Slashdot Mirror


Equifax Breach is Very Possibly the Worst Leak of Personal Info Ever (arstechnica.com)

The breach Equifax reported Thursday is very possibly is the most severe of all for a simple reason: the breath-taking amount of highly sensitive data it handed over to criminals. Dan Goodin of ArsTechnica writes: By providing full names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and, in some cases, driver license numbers, it provided most of the information banks, insurance companies, and other businesses use to confirm consumers are who they claim to be. The theft, by criminals who exploited a security flaw on the Equifax website, opens the troubling prospect the data is now in the hands of hostile governments, criminal gangs, or both and will remain so indefinitely. Hacks hitting Yahoo and other sites, by contrast, may have breached more accounts, but the severity of the personal data was generally more limited. And in most cases the damage could be contained by changing a password or getting a new credit card number. What's more, the 143 million US people Equifax said were potentially affected accounts for roughly 44 percent of the population. When children and people without credit histories are removed, the proportion becomes even bigger. That means well more than half of all US residents who rely the most on bank loans and credit cards are now at a significantly higher risk of fraud and will remain so for years to come. Besides being used to take out loans in other people's names, the data could be abused by hostile governments to, say, tease out new information about people with security clearances, especially in light of the 2015 hack on the US Office of Personnel Management, which exposed highly sensitive data on 3.2 million federal employees, both current and retired. Meanwhile, if you accept Equifax's paltry "help" you forfeit the right to sue the company, it has said. In its policy, Equifax also states that it won't be helping its customers fix hack-related problems.

UPDATE (9/9/17): Equifax has now announced that "the arbitration clause and class action waiver included in the Equifax and TrustedID Premier terms of use does not apply to this cybersecurity incident."

Bloomberg reported on Friday that a class action seeking to represent 143 million consumers has been filed, and it alleges the company didn't spend enough on protecting data. The class-action -- filed by the firm Olsen Daines PC along with Geragos & Geragos, a celebrity law firm known for blockbuster class actions -- will seek as much as $70 billion in damages nationally.

243 of 401 comments (clear)

  1. Too late for me by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

    I was already affected by the US Office of Personnel Management hack, because I needed clearances to get my $55k job doing government IT support in Silicon Valley. It was a small price to pay.

    1. Re:Too late for me by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      Yea. That one was worse because the potential to have finger print data as well.

    2. Re: Too late for me by Cryophallion · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Frankly, too late for most of us.
      However, the article kind of hints at the problem: these companies all revert to this as identification. And often, the same stupid security questions (seriously, you think someone couldn't figure out my mother's maiden name from a basic search of several sites? Or use most people's Facebook to figure out where they were born or the name of their high school?)

      While the proliferation of security bugs is worrisome, with it seems like a new security failure every couple months (this is why robots are not likely to take over the world anytime soon), companies going with the easy solution of last 4 digits of ss is just asking for problems. It is, simply put, not a safe security identifier anymore and should never have been used as one in the first place.
      I don't know the right answer, but doubling down on what's easy for your phone techs to work with isn't it.
      It's gotten to the point where these breaches are passe. And that's sad. I would be more shocked if an email I regularly use wasn't on haveibeenpwned yet. It feels like they think free monitoring is this panacea that will fix it. But that is only glossing over the fact that it seems everyone is in so much of a rush to do deep data and get more info that they don't take basic security into account. That, or that people will do what is easiest and cheapest, not the safest. And this seems to be our new reality. Sadly I don't expect this to change. Privacy is, basically, dead unless you work full time on hiding yourself, and as everything is available somewhere. And... No one seems to really care, and most Governments say it's still not enough.

    3. Re: Too late for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't know the right answer, but doubling down on what's easy for your phone techs to work with isn't it.

      Why not? Doing what's easy is cheaper, and so far, I have read of little if any tangible negative blowback to any of the companies who have been breached. From a business standpoint, the only answer is to double down.

      The market will never correct for this, for the very reasons stated above. And, since regulation has become a dirty word, this will simply continue.

    4. Re:Too late for me by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      I was already affected by the US Office of Personnel Management hack, because I needed clearances to get my $55k job doing government IT support in Silicon Valley.

      Ouch...man, you need to renegotiate....someone is getting WAAAAAY too much of your bill rate for federal IT work with a clearance.

      You should be pulling in 6 figures for that.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    5. Re:Too late for me by merky1 · · Score: 2

      But russia hacked the DNC, so impeach Trump!!!!

      Seriously, the reaction to these "hacks" is so imbalanced. The OPM hack, while not as large as Equifax, included much more detailed information on subjects. I consider at this point that the information that Equifax has on me is "public." Considering all of the letters I have gotten from the VA, OPM, Target, Home Depot, etc...

      --
      --WooooHoooo--
    6. Re:Too late for me by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      But russia hacked the DNC, so impeach Trump!!!!

      Get over yourself. Trump would need to have some complicity with Russia's activity in the election for it to be an impeachment issue. And that's what Robert Mueller is investigating. Let him finish his work. Then it's up to Congress to decide on impeachment.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    7. Re: Too late for me by skids · · Score: 1

      Why bother with the question then, instead of just "what is your backup passphrase"? The answer is because by and large people take the easy way out on that and elect to have a hint to jog their memory. With so many companies all using the same questions, this ends up becoming a viable attack vector.

      Those that allow custom questions are doing a better job: if you can give yourself a different hint, not only does that help you use a more diverse range of answers, it also tells you whether the person challenging you already has access to data from a specific source, assuming you only use each question once.

    8. Re: Too late for me by dougdonovan · · Score: 1

      possibly is an understatement.

    9. Re:Too late for me by ctilsie242 · · Score: 1

      I'd be looking to bounce ASAP. If you have a clearance, you should be easily making twice that, especially in SV, with costs of living so high.

    10. Re:Too late for me by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

      The OPM hack also exposed some security clearance applications; home address, previous home address, PREVIOUS2 home addresses, references, friends, job histories.

    11. Re: Too late for me by kenwd0elq · · Score: 1

      There Oughta Be A Law banning every web site EXCEPT genealogical sites from using stupid security questions about your ancestry.

    12. Re: Too late for me by computererds · · Score: 1

      I can't think of many blackmail scenarios from credit history.

      What they do now have is a list of potential targets. Having a list of all the people in tough financial shape that have access to the information you want could be an intelligence boon.

      OPM and the FBI should be reviewing everyone with a clearance to be sure we haven't started having any financial difficulties since the last check.

  2. That's it. I'm done with Equifax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh wait.

    1. Re: That's it. I'm done with Equifax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe these types of incidents can break down reliance and acceptance of these credit agencies that have established themselves as critical and non-optional services that heavily effect major life events (e.g., home purchaes).

      They make money from using our information, provide little benefit to us, and hold almost no accountability when they're wrong but can and often do horribly effect consumers lives based on data they provide--even when it's inaccurate.

  3. Give it time. by penandpaper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Equifax Breach is Very Possibly the Worst Leak of Personal Info Ever so far.

    1. Re:Give it time. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      .. that we know of.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:Give it time. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Equifax Breach is Very Possibly the Worst Leak of Personal Info Ever so far.

      It will be very hard to top this. In this case we have half of a population with personal info detailed enough to effectively steal identity in multiple ways, of a group of people who have no business with the company, and who may not know that their personal information is part of it. That is the real problem here. The sheer size and almost covert scope given that none of these people are customers of Equifax and I'm sure nearly all people have no idea who this company even is.

      About the only thing that could top this is major breach of a government site like the IRS, and even then the possibilities of achieving such scope limit you to the government departments of only a few companies.

    3. Re:Give it time. by sxpert · · Score: 1

      experian gets hacked and the entire database dumped on pastebin ?

    4. Re:Give it time. by Zorro · · Score: 1

      That we KNOW!

      What else has happened we DON'T know about?

    5. Re:Give it time. by chispito · · Score: 1

      Equifax Breach is Very Possibly the Worst Leak of Personal Info Ever so far.

      I've spotted the time traveler.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    6. Re:Give it time. by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 1

      It will be very hard to top this.

      Challenge accepted!

    7. Re:Give it time. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Equifax Breach is Very Possibly the Worst Leak of Personal Info Ever so far.

      Equifax Breach is Very Possibly the Worst Leak of Personal Info Ever so far that we've been told of.

      FTFY^2

      Eh, I don't know, it can't get much worse than this, at least not in the US. The bigger the leak, the harder it will be to keep secret.

  4. Send 'em to jail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The equifax executives apparently sold stock immediately after learning of the breach. Jail them all for incompetence _and_ insider trading.

    1. Re:Send 'em to jail by Jakester2K · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why? They clearly weren't incompetent at insider trading....

    2. Re:Send 'em to jail by HumanWiki · · Score: 2

      Did they sell before the news went public, or after?

      From what I read... The execs learned of the breach, sold and then it went public.. So, f'em... Toss the whole book at them.

    3. Re:Send 'em to jail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      but they're rich & well connected. we must protect them.

    4. Re:Send 'em to jail by hord · · Score: 1

      I don't believe you and would like to see actual proof. Executives are not allowed by law to sell stock unless pre-announced in an SEC filing. If what you say is true, the sale was either legal under SEC rules or a complete and obvious violation of them.

    5. Re:Send 'em to jail by syn3rg · · Score: 2

      On one hand even though "[n]one of the filings lists the transactions as being part of 10b5-1 scheduled trading plans", the three only “sold a small percentage of their Equifax shares”; they still took a bath on the remainder.

      On the other hand, because the executives involved were the CFO, president of U.S. information solutions, and president of workforce solutions, this looks suspect. You would think the president of U.S. information solutions would have been informed of the breach immediately.

      --
      The contents of this message have been doubly encrypted by ROT13
    6. Re: Send 'em to jail by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Are those police boats?

    7. Re:Send 'em to jail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      http://www.marketwatch.com/story/equifax-executives-sold-stock-after-data-breach-before-informing-public-2017-09-07

      This is what I found when I googled it, at least. Not the OP, but I was curious, too.

      Crooks will be crooks, though, and reporting agencies are pretty damn close to that definition. What did we expect?

    8. Re: Send 'em to jail by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      If they actually sold stock after the breach before it was public information, they will be guilty of insider trading, and the SEC will have a field day with them.

      Not necessarily. The trades could be the result of automatic sell orders that have been in place for years.

      No, insider trading isn't what makes them criminal. What makes them criminal is that they:

      • Created a system that gathers information about your credit habits without exercising due diligence to verify it (providing material support for identity fraudsters)
      • Sell that information with claims that it is true (libel)
      • Sell consumers a service to protect them from that false information (racketeering)

      If they happen to be guilty of yet another crime against the United States, fine, but if we're going to call them criminals, we should do so for crimes that they're definitely guilty of, rather than just for crimes that they're probably guilty of.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    9. Re:Send 'em to jail by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Only if you drop them right next to some hungry alligators. Most people will survive Irma.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    10. Re:Send 'em to jail by barc0001 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > They clearly weren't incompetent at insider trading....

      Actually they were. They got caught. They did the insider trading version of vastly upgrading your homeowner insurance policy the day before you set your house on fire to collect the insurance.

    11. Re:Send 'em to jail by anegg · · Score: 1

      I have heard that the "end run" around the insider trading rule is for the insiders to have standing orders to sell at periodic intervals, all publicly disclosed as required. Then, if the insider determines that they DON'T want to sell, they cancel the order. If something comes up that makes them want to sell, they take no action, and the sales goes through automatically.

    12. Re: Send 'em to jail by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      If they actually sold stock after the breach before it was public information, they will be guilty of insider trading, and the SEC will have a field day with them.

      Not necessarily. The trades could be the result of automatic sell orders that have been in place for years.

      From: Equifax Says Cyberattack May Have Affected 143 Million in the U.S.

      Potentially adding to criticism of the company, three senior executives, including the company’s chief financial officer, John Gamble, sold shares worth almost $1.8 million in the days after the breach was discovered. The shares were not part of a sale planned in advance, Bloomberg reported.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    13. Re: Send 'em to jail by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If they exercise some diligence in verifying the information, it's not fraud. They don't have to be good at it.

      If they have good reason to believe what they're telling people about you, it's not libel. (Not in the US, anyway, which has a very strong commitment to free speech and hence has a high bar for libel suits.)

      If they make a mistake and offer a paid service to help clean up the mess, I really doubt that's legally racketerring.

      Criminality is a matter of law, not morals. It's possible to do truly reprehensible things legally, and very praiseworthy deeds illegally.

      On the other hand, any execs who aren't selling on a fixed schedule are almost certainly guilty of insider trading, which is seriously illegal, and is criminal.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    14. Re: Send 'em to jail by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      If they exercise some diligence in verifying the information, it's not fraud. They don't have to be good at it.

      If they were actually doing due diligence and making an attempt to contact every person who asks for credit prior to saying, "Yes, you should issue credit", that would be different, but they aren't actually doing that. They're blindly repeating whatever information they are fed, treating a public identifier as a secret, and making no attempt to directly contact the supposed borrower to determine if a request for credit is legit despite having access to their current contact info. You can't get much farther from due diligence than that.

      If they have good reason to believe what they're telling people about you, it's not libel. (Not in the US, anyway, which has a very strong commitment to free speech and hence has a high bar for libel suits.)

      No, the bar for libel against public figures is high because you have to prove actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth. The legal bar for libel against private individuals is much lower. It must be false (check), it must be injurious (check), it must be sent to at least one other person (check), and it must involve negligence (check). That's it. And frankly, even for public figures, I would argue that they show a reckless disregard for the truth by authorizing people to take out credit in your name without even bothering to contact you (unless you pay them protection money).

      If they make a mistake and offer a paid service to help clean up the mess, I really doubt that's legally racketerring.

      You're focusing on the wrong thing. The root problem is not the leak (which is a mistake). The root problem is a well-established pattern of gross neglect that has been repeatedly pointed out for at least a decade, such that all you have to do to obtain credit in someone else's name is provide a token amount of information about that person, most of which is publicly available, in a fashion that is otherwise largely anonymous (e.g. by mail). The entire concept upon which the entire industry was built is fundamentally flawed.

      Worse, the only reason you are harmed significantly by people taking out false credit in your name is because these credit agencies agglomerate that data and make it available to anyone who wants it. So they're literally collecting money to prevent them from spreading libelous information about you. How is that not racketeering? It is collecting protection money in exchange for them not committing a tort (and possibly a crime) against you. I'm pretty sure that's the strict legal definition of the term.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    15. Re: Send 'em to jail by Monster_user · · Score: 1

      Only matters if we as a nation allow it to continue to matter. Equifax is not the only game in town. Just depends on how stupid we are, or how stupid our Executives are.

  5. Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by damn_registrars · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That company is rotten to the core. They have far too much power over our lives and very near zero accountability for how they handle that power. Allowing those hacks to decide how credit worthy someone is could be one of the worst ideas of the 20th century, and we have unfortunately held on to that terrible idea into the 21st century as well.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by ErichTheRed · · Score: 1

      I'm not defending them, but how else would you propose preventing someone from running up a whole ton of debt, skipping out on it, and then doing it again at another creditor? The best way is to have some sort of equal-access clearinghouse of information on consumers.

      The problem is that people are sometimes irresponsible. It's not even just regular consumers...many business owners and wealthy people just go around starting companies, load them up with debt and bankrupt them. That's allowed under the current system...after all they're just a lowly employee of that company when it went bankrupt. It would take someone like a bankruptcy judge or the IRS to make the next hop to connect the dots, but it often doesn't happen. This is why you sometimes see brand-new mansions built a year prior bank-owned or in foreclosure.

    2. Re:Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by evendiagram · · Score: 1

      Rotten and incompetent.
      The equifax main site sends users to https://www.equifaxsecurity201... which points to https://trustedidpremier.com/e... which then asks for a last name and 6 digits of a social security number.

    3. Re:Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by dargaud · · Score: 4, Informative
      I'd started to moderate this discussion but I'll lose it to answer your question:

      how else would you propose preventing someone from running up a whole ton of debt, skipping out on it, and then doing it again at another creditor?

      Like they do in every (?) other country: you go to a bank, show them your bank statements for the last few years, you tax statements, your job contracts, your current house mortgages and anything else they ask, and THEY decide on what kind of loan to give you based on that info. Oh, and yes, having a state-backed ID card helps against you running away and trying somewhere else. No centralization: too much power, too much risk and nothing to gain for the customer anyway.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    4. Re:Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by houghi · · Score: 4, Informative

      I do not understand why they even exist. In Belgium we have the National Bank that has the database of all credits. Company has to check there to even be allowed to give a credit. They also need to add the credit they open. They do not see the other companies, just the number of loans and the amounts and all the rest, so they can calculate if there is enough margin to allow a credit.
      If a person is on the black list (late payments) they will not be allowed ANY credit. If a company gives a credit where it was not allowed, the company becomes responsible and the person does not even need to pay back that loan. Yes, I have seen that happen. The company needs to take that loss. They asked nicely and they got a reply of "No" (OK, bit longer) from his lawyer and that was the end of it,
      https://www.nbb.be/en/about-na...

      It is pretty efficient and fast. You ask the customer how much he earns (pay slip and other official proof of income.), you deduct some standard cost of living for food and clothes. You deduct his other loans, if they exist. That is the amount he can spend on a new loan. Is that more than what it would be? Good, you have a loan? It isn't? No loan (or credit or what not).

      e.g. income of 1500EUR netto per month (numbers pulled from a dark place)
      Rend of 500 per month.
      Being able to live 750 per month
      Car loan of 250 per month.

      That is 1500. No loan for you.
      If he earn 1750, he could get a loan/credit where the maximum payment is 250.
      The allow/deny a loan is instantaneously. Obviously done over SSL with several layers of security and signing.
      What might take a bit of time is verification if the pay slip is real.

      Obviously, it is a bit more complicated, but this is the basics. No need to go to a third party as all. The info is already available and required by law.

      As a customer, I can ask what is there in my name and how much and what companies and what not.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    5. Re:Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Like Martin Shkreli, they're only doing what they're allowed to do.

      I hope, in my lifetime, that I see a US govt. with balls, who starts representing We The People, and our privacy becomes #1.

      I'll make out in the long run. There are several mistakes on my credit report / rating. These mistakes are made by people, who are paid and at their jobs. To fix it, well, I can't fix it. I can only take time and effort to ask them to fix it. When they ignore me, I have to spend thousands of dollars to hire lawyers, file lawsuits, etc. I can claim fraud, negligence, damage due to credit score, etc., and likely lose in court.

      With this breach we can all say the credit system is broken.

      Hopefully, maybe, now the govt. will start making privacy protection laws. And no more TOS or other "agreements" where we give up those rights.

    6. Re:Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      I hope, in my lifetime, that I see a US govt. with balls, who starts representing We The People, and our privacy becomes #1.

      I suspect that in my lifetime I may get to see a government with balls who starts representing We The People, I just think it won't be called the US government. Things can't keep going the way that they are going, something will have to give. My personal hope is for a peaceful fragmentation of the US. It will allow the liberals and conservatives to go their separate ways in peace. With a bit of luck one of the two (maybe even both) will represent We The People.

    7. Re:Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm not defending them, but how else would you propose preventing someone from running up a whole ton of debt, skipping out on it, and then doing it again at another creditor? The best way is to have some sort of equal-access clearinghouse of information on consumers.

      Only store the data for the bad ones, kind of like the public stocks of old, or a kid made to wear chewing gum on his/her nose.

      The problem is that people are sometimes irresponsible. It's not even just regular consumers...many business owners and wealthy people just go around starting companies, load them up with debt and bankrupt them. That's allowed under the current system...after all they're just a lowly employee of that company when it went bankrupt. It would take someone like a bankruptcy judge or the IRS to make the next hop to connect the dots, but it often doesn't happen. This is why you sometimes see brand-new mansions built a year prior bank-owned or in foreclosure.

      Absolutely agreed. Must have such a system.

      But, make huge penalties for stupidity and fragility which results in a breach.

      I'm stunned that this data was available through a website. Web security methods, systems, specs, are changing faster than fall fashions... which tells me it's not secure because we have not figured out how to truly make it secure.

      Before the web, which I love, this data existed and was searched, but not easily by anyone anywhere in the world. Yes, I know it's less convenient and efficient, but so are locks, keys, passcodes, guards, etc., so I say take it all offline.

      I haven't thought this through, nor will I (not my job) but maybe have a webform to request credit info, and that form goes to a human, or is emailled into another computer which does the actual database access, then emails it back to a human, or some other interstitial computer that checks who it's going to, or maybe can only be seen in person. Better security can be done. It's the typical problem of computer security- features and gadgets are first, oops, security happens later.

      A good friend of mine works in specialty manufacturing R&D, products going into medical, military, high-end stuff. They are plagued by ISO9001 tedium, audits, etc. Credit system, not at all. Oops, did we leave that door open? Sorry, we won't do it again.

      The bottom line is: much stronger personal privacy laws are needed, with significant paper trails for potential investigations.

    8. Re:Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by sxpert · · Score: 2

      and... requesting info on someone s credit rating lowers the score for the next time around... this is bullshit ! it should only be affected by signing for an actual loan, not for shopping around.

    9. Re:Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by SScorpio · · Score: 1

      The first "hard" pull will have a slight effect on a credit score. But multiple hard pulls do not have an effect greater than the single. They known people shop around for a good rate, and they don't punish people for it.

    10. Re:Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      If a person is on the black list (late payments) they will not be allowed ANY credit.

      That's a bit harsh, no? I've been late on payments once or twice and I'm not even struggling financially. It's easy to forget the due date or mixup the amount. Can't imagine how bad it would be for someone who has several credit cards.

    11. Re:Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I hope, in my lifetime, that I see a US govt. with balls

      Gotta vote for one to see that happen. The government is only a reflection.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    12. Re:Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by ichimunki · · Score: 1, Informative

      In the US would raise the hackles of religious people who think being forced to go through a government owned/operated central bank is like being forced to do business with the antichrist. Seriously. 40% of the US population believes in creationism. The Social Security Administration will not produce SSNs starting with 666 (https://www.ssa.gov/kc/SSAFactSheet--IssuingSSNs.pdf).

      --
      I do not have a signature
    13. Re:Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of a quote from Andrew Carnegie:

      “Don’t put all your eggs in one basket” is all wrong. I tell you “put all your eggs in one basket, and then watch that basket.” Look round you and take notice; men who do that do not often fail. It is easy to watch and carry the one basket. It is trying to carry too many baskets that breaks most eggs in this country.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    14. Re:Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by ichimunki · · Score: 1

      1. I was born and raised in the United States.

      2. Shut up moron.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    15. Re:Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      "The US system is extremely convenient for smaller loans."

      Expensive loans whose availability serves to drive up the price of everything so you have to get a loan---for everything.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    16. Re:Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by praxis · · Score: 1

      If you claim that a system that is in use in most of the world is not working, you should show what's not working about it.

    17. Re:Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by edi_guy · · Score: 1

      Agreed. There have been so many security and privacy breaches, that it's time for an Arthur Anderson moment. This big company needs to go down in flames in order to set the example for the rest of corporate America. This corporation's entire function was all about storing and keeping safe this data. Ok, it's real function is making the CEO and execs rich, but secondary to that. It wasn't in the business of selling widgets and also storing credit card info, it's only business was data, and extremely sensitive data at that. I don't even know what the implications are now of basically every adult American having their SS# out there. The fraud detection business will really have to step up it's game. Right now fraud detection are mostly phony services. But even well equipped big bank's are woeful at detecting fraud as is the venerable IRS. Watershed moment or will this just get overshadowed by hurricanes and earthquakes?

    18. Re:Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      On thought would be stop offering so much unsecured credit!

      As long as their is asset of greater value than you are borrowing you can be forced to surrender there isnt a problem. Now the trick comes in preventing people from taking out multiple loans against the same asset, but that can be solved by having the creditor get to hold the deed.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    19. Re:Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by ichimunki · · Score: 1

      Not quite. The more credit is available, and the cheaper it is (or feels like it is), then the more people will spend on credit and drive up prices. I say feels like it is because the way credit cards allow minimum payments can trick you into feeling like it's a cheap loan when it's not.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    20. Re:Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Wow. #2 is just.. uhh... wow.
      This is good stuff.

    21. Re:Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure the liberals and conservatives are so far apart. Much of the trouble is in the presentation and/or methods of implementation.

      I think different value systems lead to different focuses. For example I was thinking just this morning with the baker not making the gay wedding cake how liberals view gays as the highest thing to protect and forcing others to bend the knee to that is fine to them. Conservatives see forcing people to act against their beliefs as bad. Then too, liberals view Christians in a bad light while conservatives tend to be Christians. I hear what you're saying that people can get along but there are fault lines that probably won't go away. I think both sides would be happier apart, not unlike getting a divorce vs staying in a toxic marriage. Let each county vote where they want to go. Using a state by state approach is too coarse. For example where I live in California there are about 20% of the counties that are *highly* liberal (all along the coast). Once you go inland a bit it changes fast. So for California at the state level it would go to the liberal side, but at the county level it would be better split. Letting people go their own way in peace won't solve the big issues that will tank the US (mainly debt and pensions) but it would help. Or the Democrats could decide that they want to be the party of the 99% instead the the party of Athiest white hating men hating "progressives". But somehow seeing the US fragment seems more likely than a party dropping identity politics ;-)

    22. Re: Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by nachtelfjeiu · · Score: 1

      That's a great system. Much better. Add fines for such data leaks and... Oh well that won't happen in a corporocracy like the us. They don't realise it's really a coprocracy.

    23. Re:Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      People with credit cards are not going to run up prices significantly. They're limited to their income, eventually.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    24. Re:Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      That's why the credit agencies are legally required to provide you with one free credit report per year. If you're going to take out a mortgage, get at least one, perhaps one from all three major agencies, beforehand.

      The foreclosures and debt repayment demands from people you don't actually owe money to is another issue.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    25. Re:Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Unsecured credit must be making money for the creditors, since they offer so much of it.

      Sticking to secured loans only is going to have a lot of knockoff effects. You can't get a secured loan for more than you're worth, which means forget about loans to start or expand a business, among other things. We don't need pawn shops to be the primary sources of loans.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    26. Re:Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Last time I missed a credit card payment was after my stroke. Things happen.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    27. Re:Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Bank A would have to contact every major lender to determine if you have big outstanding debts.

      They can see that on your bank statement. It's not like it's exactly hard to do and need an external 'special processing center'...

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    28. Re:Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by dargaud · · Score: 1

      No centralization? What do you call a "state-backed ID card"?

      Don't be daft: they don't need your banking info for that. Only your fingerprint, and it's not public in any leaky server.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    29. Re:Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by houghi · · Score: 1

      Not just with one late payment. It will be three (months) no payment and/or several late payments.
      It will also happen if you are in the red for 3 months on your bank account.

      All pretty reasonable, as it will indicate that there are financial issues and it will prevent you from taking another credit.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    30. Re:Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by houghi · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't. Things change. People get divorced. The financial income changes, because they get triplets. People spend more on life than average.

      What it does is see to it that the banks are not giving more money than what you could REASONABLY pay back. If you go and buy new shoes every day, that is still on you.

      So if your income is 1000, they will not give you several credit cards where you need to pay back 1100 if you take up all your credit.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    31. Re:Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by houghi · · Score: 1

      How do you get off the black list?

      Automatically after one year after the account has been paid back in full. No record (except at the company itself with their own records) will be found. So you can't see only the current situation, not what was going on over a period of 25 years.

      If you are on the blacklist, can you rent an apartment?

      Yes. They are not creditors or banks, so they do not have access to that data. They can not even ask for it due to the law on privacy.
      The deposit is standard 3 months here as well.
      The amount your would be expected to pay is already calculated in the amount you can get as a credit.

      This all is not 100% idiot proof. It is just to prevent willfully putting people in too much debt. Some people will buy the latest phone instead of food. People are stupid the world all over. It is just they can not blame the banks or credit companies for their own stupidity.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    32. Re:Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      Feel free to show that evolution does not rely on spontaneous generation (life from non life). Here is a hint: it does. Feel free to reference any experiments that demonstrated the creation of a new kind of creature in the lab: here is a hint, they were all failures. The hard science is on my side, your disbelief does not change reality.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    33. Re:Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      2. Your logical failure is both eloquent and spectacular.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    34. Re:Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Feel free to show that evolution does not rely on spontaneous generation (life from non life).

      First of all, evolution is a process, and most evolutionary scientists will tell you that evolution and "the origin of life" are two different topics. Evolution is the process by which a species changes over a period of time. We can trace various species back further and further in time, but the further back you go, the less evidence has survived. There are some pretty decent theories about how life could have originally risen, but they're hard to test, and it's not necessary that the process be repeatable either -- it only NEEDED to happen once, after all.

    35. Re:Hopefully this will be the end of equifax by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      Macro-Evolution (AKA Evolution): the theory that a single bacterium became every plant and animal on the planet: never once observed in the lab (banana becoming a dog) under normal or artificial, optimal conditions. Every word you have ever heard about one kind of animal becoming another kind is rank speculation pulled out of some professors ass. Every mutation ever created scientifically either deletes something or takes information already there and moves it somewhere else, it never creates a new feature that wasn't in the DNA to begin with, and that is what is required for Evolution to work... The nature of DNA and how it works specifically contradict evolution. Creationism says that each kind of animal (dog/wolf/coyote/etc.) was created with the genetic diversity to express different genes depending on their living conditions. This is backed up both with our knowledge of DNA and observations about kinds of animals.

      The theory of Evolution was posited prior to the discovery of DNA. It is a garbage theory not supported by reality, observation or science, but people choke it down and defend it zealously because the only other alternative that makes any sense is special creation, and that means there is a God, and a heaven and a hell and a reckoning for their actions. So they swallow the junk science.

      The origin of life (AKA Organic Evolution, still part of the evolutionary theory) has been lumped into the Evolution section of every high school biology textbook as well as every Bio 101 textbook, and they all still claim life from non life occurring in the natural world with no intelligent intervention, even though there is no evidence and no duplication that has ever been achieved of this event. In science, we can make one in a trillion (or more) events happen every day (take a look at your computer or smartphone, most of what goes on in there never happens in nature, or is vanishingly rare). If we can't duplicate it with guided intelligence, let alone random chance, it is very likely the explanation (Organic Evolution through random chance and natural phenomena) is wrong.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
  6. In a just world this would be the end of Equifax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In a just world this would be the end of Equifax. Cannibalize the corpse to compensate all those who will be victimized because of their incompetence over the coming years. We still have 2 other credit reporting agencies.

    Won't happen though. Too big to jail.

  7. It's time for regulation. Sorry to say it. by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We have PCI-DSS for companies that deal with credit card information. Why not for companies that store even more sensitive information that potentially allows a criminal to pretty much take over my life by essentially stealing my identity?

    The damage here is way more serious than ANYTHING the loss of a million credit card numbers could mean. Could it be that it's just us that have to foot the bill instead of Visa and Mastercard?

    No, that can't be. Government represents the people, right?

    Fuckers, I hope some Supreme Court judge alongside of a few congresscritters get hit badly with this breach. I usually don't wish bad things to happen to anyone, but I really hope that one of them has their identity stolen, their credit rating trashed and their life basically ruined by this hack.

    Because ONLY then we'll FINALLY see something happen.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:It's time for regulation. Sorry to say it. by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Government represents the people, right?

      97% reelection rates say, yes, the government does represent those who vote.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:It's time for regulation. Sorry to say it. by GlennC · · Score: 1

      Government represents the people, right?

      In theory, yes. In reality, government represents their corporate owners.

      --
      Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
    3. Re:It's time for regulation. Sorry to say it. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      We have PCI-DSS for companies that deal with credit card information.

      Yeah because *that* works so well.

      Relevant quote:
      "I'm not surprised to see another large credit card breach; they will continue to happen because the impact is not a large one to the business," Doten said. "Being PCI-compliant doesn't make you secure; it only protects you from the lawsuits."

    4. Re:It's time for regulation. Sorry to say it. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No regulation would stop this. Computers are enormous and complex; either Equifax writes in-house software or hires out for someone to write their software; and credit reporting agencies are dealing with a unique business situation requiring some kind of unique front-end to their clients. Even Windows, Linux, Oracle, Adobe, and Chrome have security bugs.

      Regulation can't prevent them from putting forth all due diligence and still failing. Equifax was founded in 1899 and has been the front-line CRA for decades; they got the tech first, they got the Internet services first, they got the Web sites first, and now they got hacked first. It's been a long time coming and they've gotten hacked once. You can't stop that.

      You want security against identity theft? Here it is: hardware identification. U2F devices--I hate them, rant in a minute--can identify a user without relinquishing a key. You want to know I'm who I say I am? Then I register with Equifax, I give them an identifying key, I authorize your credit check with my key. You can't hack that. It's unhackable, or else somebody has figured out how to break encryption that should not be breakable yet--in which case nothing is safe.

      I would not be above passing legislation specifying that a person's credit history cannot be impacted by non-challenge-response, user-presence-based authentication in line with modern standards. That is: you have to have something that can be handled entirely in the open and still not allow impersonation, such as RSA or Ed25519 challenge-response exchange with a secure hardware device. These devices cost all of $20 at the lowest end.

      If the banks want to go ahead and verify your ID by other means, that's fine; and when you have presented your case in dispute and filed for small bankruptcy, we bail you out of only those unauthenticated accounts, and don't mark it on your credit history, at all. They can validate your identity later and confirm those accounts only with your informed consent.

      Lost your key? Call your bank; all banks are required to file a Lost Key hold for anyone with a credit account with them, which freezes all your credit. You have to show up to a bank, present valid ID (e.g. a real Driver's ID), and then prove you still have your key or provide a new key to re-establish a trust relationship between you and the CRA. No verbal verification; you physically come here and show me your ID, or you're full of shit and have a print-out of stolen Social Security numbers at your desk.

      The states or the SSA could supply similar attestation, with those smart chips (they're actually miniature computers, in full) embedded into multi-layer polycarbonate Driver's IDs and Social Security cards functioning as U2F devices with a trust relationship to the Government agency. These cards are tamper-proof: your photograph is laser-etched into a mult-image across multiple polycarbonate layers. You're not going to clone someone's Driver's ID with a non-readable private key inside, not without stealing the original Driver's ID. If your state supplies this, you can easily attest to your bank that you are in fact holding a real Driver's ID, and they can verify who you are, and you can use your own personal security key device to set up a trust relationship to the CRA and not to the bank (again: the CRA is authenticating you; it's working on your behalf, not on the behalf of the bank).

      As for why I hate U2F devices? Yubico built them right. They use secure hardware--specialized, physically-unhackable without some serious high-end equipment, and potentially impossible to get into without destroying it unless you can remove ceramic in atomic layers--and they accept a challenge, then issue a response. You have a parent key, which the device uses to create child keys, and then sends the certificate (public key) to whoever wants it. No exposure of the identity credential: you can only identify t

    5. Re:It's time for regulation. Sorry to say it. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Does it matter? The government is a mere reflection.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:It's time for regulation. Sorry to say it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course this can be stopped, and it's rather easy, except it requires time, resources and dedication from the top.

      I know because I run security for a company that has about 90 Million accounts with similar data. I know when **anything** happens on my network or any of my computers. Comprehensive control framework, Multiple checks, multiple balances, fail safe on fail safe, continuous auditing by my staff, internal audits, external audits. internal pen tests, external pent test, gray hat hacking, white hat hacking, compromised account hacking, simulated rouge employee hacking, and a whole lot of other things I'd rather not list

      My users hate me, dev ops hates me, basically IT, and the business hate me, Sr. Leadership and the board of directors, they love me.

      In order to steal 143 million records it means that **NOBODY** was actually doing anything related to information security. They probably had a policy deck and firewalls, anti-virus, and an IDS, and that's about it, oh and they had a cultural of non-compliance, lie, lie, lie and then lie some more.

    7. Re:It's time for regulation. Sorry to say it. by sexconker · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. Compliance is the enemy of security. I've spent too much time in companies that fall under various compliance requirements (PCI-DSS, NISPOM, SOX) and in my opinion the only thing these things do is cause a company to become lazy. The number of times I have seen obviously insecure practices defended by "It meets PCI..." could make me scream. I don't understand how any intelligent somewhat tech savvy individual could ever fall under the impression that a small, rarely updated policy written mostly by bureaucrats could ever hope to adequately define the necessary security requirements to protect data for all organizations. It is ludicrous, yet I see it all the time.

      These compliance requirements cause organizations to stop thinking, stop being creative, and to just start checking boxes. And to reply directly to your call out of PCI, all I can say is TARGET WAS PCI COMPLIANT.

      If you think these sorts of regulations are the solution, then I'd argue that you are applying to the wrong side. Find a way to make attackers have to meet some brain dead, one size fits none set of regulations then you'll be on to something.

      The worst part is that the compliant shit is often older and known to be weaker but because validation takes time and is expensive, the newer, stronger shit isn't certified as being compliant. So you can do your job and select the FIPS 140-2 profile in whatever software you're using, or you can break the law and use better encryption.

    8. Re:It's time for regulation. Sorry to say it. by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      The U2F devices use RSA (up to 2048-bit on some devices, 4096 on bigger ones) or known-weak ECDSA (curve 256 and curve 384).

      What weakness in ECDSA? Are you confusing it with Dual_EC_DRBG pseudorandom numbers?

      There have been weaknesses due to bugs in a couple of implementations of ECDSA, but overall, I've seen nothing to suggest it isn't more solid than RSA.

      Most-egregiously, however, the standards don't specify decryption. The standards specify digital signing, yet they don't specify the acceptance of a block of data encrypted with the public key and the return of a decrypted block of data.

      That's because U2F is a one-way authentication standard. It authenticates you to the service.

      Yubi's more expensive/featureful devices add a built-in OpenPGP Smartcard -- which is an entirely different standard. The OpenPGP ecosystem has never been accused of being user-friendly or flexible.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    9. Re:It's time for regulation. Sorry to say it. by eth1 · · Score: 1

      No regulation would stop this.

      Sure it can. Just have legislation that makes any entity providing credit liable for eating any fraudulent credit. Then maybe they'll stop using what's basically public information at this point to give credit.

      I just opened a new credit card a few weeks ago, and it was a joke to get it.

    10. Re:It's time for regulation. Sorry to say it. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Actually, it does. Or rather, it makes an auditor and a security expert with cushy jobs look for a new one. And thus they'll both do what's necessary to keep this from happening. If they're smart, at least.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re: It's time for regulation. Sorry to say it. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, if you word it like this, I can see the merit of an otherwise ludicrous idea...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:It's time for regulation. Sorry to say it. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Now I'm curious. Could you name one such practice that was PCI compliant? And (also important), when was it compliant?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:It's time for regulation. Sorry to say it. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      How do you initially verify someone is who they say they are to assign them a hardware device?

      You don't. They assign a credential to identify themselves. If someone else assigns it to them, then you've already lost control.

      Who holds the database of keys to know that public key X ties to individual X?

      The entity with which the trust is established--that is, Equifax has their own, TransUnion has their own, and so forth. A trust is a very personal relationship between two single entities, such as a CRA and an individual; Equifax shouldn't trust your identity just because TransUnion says so.

      Who generates the secret key? How is it loaded onto the device?

      It's generated on the device itself.

      I walk into a bank. I have a Maryland-issued ID card. It's multi-layer polycarbonate with a laser-etched multi-image, and currently pretty difficult to duplicate without multi-million dollar equipment. That's a bit different than filling out an online form, punching in my Social Security number, and having a loan opened--which is how I open all of my loans; I don't physically present at a bank to get credit.

      When I walk into a bank, I bring my own key. I present my hard ID--physical forms of identification, State-issued, passports, the like. The bank has now identified me. Then I wave my key over the NFC terminal, push the button that blinks on it, and it generates a new key pair and sends the public key down to Equifax and TransUnion as my new trust relationship with them.

      This is a much smaller attack surface than "I know what car I drove in 1999, where my parents lived (I lived with them), and roughly how much income I had." It's a smaller attack surface than a stolen credit card number or driver's license number. Only the person in physical possession of the hardware device can authenticate as me without physically presenting real (read: stronger than verbal attestation via pop quiz) forms of identification face-to-face.

      Millions of hackers can't all simultaneously have access to my trust relationship; only one, and it's a physical object.

      Ah yes, easy denial of service. Hello, Shit Ass Bank? This is bluefoxlucid, I've lost my key. I have a new one, and I'm coming down next week to prove it. Until then, please freeze everything. Kthx.

      I can verbally-attest that I've lost my card over the phone to my bank. They can quiz me on something like my driver's ID or a soft credit check if they want--you know, the things that, if you answer them today, will get you a $50,000 loan in my name. Today, to close someone's credit card account, you call their bank with their last name, address, and birth date.

      As well, it's not as big a deal as you make it out. Hard credit checks are used to open accounts; I don't need hard credit checks to work at all unless I'm applying for a loan at that given moment--which is essentially what a hardware-driven trust does.

      You keep relying on that "secure hardware token". There is no such thing. "Secure hardware tokens" are simply computers that run a deterministic algorithm based on a secret key and time.

      Actually, Universal Authentication Framework and Universal Second-Factor use OpenPGP to sign a challenge message originating from the provider--that is: TransUnion or Equifax send a packet (JSON crap) to your bank, who forward it to your device, which then signs it with an RSA or elliptical curve private key and sends it back. Then TransUnion or Equifax verify that the content is what they expect, and verify your signature based on your established trust.

      What happens when someone steals your device? What happens when someone X-Rays your device or dumps it in liquid nitrogen or otherwise takes a really close look to extract your key or Oprah's key or Bill Gates's key?

      Current devices are EAL

    14. Re:It's time for regulation. Sorry to say it. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      What weakness in ECDSA?

      Let's ask a better expert.

      That's because U2F is a one-way authentication standard. It authenticates you to the service.

      U2F is a wrapper around OpenPGP in one direction. It could have easily been a wrapper around OpenPGP in its entire, but it's not.

      Yubi's more expensive/featureful devices add a built-in OpenPGP Smartcard [wikipedia.org] -- which is an entirely different standard.

      They don't provide an open standard to implement OpenPGP to these devices through the browser, across generic carriers (USB, NFC, BTLE, etc.), and so forth. They don't say, "When you build a device to do this, build it to talk this way".

      U2F and UAF have caught on pretty well across several services. They've got browser integration in Chrome. We didn't get integration in e-mail clients, phone SMS apps, and the like to encrypt and thus make secret your conversations in a nice, user-friendly manner--which would have happened if it were in the standard.

      That irritates me. The damned things are capable, the protocol specification is capable, and they didn't take advantage of the opportunity.

    15. Re:It's time for regulation. Sorry to say it. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      It won't stop businesses from being hacked and losing your information. The OP wants security standards so that your secret information is nice and safe--well that's not happening. Your secrets are going to leak, and there's nothing you can do about it; you can only make it happen less-often.

      We need a system which doesn't rely on secrets known by more than one party. The party to whom we are proving ourselves needs to not know secrets. I should not have to identify by a shared secret; the secret is mine, and I can prove I know it without letting you know it.

    16. Re:It's time for regulation. Sorry to say it. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      I've seen those kinds of places get hacked. It just happens almost-never. "Almost" means you still failed to stop it; it's an improvement, but it's not enough.

      I would not install an explosive into the base of my skull and then place the trigger to detonate it on your network. Maybe it's nigh-on-unhackable, but it's not impossible. Your security means nothing to the attacker who walks right in the front door. In your case, maybe it takes someone who can actually understand your security--give me time to sit around and be a good boy and I'll get to know the details of your countermeasures--but it can be done. Your work is forever-unfinished.

      We give Equifax and TransUnion the trigger to create accounts in our name. The banks ask them about credit, and use them to validate our identities. Why would you do that? They shouldn't possess any secret information allowing an attacker to impersonate you.

    17. Re:It's time for regulation. Sorry to say it. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      And then you've absolutely guaranteed that the only people companies willing to "assume the risk" are the ones staffed by complete fucking morons, because no one with more than two brain cells is going to be willing to assume that level of risk.

    18. Re:It's time for regulation. Sorry to say it. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I'm not arguing too much against that.

      Consider how balancing the budget would go if a Senator that helped cut $50 billion in waste were more popular than one who got $1 billion of pork for his or her state. If voters thought rationally about the criminal justice system. Things would improve dramatically.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    19. Re:It's time for regulation. Sorry to say it. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Criminal penalties require criminal intent, which isn't happening. Nobody's going to take a job where, if they're outsmarted, they lose everything including their freedom. They need to have assurance that they will not be criminals if they try hard enough, and there's no "enough" that will stop all possible breaks.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    20. Re:It's time for regulation. Sorry to say it. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Which is clearly bollocks.

      Being PCI compliant immediately means you're a fuck of a lot more secure than someone that hasn't bothered to secure their systems - which would be many companies that see this as an unnecessary expense, but adopt PCI measures so that they can continue to receive payments via payment cards.

      Being PCI-compliant also doesn't protect you from the lawsuits. For example, using the actual subject of your reference: https://targetbreachsettlement...

    21. Re:It's time for regulation. Sorry to say it. by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      I have a lot of respect for DJB. And he's pointed out theoretical attacks, and a few points where it's easy to make implementation mistakes when developing crypto code. The thing with theoretical attacks is that they seldom are practical. Most of the issues he brings up are pitfalls specific to the algorithms, and good implementations don't fall into them.

      DJB also found weaknesses in AES; that doesn't mean it's likely to ever have a practical break. DJB is a researcher, and is always looking for better solutions. If we ever get around to replacing ECDSA, his research will be a valuable resource -- assuming that Quantum computing is the reason we're replacing ECDSA.

      Implementation issues don't necessitate that ECDSA is weak; ECDSA is at the heart of most modern TLS certificates, including many of Google's, as well as being central to BitCoin.

      U2F is a wrapper around OpenPGP in one direction. It could have easily been a wrapper around OpenPGP in its entire, but it's not.

      I'm unable to find anything regarding OpenPGP in the FIDO U2F specifications Everything points to it being a cryptographic authentication. The communication protocol is utterly unlike OpenPGP.

      All the way down to the hardware level, including open-source U2F token designs. (The link can do U2F, but has zero OpenPGP capability)

      As far as I've been able to research (and I'm implementing FIDO U2F for my employer), U2F is entirely separate from OpenPGP.

      If you have anything that says otherwise, I'd appreciate it.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    22. Re:It's time for regulation. Sorry to say it. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I have an adblocker installed that means I'm a fuck load more secure than someone who hasn't bothered to secure their systems as well. That ultimately has nothing to do with actually being secure though. The point being, in there last few years there have been several high profile credit card breaches, all from those wonderfully PCI-DSS compliant companies.

    23. Re:It's time for regulation. Sorry to say it. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Hmm, seems you're right. They have a lot of statements about OpenPGP, but apparently it's a separate applet on the key; the Yubikey implements a suite of OpenPGP-standard algorithms for U2F, which seems to be an implementation detail. Thanks for making me take a second look!

      WEP was deprecated because RC4 was theoretically-unsafe at one time (it's currently speculated some state agencies might actually have a full break), largely because a bad implementation can make RC4 breakable. ECDSA isn't weak so much as it's unsafe compared to what's currently known about 25519. Some of us like the low-effort, high-paranoia route; there are conspiracy theorists who all want to take the high-effort, high-paranoia route, but that's impractical.

  8. Re:Another failure of big government. by layabout · · Score: 1

    news flash. equifax is a private company.

  9. A lot of people don't care about privacy by hyades1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Even if Equifax is found to have been careless with all that vital personal information, I doubt they'll get more than a slap on the wrist.

    Why should corporations, government or the courts give a crap about people's privacy, when so many of the people themselves very obviously couldn't care less?

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:A lot of people don't care about privacy by Gilgaron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is a credit agency, though... more or less anyone that is capable of getting credit will be in there, so this undermines the whole way we borrow money if everyone can be faked easily. What other information can we give to identify ourselves, and if we come up with some other information to hand over, what when credit DB V2.0 gets hacked?

    2. Re:A lot of people don't care about privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's quite right to say that most people "don't care" about privacy (implying that those people will never care). I think a more realistic way to put it is that most people don't have the capacity to envision disaster. When disaster strikes them personally, you can bet your house they will start caring about privacy. Until then, they fool themselves into thinking they have something to beat their chests about.

    3. Re:A lot of people don't care about privacy by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1
      Why? Because this isn't Facebook or Twitter or some social media company that is datamining your cat picture posts and the inconsequential conversations you have with people for purposes of targeting ads at you; this is YOUR IDENTITY BEING STOLEN, EN MASSE, by who-knows-what criminal organization, and likely that information is being sold to the highest bidder(s) even as we speak. Your entire life could be RUINED, PERMANENTLY, depending on how that information is used. For all you or anyone else knows, it could be used for anything from draining your bank accounts, to taking out loans and credit cards in your name, to invading your house to rob or kill or kidnap you and your family. THAT'S why. Don't even bother saying "Oh, I haven't got anything to steal, and I'm not worth any money, so who would bother?", either. For all you know, your wife or daughter(s) look like they'd fetch a good price on the human trafficking market, they come and kill you, take them. Any number of nightmare scenarios, depending on who gets their hands on what.

      Well, that's all just FUD you're spreading

      GUESS WHAT? THAT'S THE POINT THIS SHIT IS REACHING NOW!

    4. Re:A lot of people don't care about privacy by Drakonblayde · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference between 'ok, so the NSA knows who I've been having phone sex with and multiple people know what kind of porn I look at' and 'what do you mean I can't buy my dreamhouse? where the fuck did all these maxed out credit cards come from? I never opened those!'

      This isn't privacy, this is identity, and folks will care alot more when it starts to effect them negatively.

    5. Re:A lot of people don't care about privacy by hyades1 · · Score: 1

      You deserve a lot more than a 0 for that, my friend.

      --
      I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  10. Yay, more free credit monitoring fo rme. :-) by ErichTheRed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Equifax and the 2 other credit bureaus have a ton of non-credit related information on consumers as well. It will be interesting to see what else was not reported as part of the breach.

    I'm going to sound like an old fart, but a lot of these "cyberattacks" end up being down to a very dumb misconfiguration like leaving FTP open, failure to patch security holes, and things like leaving data on unprotected public cloud storage. Part of my job is being a technical mentor to some of our more junior staff, and what I'm seeing is a lot of developers and CS people who really don't know the guts of how IT works. I'm not saying people should go back to punch cards and assembler, but having some clue about TCP/IP, DNS, what an open port on a server means, how a firewall works, etc. would go a long way to preventing some of the dumber things I've seen. Most of this is very much abstracted, and in a "cloud-first" world it's even more so. The network is just assumed to work underneath everything else, and i think this is where a lot of the misconfiguration problems get missed.

    We may or may not see what actually happened. It could have been some state-sponsored hacking group planning a painstaking attack requiring intimate knowledge of everything. But knowing what I know about corporate IT, it was most likely some lowest-bidder contractor being forced to pull another 12-hour shift and missing something. Until companies have to actually pay for these issues, all we're going to get is "free credit monitoring" for a year, which costs them nothing, and _maybe_ we'll get a check for 11 cents from a class action lawsuit 20 years from now when it winds its way through the system.

    1. Re:Yay, more free credit monitoring fo rme. :-) by PraiseBob · · Score: 2

      They stored passwords in plaintext, and emailed them (as plaintext again) directly to people when they checked off the "I lost my password" box on the website...

    2. Re:Yay, more free credit monitoring fo rme. :-) by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      I pretty much agree with your entire assessment of what likely happened, and unfortunately what will likely happen as a result. Password = Admin or something foolish like that, unencrypted text file, open ports, unpatched software, etc....

      However unlikely you missed one possible option, that of the inside job, where some disenfranchised admin sold out critical access information to someone for a bunch of money.

      Heck it could be swapping out unencrypted HD at the datacenter and disposal without destruction.

      One of the things that makes me raise an eyebrow, is the 143 million number which seems pretty specific. I presume this is the number they arrived at during their investigation... I wonder exactly how that was figured out? Access logs, ransom note etc...?

    3. Re:Yay, more free credit monitoring fo rme. :-) by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      I wonder exactly how that was figured out? Access logs, ransom note etc...?

      SELECT COUNT(*) FROM 'allthepeople';

      --

      Enigma

  11. Three executives sold 1.8 million in stock by EnOne · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Three Equifax Inc. senior executives sold shares worth almost $1.8 million in the days after the company discovered a security breach that may have compromised information on about 143 million U.S. consumers." https://www.bloomberg.com/news...

    --
    Calvin:Do you believe in the devil? Hobbes:I'm not sure man needs the help.
    1. Re:Three executives sold 1.8 million in stock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Even public companies keep some secrets. I imagine the CIO warned his buddies about what was about to go down, and they asked him to delay the announcement by a couple of days to make sure they could sell their shares.

      I'm not sure if that qualifies as insider trading, but if the SEC investigates and finds email/chat logs laying out the evidence (which happens way more often than I'd expect...people still think email is secret and nondiscoverable) then they'll at least get a slap on the wrist. That's all we little guys can hope for,

    2. Re:Three executives sold 1.8 million in stock by bugs2squash · · Score: 2

      You'd be amazed how secure they can keep some things. I wonder if equifax has benefited from leaks at other places by selling credit monitoring, seems like the leaks may be profitable for the industry as a whole.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    3. Re:Three executives sold 1.8 million in stock by tsqr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not sure if that qualifies as insider trading

      Of course it does. Any time an employee trades stock in the company he's employed by, that's insider trading because the employee is an "insider". Most of the time, it's perfectly legal.

      From SEC.gov: "Illegal insider trading refers generally to buying or selling a security, in breach of a fiduciary duty or other relationship of trust and confidence, while in possession of material, nonpublic information about the security." And that is what happened here, because the trading happened before the public was made aware of the breach.

  12. Re:For this irresponsible behavior by penandpaper · · Score: 1

    Yep. Now, I will refuse to do business with them.... ohwait.

  13. WRONG! by gerald.edward.butler · · Score: 1

    That means well more than half of all US residents who rely the most on bank loans and credit cards are now at a significantly higher risk of fraud and will remain so for years to come.

    WRONG! The individuals are not at risk of fraud. Banks and other institutions are at risk of fraud. It is not your responsibility if some dipshit bankster or other idiot "Business" opens fraudulent loans etc. in your name because they don't do their due diligence. There is no such thing as "Identity Theft". There is "Fraud". Do not accept that it is your responsibility to deal with the fallout from this. Sue! Sue immediately if anyone tries to make it your problem. If something goes against your credit report that is not something you did, sue the CC agencies for libel for spreading lies about you without justification!

    1. Re:WRONG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Good luck with that. A friend was victim identity fraud, and it took years of back and forth to resolve it.

    2. Re:WRONG! by beady.el7512 · · Score: 1

      Yes exactly; it only becomes the burden of the various banks and institutions AFTER you've convinced them that you are a victim of fraud. It's a nasty loophole that lets them assume you're guilty until you've proved yourself innocent.

  14. Surely this marks the end of "SSN as passwords" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, as a result, the US loan industry is going to end their grossly negligent practice of using my Social Security Number as the root password to my financial life, right?

  15. Agreed! by gerald.edward.butler · · Score: 1

    Jail Them!

  16. Re:Another failure of big government. by beelsebob · · Score: 1

    In what way is this a failure of big government?

    I'd actually assert that this is a failure of small government - in Europe where the government is bigger, there's regulations about what information these companies can store, how they must store it, and what the penalty is if they fail to do so.

  17. wish every single SSN would leak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    i keep hoping that every single SSN for every american will leak so that the SSN can no longer be used the way it is using now... i wish the breach would be much worse until enough SSNs are available to everyone and the SSN can no longer be used as a personal identifier

    1. Re:wish every single SSN would leak by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      That ship has sailed

      --
      Nullius in verba
  18. Business as usual... by wardrich86 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm sure nobody will be jailed. A fine will be issued, which will be passed off as increased fees to clients. A few buzzwords will probably be thrown around about how amazing their security is now, but probably little will change. 5-10 years from now this will happen again. Maybe not to Equifax, but to some other company that didn't learn from the mistakes of the past.

    1. Re:Business as usual... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I'm sure nobody will be jailed.

      I'm not. At least not for the data breach. The share sale on the other hand...

  19. Didn't really need to store all that data by RobinH · · Score: 2

    I realize the SSC is used as a primary key, but if you think about it, to do their job, they could have just stored a salted hash of the social security number along with a plain text full name and address. To find someone, you lookup anyone with a similar name in the database (maybe filtering by address, etc.) and then you take the given social security number and compute the hash for the maybe at most a dozen results until you find the one that matches. Now you still have the ability to uniquely find a record by a social security number, but you never need to store the actual social security number for hackers to steal.

    --
    "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    1. Re:Didn't really need to store all that data by arth1 · · Score: 1

      I realize the SSC is used as a primary key, but if you think about it, to do their job, they could have just stored a salted hash of the social security

      The SSN is only 9 digits long. It's trivial to crack a 30-bit keyspace.

      Use it as what it was meant to be - a public unique identifier, and not a secret. Its role is to separate John Doe from John Doe and John Doe, not anything else.

    2. Re:Didn't really need to store all that data by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      they could have just stored a salted hash of the social security number along with a plain text full name and address

      I have a better idea. Store it in plain text and start treating the SSN like what it is: a unique number, not a authenticator, not a piece of private information, and not something of importance, not something that certifies you are who you say you are, and certainly not something that if anyone got their hands on would make anyone else think that you are any more you than they did before.

    3. Re:Didn't really need to store all that data by RobinH · · Score: 1

      ...which is why you salt it...

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    4. Re:Didn't really need to store all that data by arth1 · · Score: 1

      ...which is why you salt it...

      Salting is only truly useful if the cracker doesn't know the salt. When the salt is stored with the hash, it prevents rainbow tables (until a new rainbow table is made for that salt), but not brute forcing.
      So the question is where does the salt come from.

  20. Re: That's it. I'm done with Equifax by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    Maybe these types of incidents can break down reliance and acceptance of these credit agencies that have established themselves as critical and non-optional services that heavily effect major life events

    But it won't because the institutions that rely on these agencies don't give a damn. They don't lose anything over it. Anything goes wrong and the government will bail them out and leave us holding the bag.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  21. So, is it yet time to talk about actual security? by Average · · Score: 2

    The breach is annoying. It's also almost an inevitable thing.

    Can we *now* start talking about moving beyond "a ten-digit number and some generally publicly-researchable information is enough to do almost anything as you"?

    I mean, seriously. Next year will be the 40th anniversary of the publishing of the RSA algorithm. Secure smartcards have been around for 25 of those years, and some countries have been issuing them for 15+ years now. Bit of biometric, and Alice is your digitally-signed aunt.

    No... we're still in a country minting pennies and shuffling 19th century bank-draft checks around, aren't we? Oh, and the exact same people who are freaking out about 'Voter ID protects the sanctity of the vote' simultaneously go bat-guano crazy if you propose an actually secure ID card system.

  22. And don't forget: by computational+super · · Score: 1

    Plus which, I didn't consent to let these fuckers store my information in the first place. I can't opt out. It's one thing when, say, Amazon loses the credit card number that I chose to store in their system to simplify my transactions. It's something else when an organization that's actually hostile to me is storing my personal information against my wishes ALSO gives it away.

    --
    Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
  23. anyone on here a former employee of Equifax IT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Anyone else on here a former employee of Equifax's IT side in Atlanta? They really are pretty rotten with how they treat their employees. I averaged 5 hours of sleep on a good night including Saturdays and Sundays. Work all night and be in by nine am every weekday. The level of processes to try and get anything done were insane. Everyone wanted to dump everything and claim no responsibility. Everyone waits till 4:30 PM to dump there needed changes on you, no time to review. Every night was a change window. Had a meeting once were they wanted to encourage ideas and instead it turned into six sigma. I could go on and on. Thank God I got out of there or I would have been in prison for losing it.

  24. Easy fix by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

    Make the board and c suite PERSONALY responsible for the break, to the tune of one million $ per persons info exposed. Take everything they have. Money, bank accounts, houses, all possessions, retirement accounts, children's college funds, trusts. All of it. Put them on the street.

  25. Paradigm shift? by beady.el7512 · · Score: 1

    In the short term - yes, lots of identity theft and fraud. Long term? The whole premise of there being such a thing as meaningful credit monitoring or useful/reliable credit checks is, arguably, already undermined - possibly for decades. They're saying over half of the credit-using US population are compromised. That means that businesses that extend credit now will have to either greatly curtail the amount of credit they extend, or else risk extending credit even to people whose credit ratings are tarnished by possible fraud. Either action could have substantial economic impact.

  26. Re: That's it. I'm done with Equifax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "affect", not "effect". Thanks.

  27. Re: That's it. I'm done with Equifax by nagora · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Given that the effects of the rating agencies' massive and corrupt dealing which led to the collapse of the world's banking system in 2010 were that, er, the rating agencies were allowed to continue exactly as before, I don't expect this will hurt Equifax too much. What will hit them harder, in all likelihood, is the possibility of insider-dealing pushing their share price low enough for Experian to buy them up and then ALL their data will be, once more, transfered to another party without any of the people the data relates to having any say whatsoever. And don't forget that these companies exist to sell your details to the highest bidder anyway. All they're really worried about, aside from PR, is that this client hasn't paid for the info.

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  28. Re:Another failure of big government. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

    I would say at least indirectly, yes.

    The laws, rules and regulations that protect Equifax from those it is screwing is all done in collusion with big government. Big Corporations have access in the halls of power that an individual who has been wronged doesn't have. Even in a case like this, the ONLY way the affected individuals can have any influence is long after the damage is done, and only if they band together in a class action lawsuit. The laws won't change regardless.

    And while all this is happening, the executives are making millions on the misery of others, untouchable by the legal system, because of the state sponsored incorporation laws says that the big wigs aren't responsible for the failures under their leadership. Which is why I support being able to criminally charge the CxOs and the Board of Directors for the negligence and malfeasance, and the Corporate Death Penalty.

    Here is a solution, the government revoke the Corporation's Charter, and put them out of business, leaving the shareholders holding nothing.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  29. Re: That's it. I'm done with Equifax by beady.el7512 · · Score: 1

    Those institutions can't just slash the amount of credit they extend, because that's their bread and butter. If they just stop issuing credit for over half the population, their business model collapses.

  30. Not the worst breach by Anon-Admin · · Score: 1

    Back in the 1980's/early 1990's I knew several people who hacked CBI (Credit Bureau Inc) We used to hack the X accounts because accounts that started with an X were admin accounts.

    Back then when you got one, you could see everything! Bank account numbers, credit card numbers, etc, etc. You could even change the information reported on a persons account.

    So, once we had them we would sell "Corrections" to peoples reports AND some would even use it to card stuff. (Buy stuff on someone eases credit card)

    Those breaches were never reported, but admin control of the system is by far the worst breach you can imagine.

    And people wonder why I dont do credit, credit cards, or loans. lol

  31. Re:For this irresponsible behavior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yep. Now, I will refuse to do business with them.... ohwait.

    But you can. I have. It's actually not that hard.

    1. Close all credit accounts from your past.
    2. Pay cash for everything now.
    3. Never borrow money again in the future.

    Done. And welcome to the club that refuses to make the rich even richer at our expense.

  32. I'll push back by stomv · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They make money from using our information, provide little benefit to us...

    I'll bite. I agree that, as individuals, it doesn't feel like they provide a benefit. But by providing somewhat-accurate financial history to lending institutions, those lending institutions can more precisely estimate the risk associated with each loan. In doing so, they're able to lend more money, and at lower interest rates, than they'd be able to do otherwise.

    I'm not arguing that there aren't loads of ways that Equifax et al could improve their business habits. Of course there are. But without these agencies, lenders would have a more difficult time gauging credit-worthiness, and that would mean it would be harder and more expensive for each of us to get a loan. And that, my friend, is the "benefit" provided to us.

    1. Re:I'll push back by sxpert · · Score: 1

      over here (france) this function is handled by a shared database only accessible by banks and managed by the central bank...

    2. Re:I'll push back by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      You're not using credit enough.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    3. Re:I'll push back by sexconker · · Score: 1

      If you have credit card debt or auto loan debt, or student debt, or basically anything other than a proper mortgage or business debt (tied to an LLC, not you individually), you're seen as a leech.

    4. Re:I'll push back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you have credit card debt or auto loan debt, or student debt, or basically anything other than a proper mortgage or business debt (tied to an LLC, not you individually), you're seen as a leech.

      As long as you keep up the payments on that debt, you're not a leech, you're a revenue source.

    5. Re:I'll push back by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      You could argue the benefit since debt begets more debt in aggregate which is destructive usury. Sure, some people can use loans to add a lot of value but they require much more than a credit report for those types of loans (significant equity/collateral).

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    6. Re:I'll push back by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      I have to agree somewhat. The credit issued using these agencies is mostly high-priced consumer debt.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    7. Re:I'll push back by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      mod up

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    8. Re:I'll push back by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      I have a pretty high income compared to my peers (nearly 100k), very low debt, and yet, my score has always hovered around the "average" to "above average" range, currently hanging out around 680. According to official statistics, I have a income higher than 64% of the US population, I have a debt lower than 84% of the US population, I've never defaulted or been late on anything, and yet somehow my credit risk is only better than 40% of the US population. EXPLAIN THAT.

      The credit score formulas weight age above all else. My score hovered around 700 for the entirety of my 30s. Now that I'm in my 40s, it's magically over 800. The only thing that has changed is the age of the accounts. Absolutely nothing else is different. There were no negative reports before and are none now. The accounts simply aged into the 800 bracket.

      It's a fairly stupid system. It's not like Boomers aren't capable of defaulting on debt. They do, in droves. Where do you think the spike in health care expense-related bankruptcies is coming from? But age (or lack thereof) imposes an artificial ceiling on your credit score regardless.

    9. Re:I'll push back by nine-times · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure about your case, but at one point I investigated why my credit score wasn't higher. In my case, the issue was basically that I didn't have enough credit cards. Part of the calculation involves the total amount of credit you have available.

      If you and I have the same income, same debt, and have made all the same payments, you might imagine that our credit scores would be the same. However, if I have 3 credit cards with a total credit line of $10k available to me, and you have 5 credit cards with a total amount of $20k available to you, you'll have better credit than I do. Apparently.

    10. Re:I'll push back by sexconker · · Score: 1

      No, they see you as a leech that's seeking their credit, their loans, etc. A leech they make money off of, but still a leech. The banks consider themselves "makers", and everyone else is a "taker". Their view is distorted as fuck, of course, but that's their view.

      There's the old concept of good debt and bad debt, and lately the finance goons have been telling us that that concept is now wrong. But that's only because the current system sees almost all personal debt as bad debt. Credit cards, medical bills, student loans, etc. are all cancer. An auto loan is slightly more respectable, and for someone with little credit history it can establish some history, but the outstanding debt still counts against how much someone thinks they should lend you or what sort of risk you represent. A home mortgage is given even more leeway, and generally won't count against you as long as you're making payments, it isn't your third mortgage, etc. They'll simply subtract your mortgage payment from your income when considering your loan/credit application.

      The ultimate cancer is a small business loan. No bank wants to take that risk anymore, or risk lending any money to anyone who has such a loan. You may as well sell your soul and 51% of your business on Shark Tank. A small business loan tells a bank that you're either starting a business and thus extremely risky, or you've got a failing business, or you've got a business that isn't profitable enough to grow on its own. It's a steep uphill battle to show a bankster that your business is healthy and the loan/credit you're looking for will further grow that business and improve its success or (for personal loans) that it will not be jeopardized if the business fails.

    11. Re:I'll push back by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      In my case, the issue was basically that I didn't have enough credit cards.

      That sentence right there is a perfect distillation of the insanity that is credit scores.

      If you're actually financially responsible, which includes minimizing the amount of debt you have, your credit score takes a hit.

    12. Re:I'll push back by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      How much have you borrowed? The credit score is primarily to estimate how likely you are to pay off a loan. How many loans have you paid off? Do you have a credit card? If not, get one without an annual fee (or with; they're never that big), use it every month, and pay off the card when the bill comes. It will cost you little or nothing, and shows that you're responsible with debt.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    13. Re:I'll push back by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      We use credit cards for almost all expenses, and pay them off every month. It gets us convenience and a little float. It's probably one of the reasons our credit scores are high.

      However, that means that we are always in debt for about a month and a half of much of our living expenses, on the average, and that hurt us a bit with a mortgage refinance.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    14. Re:I'll push back by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The credit score is how likely you are to pay off a loan. If you never borrow money, you don't have a history of paying off loans. There's a lot of difference between the attitudes of "I paid for it using my card" and "I used my card, so I didn't have to pay for it", and the agency doesn't know where you fit on that. For all they know, you may live on a cash basis because you know you couldn't handle credit responsibly.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    15. Re:I'll push back by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know the rationale. It still results in some crazy decision-making, though.

    16. Re:I'll push back by nine-times · · Score: 1

      If you never borrow money, you don't have a history of paying off loans.

      Right, but my post was pointing out that it's not just about whether you pay off your loans, but how much credit you have available. All things being equal, borrowing the same amount of money and paying it off on the same schedule, if I just took out a few more credit cards and never used them, my credit would improve.

    17. Re:I'll push back by ph0rk · · Score: 1

      You can have tens of thousands in student loan debt and owe tens of thousands on an auto loan and still break 800. Sure, you can have a score higher than that, but I'm not sure what you'd need it for.

      --
      semantics are everything!
    18. Re:I'll push back by ph0rk · · Score: 1

      More like "how likely you are to pay off a loan using an arbitrarily restricted set of predictors because that makes it easy for us".

      There are plenty of good predictors out there that have nothing to do with holding more credit cards, the big three are simply lazy.

      --
      semantics are everything!
    19. Re:I'll push back by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The predictors are done as well as Fair Isaac (if they're still doing it) can manage it. The predictors aren't published, because that would make them easier to game. This is not an exact science.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    20. Re:I'll push back by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Are you sure the decisions are crazy, though?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    21. Re:I'll push back by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I should say "flawed" instead. When people who are responsible with their money are punished for it, that seems like a flaw. The effect of the existing system is to draw people into the debt system. I have been told time and time again that I should get credit cards solely to boost my credit score. In my view, getting credit when none is needed is not exactly the most financially responsible of actions.

      I do understand why things are this way. It's just a shame that it comes with such downsides.

    22. Re:I'll push back by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Credit scores aren't designed to be fair to their subjects; they're designed to be useful for someone who is thinking of lending money or otherwise getting into a business commitment. They're private-sector businesses with no contractual relation to the subjects.

      Having a line of credit immediately available is not financial irresponsibility, although it makes it easier to be irresponsible. It's perfectly possible for someone to use credit cards and pay them off monthly. We do. If you would find it difficult to stick to that (and some people do), then perhaps you shouldn't have a high credit score.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    23. Re:I'll push back by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Credit scores aren't designed to be fair to their subjects; they're designed to be useful for someone who is thinking of lending money

      Precisely my point.

      It's perfectly possible for someone to use credit cards and pay them off monthly.

      Of course. If you don't (or can't) do that, then it's pretty nutty to have a credit card at all. My point is that the notion that you have to take on debt (even if briefly) in order to be considered financially responsible is self-contradictory. Financial responsibility means keeping your financial obligations as low as possible as well as meeting the obligations you do have.

    24. Re:I'll push back by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Most credit score reports are for people (lenders and landlords) who expect you to pay money in the future. For them, what matters is how likely you are to pay the money, and financial responsibility is merely a proxy for that.

      In most other cases, the party in question is likely to investigate a teeny bit further, and find whether your credit score is unimpressive because you have a history of not paying debts, or whether you have a history of not having debts. There may be other situations (employers?) but they tend to be iffy in the first place.

      Financial responsibility is assuring, with a very high probability, that you will meet current and future obligations. It's perfectly possible to use a credit card responsibly.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  33. "See if you're affected" by Halo5 · · Score: 1

    To make matters worse, all of these links to their "see if you're affected" site directs you to their credit monitoring site. You plug in your name and the last 6 digits of your SSN thinking that it's going to do what it says, and instead it begins the process of enrolling you into their credit monitoring program and, consequently, giving up your right to sue.

    When I first visited this site I was connected to our campus VPN and the VPN service blocked the site, labeling it as "dangerous." At first, I thought this was a mistake but, as it turns out, I think the VPN was correct!

    IMO, Congress should start an investigation into this. It's just WRONG!

    --
    665: The mark on the forehead of Satan's slightly less evil brother, Stan.
    1. Re:"See if you're affected" by burtosis · · Score: 1

      IMO, Congress should start an investigation into this. It's just WRONG!

      The way things are now the investigation would probably be why people didn't waive thier right to sue and what can be done to fix it so you don't have that right in the first place.

  34. Credit Freeze Pin's not random by beernutmark · · Score: 1

    As an example of more (probably) sloppy security, I just put a freeze on my credit with Equifax (and the others). Equifax gives you a pin number that you need to unfreeze your credit at a later date. Imagine my surprise when my pin is almost exactly the same as the one they issued my wife. It appears that they use sequential pin numbers for each freeze. Either that or it is generated using our personal info which would make it reversible I imagine. Seems to me that the pin should be random or at least pseudo random. At least Experian allowed me to choose my own pin, which I let keepass pick.

    1. Re:Credit Freeze Pin's not random by burtosis · · Score: 2

      The one equifax gave me was the same one I use on my luggage!

  35. Home Depot by Chaldean42 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is a double kick in the nads to anyone who was part of the Home Depot breach, since they were all given a year of premium Equifax credit monitoring.

  36. Re:there is only one criminal in the whole world by campuscodi · · Score: 2, Funny

    Stop trolling. This is /. Only civilized conversations allowed

  37. Can we just all finally agree... by eth1 · · Score: 1

    That this type of info is basically public domain at this point, and any company using it to verify identity is being negligent?

  38. Good thing we have consumer protections by burtosis · · Score: 1

    I'm glad we are imposing a $300 per person whose info leaked fine as well as free coverage of any resulting charges that result directly from this theft of information. Not to mention jail the people who sold stock on inside information. That outta teach them a lesson! /s

  39. 143 million by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    At least it wasn't just my life they stole. With 143M of us affected we can do something about it together if things go wrong on a large scale (like social security gets drained)

    --
    Nullius in verba
  40. You are not the customer by Solandri · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You are the product. The customers are the banks, companies, and landlords from whom you wish to borrow money or collateral (like a leased car or apartment).

    And getting rid of the credit agencies won't have the effect most people seem to think it will. Lenders won't magically assume everyone is credit-worthy if there's no way to check people's credit. They're going to assume everyone is not credit-worthy. In other words, getting rid of credit reports won't make it easier for people with poor credit to borrow money. Nothing will change for people with poor credit. The only difference will be for people who had good credit - all the banks, companies, and landlords will assume everyone has bad credit, and everything will be priced accordingly.

    Unless you can prove you have enough money in the bank to cover the loan or collateral. So only the 1% would be able to borrow cheaply. The 99% would have to pay the exorbitant interest rates formerly reserved only for people with poor credit. That is the benefit the credit agencies provide you - giving you (if you're fiscally responsible) access to cheap loans without you having to keep enough money in the bank to immediately pay back the entire loan at any instant. But because people don't like being denied a loan, somehow this default base state (unable to get a loan because the lender doesn't know if they can trust you) got twisted around in people's minds into being a negative. It's not a negative; it's the neutral state. And being able to get a loan after a credit check is not a neutral, it's a positive.

    1. Re: You are not the customer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because that's *totally* how things worked before the Lawful Slander Bureaus began non-consensually collecting and selling data on citizens. Riiiiiight.

    2. Re:You are not the customer by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      getting rid of the credit agencies won't have the effect most people seem to think it will.

      Correct, yourself included.

      Lenders won't magically assume everyone is credit-worthy if there's no way to check people's credit. They're going to assume everyone is not credit-worthy.

      No! Most lenders won't make any assumptions at all they will do what was traditionally done they will determine if you have connections in the community, check into your reputation with past lenders and maybe even your pastor, get documentation from you about your income, its sources, etc, maybe drive past your house to see what your expenses really look like...

      Slow, painful, and expensive as that process may be the would do because not lending means they don't make any money!

      Unless you can prove you have enough money in the bank to cover the loan or collateral.

      Again no in a lot of cases. That would exclude far to many customers. Its often the case that asset being purchased can collateralize the loan with a some kind of modest down payment as is common with mortgages. Unsecured loans would be harder to come by, I am sure banks would think twice about letting people run around with 10k credit card balances but there is so much money to be made of CCs even these would probably still be readily available to most consumers, though likely with a lower ceiling.

      The 99% would have to pay the exorbitant interest rates formerly reserved only for people with poor credit.

      Again no, while I can see rates going up to cover the extra costs of rendering credit decisions and likely higher defaults rates creditors would face with less information this simply isn't true. Many people would not borrow at those rates, so they'd loose to many customers taking that approach. Worse a competitive creditor that is able to more efficiently and correctly make credit decisions and offer better rates would get all the customers who actually are good credit risk. They will be able get a cheaper loan from the lender who has the due diligence part down and working well, leaving people who know they are in fact not good credit risks to go to the lenders who are unable to make good credit decisions; leaving them with a book of disproportionately bad business!

      So credit would work differently. It would be say much harder to move to a new town where people don't know you and say buy a home there. Which would make people less mobile. I agree with you that on balance the credit agencies are probably a positive for most people and the economy, but lending went on before they existed and would continue if they suddenly vanished somehow.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  41. This philosophy is what's wrong with cybersecurity by Brannon · · Score: 1

    You're basically saying, "we should spend a lot of money having smart people plug a million different holes". That's the current strategy and it has failed at everything other than making cyber-security 'specialists' wealthy.

    That strategy is the digital equivalent of storing your valuables scattered throughout a mall, and then hiring enough mall cops on Segways to cover all the doors. Unsurprisingly, the right strategy is the digital equivalent of storing your valuables in a good safe, with one door that has a time-lock on it and is guarded by people with guns.
    The three steps of effective security are:

    1. Identify the secrets

    2. Get rid of as many as possible. For example, if you only need SSNs as an identify verification mechanism (like in the Equifax web case) then *only* store one-way encrypted versions (i.e., can't un-encrypt). Don't store credit card info, make the user re-enter their credit card info and only use it for that one transaction. Encourage things like Apple Pay for faster transactions.

    3. For the tiny amount of remaining secrets, store them on an essentially air-gapped machine, with the only electronic access being through an extremely restricted transaction-based custom protocol, where every transaction is independently authorized, logged, the transaction rate is limited, and all secrets are stored encrypted with different encryption keys per customer.

  42. Class Action Lawsuit by ryanmc1 · · Score: 1

    "Bloomberg reported on Friday that a class action seeking to represent 143 million consumers has been filed, and it alleges the company didn't spend enough on protecting data. The class-action -- filed by the firm Olsen Daines PC along with Geragos & Geragos, a celebrity law firm known for blockbuster class actions -- will seek as much as $70 billion in damages nationally."

    As long as 99.9% of the settlement goes to those who were affected I can get behind this. Unfortunately I know that a huge chunk will go to the lawyers.

    1. Re:Class Action Lawsuit by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      As long as 99.9% of the settlement goes to those who were affected I can get behind this. Unfortunately I know that a huge chunk will go to the lawyers.

      Given that Equifax has a market cap of ~$17 Billion, it's hard to imagine that any settlement would approach the $70 billion the law firm is seeking.

      Any competent board would just close down the company. If you're going to take out junk bonds to fund a company, it might as well be a new one without the baggage.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
  43. Re: That's it. I'm done with Equifax by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Those institutions can't just slash the amount of credit they extend

    Who said they would? Not me. They don't have to worry about a thing. They have free insurance via the government.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  44. Re: That's it. I'm done with Equifax by beady.el7512 · · Score: 1

    By that reasoning, why would they bother using Equifax in the first place? Credit agencies like Equifax help lenders assess who is good risk and who isn't. If the government is going to bail them out any time they lose money, their "risk" is exactly zero.

  45. credential theft by epine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It will be very hard to top this. In this case we have half of a population with personal info detailed enough to effectively steal identity in multiple ways ...

    Hackers aren't stealing identity, they are stealing credentials (so as so assume an identity, if the world makes this easy for them to pull off).

    Institutions want to pretend that credentials = identity, so that if they give your money to the wrong person, it's your fault (your identity was stolen, what else could we do?) rather than their fault (their chosen system of credentials sprung a leak, causing them to misidentify some loser as the real customer).

    Finally, a big enough leak that maybe some people will begin to comprehend the distinction here.

    1. Re: credential theft by Monster_user · · Score: 1

      Never thought of it that way. It has always been referred to as identity theft. Perhaps because the SSN is so closely and so nearly permanently tied to one's identity.

    2. Re: credential theft by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Identity theft seems to be an Americanism. I've rarely heard in mentioned in Canada. Of course, we also don't give out our equivalent of the SSN like candy. That number is government property and there are strong laws protecting who's allowed to have it.

  46. Be thankful by roxteddy · · Score: 1

    They do not hold personal biological data yet. I hope a class action law suit will destroy them. I believe it is an infringement of my rights for some third party to hold my personal information with no recourse to remove it from them. I do not wish to make my information available for loans ... ever!

  47. I would pastebin it all. by Distan · · Score: 1

    Social Security numbers were intended for one purpose only, to identify the Social Security retirement account of individual citizens.

    The fundamental security model of Equifax and the other credit agencies has always been broken. In my opinion the very best thing that could happen would be if a complete database of the names, addresses, birthdates, and social security numbers of every single US citizen was published and updated quarterly. The clowns at these credit agencies need to stop building an identification model on government retirement accounts.

    In short, if I was in possession of the Equifax leaked data, I would paste it all over the internet just to purposely screw Equifax's model.

    1. Re:I would pastebin it all. by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      One of these days, people will realize that using one single number as the password to all of their financial accounts is amongst the dumbest idea ever conceived.

  48. Re: That's it. I'm done with Equifax by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the government is going to bail them out any time they lose money, their "risk" is exactly zero.

    Which is exactly what happens. What are you getting at? Equifax sells snake oil, and make a pretty penny for it. There are suckers at every level.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  49. Re:You missed the really big story here by nagora · · Score: 1

    I meant that those actions may trigger an investigation which itself may well push the stock price down further.

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  50. Equifax has had terrible security for years! by Optic7 · · Score: 1

    I generally use a custom, unique address for each domain where I register, and did the same when I registered with Equifax to get my credit report through the free annual credit report that we are entitled to receive.

    Two years later (2011), I started getting lots of spam for the address that I had used ONLY for Equifax and nowhere else. They've had crappy security (and most likely a customer data breach) since way back when.

    I even emailed their customer service to report this at that time and their response was basically that I needed to contact my email provider to check my spam settings.

    Fuck Equifax.

  51. I think this is just the beginning by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    By now all that information has likely been copied a bunch of times, sent off to who knows where, and/or has been sold off to the highest bidder(s). Even if they determine who did the hack, the chances of the information being contained is essentially zero, especially considering the hack was done at least a month ago. It's all in the wind now and nothing will get it all back. It'll be months, or maybe years, before we find out the real extent of the damage.

  52. Re: That's it. I'm done with Equifax by ClickOnThis · · Score: 3, Informative

    One way to protect yourself (to a certain degree) is to put a lock on your personal information with each of the three credit-reporting companies (Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion.) That way, nobody can access your information unless you lift the lock, either selectively, or for a finite period of time. Some of the agencies charge money (typically $10) for such a lock, or to lift it temporarily, but it's worth it IMHO.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  53. Re:So, is it yet time to talk about actual securit by djinn6 · · Score: 1

    Took the words right out of my mouth. Opening a line of credit should require a public notary as witness, with associated identity checks done in person. And the whole process should be video taped.

    The current situation is made worse by the fact that as the identity theft victim, you're the one who needs to prove it was fraud, rather than the bank needing to prove it was you who opened it, meaning you need to cough up lawyer money exactly when you have the least control over your finances.

  54. Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but ... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    ...Equifax shouldn't survive this.

    And the board of directors should be* held responsible for the management practices that allowed this sort of error to happen.

    Ultimately, the buck needs to stop somewhere, that's why they get the very big bucks. I believe their CEO was paid $13.4 million last year. Taking that, plus the lush salaries of their board and other c-levels, would be a start.

    *OK I'm even laughing as I type, knowing how unlikely this is

    --
    -Styopa
  55. Yes, regulation CAN solve this by rbrander · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...not perfectly, of course. A previous poster is correct that no system is perfect. But systems that are well-regulated can be pretty good. The airline industry used to drop planes as frequently as we hear about major data-breaches today: like every month. Now it's less than one per year, despite travel having increased over 10 fold.

    We could be hearing about 1/100th as many data-breaches, as well. A bunch of financial services would get a little more expensive, but only a little, just like airline fares have not gone out of sight - they didn't even go out of sight after 9/11 when new regulations made flying more expensive. Just not much.

    This company has NO reason to spend more money on security next year. Why would they? The actual financial consequences of this event are really quite minor for them. No fines, no lawsuits, and almost no compensation. (The "year of monitoring" will cost about as much as a coffee for each of the 1% that sign up for it.)

    If Corporate Death Penalty were the consequence of an event like this, you'd see OpenBSD web sites with custom web servers written to only provide the application; you'd see humans paid to monitor the logs in real time, and more humans to watch them. You'd see the difference between how civilians do things and how the military do things, not caring that they spend a hundred dollars where a civilian would spend five. And you'd see some real results. Right now, failure is not just an option, its the cheaper one.

    People prattling on about how "nothing could have prevented this" are exactly like those who said the same about the Titanic - until new regulations that were "utterly unaffordable" the day before Titanic were suddenly gospel: double-hulls were very expensive, watertight compartments that go 20ft above water line, enough lifeboats for everybody, 7x24 ice patrols, 7x24 wireless monitoring on every ship. All of that was "impossible" the day before Titanic. The security equivalent is still "impossible" here, because there is essentially no penalty for failure.

  56. That means government regulation by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    since who else has the power to call Equifax to task? But I think it's safe to say the body politic has spoken. The party that espouses deregulation the most has the House, Senate, Presidency, is on the way to taking the Judiciary and has virtually all the State Legislatures and governorships. If you want to see any meaningfull action taken we'll need big changes to our political makeup.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  57. Not the worst by JohnFen · · Score: 1

    The breach Equifax reported Thursday is very possibly is the most severe of all for a simple reason: the breath-taking amount of highly sensitive data it handed over to criminals.

    I disagree. I think that the federal domestic data collection programs constitute the worst leak of personal information ever.

  58. I think you're confused by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    PCI-DSS is an industry standard specifically meant to prevent the government from stepping in and regulating. Equifax I'm sure complies with it in all respects.

    I think the trouble here is Equifax has virtually no penalty here (save a few million paid out to lawyers in the inevitable class action, assuming the recent laws regarding mandatory Arbitration don't kick in which depending on when the breach happened they might). When you say regulation what you really mean are fines bigger than cost of actually securing the data. Short of that and it's just a business decision. It costs X to secure the data and we lost Y in a breach. If X > Y you let the breach happen.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  59. Weak by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    Next time:

    SET credit_score = 740 WHERE credit_score <= 600;

    Cybercriminals sure aren't the old-school hackers.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  60. Re: That's it. I'm done with Equifax by bartle · · Score: 1

    Credit freezing is the only real protection that a consumer has against identify theft, in my opinion. Not only is it much, much cheaper than the monthly cost for credit monitoring, it proactively makes it less likely that one's identity will be stolen rather than informing after the fact.

    There is a marginal cost to doing this (around $10) unless one's identify has already been stolen, in which case its free. Since these major hacks and leaks are pretty much inevitable, it seems like in the fullness of time everyone will see their identity stolen at least once. When that happens, I guess everyone will just be able to freeze their credit for free.

    It would sure be nice to just skip to the inevitable end and just let everyone freeze their credit for free, now. That would be a far more welcome outcome from Equifax, offering free credit freezes, than the credit monitoring that they'll offer in their inevitable settlement.

  61. Maybe some good can come of this by davidwr · · Score: 1

    If people who check credit reports or grant credit verify the application is being sent in by the named party, this would go a long way to solving the problem.

    For in-person applications this is a no-brainer: The bank or other credit-issuer would require that the store clerk check your driver's license or other hard-to-counterfeit government-issued ID that has a current address on it, and have the store be held responsible for mistakes or fraud committed by the clerk.

    For online and over the phone applications it gets harder:

    I see a big opportunity for banks and stores to join Notary Publics in providing "authentication" services: If I plan on applying for more than a small amount of credit online or over the phone or through the mail in the next few weeks, I'll need to visit someone in person, show them my ID, and be issued a number or signed digital token that I will be required to present to creditors. This number or token would expire after a few weeks or less and, optionally, would only be good for certain uses such as mail-order goods shipped to a certain address or for non-loan purposes such as giving permission for a prospective landlord who hasn't seen me in person to run a credit check.

    In the case of a number or other non-self-authenticating token, the recipient would have to validate it with the issuer or a clearinghouse before accepting it. In the case of a signed digital token with a valid chain of trust, no further action is required.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  62. Re:So, is it yet time to talk about actual securit by Big+Boss · · Score: 1

    Short version, fuck them. They can just not have access to government services or banking then. This crap is what pandering to the stupid gets us. And if that makes them all want to go hide in their bunkers, so much the better for the rest of us.

    So long as any biometric data is not used for authentication. Something you HAVE and something you KNOW. Biometrics and a card are 2 things you HAVE. Unless an unhackable biometrics system is widely available, they won't do for authentication at this level. All the current ones are easily tricked into false positives.

  63. Re:Enough is enough by Big+Boss · · Score: 1

    I'm good with that, so long as proceeds go to the victims directly, not to the government or lawyers.

  64. Credit Freeze by gumpish · · Score: 1

    For those who might not be aware, you can direct the credit reporting companies to "freeze" your credit report. This will stop identity thieves from using your information to open new lines of credit under your name. (It also stops you from doing things that require a check of your credit score, like applying for a loan, etc.)

    https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/a...

    1. Re:Credit Freeze by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      This is very very useful and accurate information.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    2. Re:Credit Freeze by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      What self-identifying information might be required to activate or lift a credit freeze that isn't already compromised?

  65. "phishing site threat"? by David+Gould · · Score: 1

    So does anyone know what's up with OpenDNS blocking the equifax security site (the one that all the news articles are pointing to) with a "blocked due to a phishing threat" message?

    --
    David Gould
    main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
    1. Re:"phishing site threat"? by Zof · · Score: 1

      Probably because they are asking for information typcially found on phishing sites, such as name and (partial) SSN. It's also apparently running a stock WordPress installation and their production site throws debug messages and stack traces. Ugh.

  66. Re:You missed the really big story here by HiThere · · Score: 1

    From *this* government???

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  67. Re:What the hell are they talking about? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    In the US, they use your SSN as a kind of default key, tied with your birthdate and address and phone.

    They're really stupid here. The only people that should ever have had an SSN are those providing you with a pension or retirement plan.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  68. Here's what bothers me... by wwalker · · Score: 2

    Why was the system with everyone's SSNs connected to internet at all? Why was it not air gapped?! You don't need plaintext SSN included on anyone's credit report, it's only used for authentication (shouldn't be, but too late to change it now I guess). So why not treat it as passwords? As in, properly salted and hashed. And then you don't have to worry about it being stolen. Did they even hire any security experts when designing the system?!

  69. Re: That's it. I'm done with Equifax by eth1 · · Score: 2

    One way to protect yourself (to a certain degree) is to put a lock on your personal information with each of the three credit-reporting companies (Experian, Equifax, and TransUnion.) That way, nobody can access your information unless you lift the lock, either selectively, or for a finite period of time. Some of the agencies charge money (typically $10) for such a lock, or to lift it temporarily, but it's worth it IMHO.

    It was... If someone now has every piece of information that Equifax has for you, they can probably lift the lock, as well.

  70. Re:This philosophy is what's wrong with cybersecur by sh00z · · Score: 1

    Finally! somebody gets it--there is no legitimate reason for this database to have any connection to the Internet whatsoever.

  71. we need more software QA as well by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    we need more software QA as well.

    Way to much ship now patch later. Hell new stuff comes out with things listed to be added at a later date.

  72. Re: That's it. I'm done with Equifax by lessthan0 · · Score: 1

    purchases not purchaes. Thanks.

  73. Re: That's it. I'm done with Equifax by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

    By that reasoning, why would they bother using Equifax in the first place?

    Using a crappy "blind" service to charge you more shields them from repercussions of predatory lending practices.

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  74. Equifax Chief Security Officer unqualified by phalse+phace · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Looks like Equifax's Chief Security Officer Susan Mauldin is unqualified for her position. She doesn't seem to have the necessary education or experience.

    You could go to her LinkedIn profile to check yourself. Only problem is she deleted it.

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/susan-mauldin-93069a

    Thankfully, someone did a screen capture: http://i.imgur.com/QiXX3it.jpg

    1. Re:Equifax Chief Security Officer unqualified by bongey · · Score: 1

      Holy fuck a music composition degree she might as well have a degree in underwater basket weaving.

    2. Re:Equifax Chief Security Officer unqualified by bongey · · Score: 1

      They want women in tech, doesn't matter if they are qualified.

  75. These will continue to happen by sfcat · · Score: 2
    I worked for a company that was quite similar to Equifax and had the same level of PII on about half as many people. When I started, they seemed to take security seriously. But there were several other large breaches at other companies while I was there and nothing happened to those companies. So I watched as the company took greater and greater risks with security (often to save days or weeks of work for a single engineer). By the time I left, its security was on par with a company I worked for before that sold products for new mothers and kept no PII at all.

    Unless and until the FTC starts fining these companies large enough fines to cause the execs to take notice, these breaches will continue and only get worse. Security is a process and a breach like this usually required multiple lazy or sloppy decisions just to make the exploit possible. These breaches aren't national state actors writing custom exploits. These are script kiddies trolling for sloppy systems they can exploit. And those systems wouldn't be exploitable by those kiddies unless the engineers and IT folks were being so lazy and sloppy with security. There aren't even good risk reward decision making on these issues. The attitude is if I can save 1 dollar by doing less security, we will. Until fines and criminal charges start becoming a real risk, companies will continue to be breached over and over again.

    --
    "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
  76. Re:You missed the really big story here by ConaxConax · · Score: 1

    Sounds like that could be a good time to buy back!

  77. Not just credit agencies, checking agencies too by poobah75 · · Score: 1

    My identity was stolen, but the crooks didn't touch my credit because that would have flagged alerts with the major credit agencies like Experian, Equifax etc. Instead they abused the banking system (which uses a different verification service few people know about called ChexSystems). They opened online bank accounts in my name from every major "open a checking account online today!" service (like Ally, etc.), and started trying to funnel money into the accounts from elsewhere... such as from selling fake items on ebay and other mule scams. Had one of the compromised banks not sent me "my new ATM card" thanking me for opening accounts, I would have never known... and worse yet, checking my credit yearly at the major bureaus wouldn't have shown anything either because they weren't applying for credit. Plain and simple, they were using my name for money laundering transfers in and out of the country. Just like with the major credit bureaus, you can put a "banking freeze" and "Fraud alerts" with ChexSystems to prevent people from opening savings and checking accounts in your name too. I suggest people do it. In my case it was free since I had my identity stolen, but it only costs a few bucks to freeze them too.

  78. 90 day fraud lock by WolfgangVL · · Score: 2

    I guessing, but I bet if everybody puts the 90 day fraud lock on the credit, all of the banks, lending institutions, and money based businesses will really feel the squeeze.

    I understand the 90 day fraud lock is free.....

    --
    You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
  79. Re:Another failure of big government. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    Might as well be considering how big a screw up this is.

    Nice pivot!

  80. Re: Another failure of big government. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    Nope. It is a public company with $16B in market cap. $14B today, after the news

    But being publicly-traded does not make it a government organization.

  81. Re:Another failure of big government. by GerryGilmore · · Score: 1

    And we have a winner for most stupid comment on this thread - possibly the entire day! (Private company fails miserably - Blame Government!)

  82. Re:Should I change my Social Security number? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    No, it's OK for ID. It's terrible at authentication. I have to give my SSN to lots of institutions. While I don't know about their ability with security, some of them have really stupid password rules.

    So, there's lots of people besides me who know what my SSN is, and some of them are probably willing to let any random hacker find it out. I'm not the only one.

    If I had a private key, and kept it secure and didn't lose it, that would be a much better ID and authentication.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  83. One year of free credit monitoring by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    How about free credit monitoring for life for all the people impacted! Will also be interesting to see how much jail time the managers get for insider trading.

  84. Re: there is only one criminal in the whole world by Monster_user · · Score: 1

    "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." We need a weapon of a more civilized era, like a TRS-80!

  85. Litigation is needed by VikingNation · · Score: 1

    I am glad to hear there is a multi billion dollar lawsuit. The impact of this breach will be significant and far reaching. The only way that companies are going to invest to do things right is if the cost for screwing up will put them out of business.

  86. Re: That's it. I'm done with Equifax by Bitmanhome · · Score: 1

    According to the FTC:

    What is a credit freeze?
    Also known as a security freeze, this tool lets you restrict access to your credit report...

    I'm guessing a credit freeze is pretty useless now, since all the important data is out.

    --
    Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
  87. When will these security breaches by PlaynBass · · Score: 1

    ... bring down the cashless economy? Internet commerce? Commercialism?

    --
    PlaynBass
  88. Yay! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    We're number one! We're number one!

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  89. Re:What the hell are they talking about? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    In the US, they use your SSN as a kind of default key, tied with your birthdate and address and phone.

    They're really stupid here. The only people that should ever have had an SSN are those providing you with a pension or retirement plan.

    And it used to be that way. My SSN card even states that it isn't to be used for identification. But somewhere along the line, it became the defacto identification device. I had to chuckle one time when at our university swimming poo, I hade to give my social to get a towel.

    We so dum!

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  90. Re:Another failure of big government. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    In what way is this a failure of big government?

    I'd actually assert that this is a failure of small government - in Europe where the government is bigger, there's regulations about what information these companies can store, how they must store it, and what the penalty is if they fail to do so.

    Its the cryptoconservative mantra. A problem? All problems are the fault of big government and liberals.

    It's actually entertaining after a while, as noted in my sig line, some idiot in here actually blamed peanut allergies on liberals.

    So while it is a remarkable exercise in tapdancing to stupid, but often laughable.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  91. Re: Another failure of big government. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    I suspect you're trolling.

    Equifax is a private company whose executives engaged in insider trading right after they discovered the breach. It will be another proof that our regulation light government doesn't have any teeth to deal with this appropriately.

    Ummmm - but her email?

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  92. Re: That's it. I'm done with Equifax by interstellarsurfer · · Score: 1

    I think you misunderstand the purpose of credit bureaus. The point is: How much do we have to charge to make a decent profit? They don't give a tiny rats ass how badly you've screwed up, they only care about how much they should pad the bill.

  93. Re:Credit Freeze Pin IS now random and no fee? by Guru2Newbie · · Score: 1
    I froze my Equifax account on Saturday Sep 9, got the bogus timestamp PIN, and was charged $5 to do it. Just now (2 days later) froze my spouse's Equifax file, and was NOT charged $5 and got an apparently random 10-digit PIN (no numbers with any relation to date or time in there).

    Question of the day:
    Over the weekend, did Equifax get shamed into doing something right: a) using random PINs, and b) not charging $5 per freeze?

  94. Re:Another failure of big government. by Guru2Newbie · · Score: 1

    We need more private industry and less big government incompetence.

    Perhaps AC means we need more private industry incompetence?