mention of actual photos.... inquiring minds want to know what members actually consider to be a beautiful person
There's no end to your talent, is there?
Which would be great if there was a beginning.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."