Slashdot Mirror


TechCrunch: Equifax Hack-Checking Web Site Is Returning Random Results (techcrunch.com)

An anonymous reader quotes security researcher Brian Krebs: The web site that Equifax advertised as the place where concerned Americans could go to find out whether they were impacted by this breach -- equifaxsecurity2017.com -- is completely broken at best, and little more than a stalling tactic or sham at worst. In the early hours after the breach announcement, the site was being flagged by various browsers as a phishing threat. In some cases, people visiting the site were told they were not affected, only to find they received a different answer when they checked the site with the same information on their mobile phones.
TechCrunch has concluded that "the checker site, hosted by Equifax product TrustID, seems to be telling people at random they may have been affected by the data breach." One user reports that entering the same information twice produced two different answers. And ZDNet's security editor reports that even if you just enter Test or 123456, "it says your data has been breached." TechCrunch writes: The assignment seems random. But, nevertheless, they were still asked to continue enrolling in TrustID. What this means is not only are none of the last names tied to your Social Security number, but there's no way to tell if you were really impacted. It's clear Equifax's goal isn't to protect the consumer or bring them vital information. It's to get you to sign up for its revenue-generating product TrustID.
Meanwhile, one web engineer claims the secret 10-digit "security freeze" PIN being issued by Equifax "is just a timestamp of when you made the freeze."

22 of 176 comments (clear)

  1. Do the math by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Funny

    The judgement Equifax will have to pay for this breach is massive. Unfortunately, the probability of it staying solvent enough to pay anything is the reciprocal of this amount.

    1. Re:Do the math by Desler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I look forward to my "massive" $5 gift certificate.

    2. Re:Do the math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is a joke right? Equifax made more than $3 billion last year in revenue and has nearly $7 billion in assets. I'm sure they'll be perfectly fine after their slap on the wrist from the Trump Administration.

    3. Re:Do the math by arth1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      $20 towards signing up for TrustID, I'm sure. Taxes and other fees apply.

    4. Re:Do the math by mentil · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nah. Carly, Elop or Meg will take over for a while until they're bought out by Verizon. All the data owned by Equifax will then be used for yet another Verizon targeted advertising scheme, because apparently Verizon wishes it were Google.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    5. Re:Do the math by Zocalo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Pretty much. The only saving grace for Equifax on that front since they apparently have data on EU citizens involved in the breach is that they managed to get taken to the cleaners before the GDPR comes into force next May. If they'd somehow been able to keep the ship afloat that long, then they'd also be on the hook to the EU for 4% of their global annual *turnover* for the last fiscal year, which is probably enough to wipe them out all on its own. I doubt very much the company is going to survive this, even if the government steps in and bails them out - any trust their customers might have had should be long gone by this point.

      Of course, that means that all your ID eggs are now going to be in two baskets rather than three, and there's absolutely zero evidence that either of the other two major players are any better at this than Equifax as far as I can see. Good luck with that.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    6. Re:Do the math by shentino · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm afraid Monsanto has a patent on that

  2. The Experian hotline by timholman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Today I tried calling the new Equifax help line (set up because of the data breach) and asked the woman I spoke to if Equifax intended to issue new PIN numbers to the people who already had credit freezes.

    Long pause. "Sir, have you been to our web site?"

    Me: "Yes, I have. According to your own site, my data is at risk. My wife and I froze our credit a couple of years ago, and you issued us 10-number PINs for unfreezing our credit online. Since the hackers now have everything they need to log into your web site with our credentials, I want to know if those PIN numbers were part of the compromised information, and if Equifax intends to issue new PIN numbers."

    Another very long pause. "Sir, I don't have that information at this time, but I will log this request."

    Me: "Yeah, Equifax doesn't have much information about anything, does it? Have a nice day."

    Talk about incompetence compounded. So now it turns out that the PIN is nothing but a timestamp, and Equifax has given up all the information needed for a criminal to unfreeze my credit using their website. Anyone want to bet if that timestamp can be deduced from the information already stolen in the breach?

    1. Re:The Experian hotline by arth1 · · Score: 5, Funny

      STOP SAYING PIN NUMBERS

      Yes, he should have said personal PIN number, so it's not mistaken for a corporate PIN number.

  3. Just Looked at My PIN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It indeed IS a time stamp. Geezus. It's bad enough it's just a numeric PIN which isn't very secure to begin with, but then to be that obvious. Wow. Hopefully I can get that changed.

    The good news is freezing my credit here in Indiana didn't cost me a dime. It's a law we have here.

    1. Re:Just Looked at My PIN by Desler · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah it's ridiculous especially since TransUnion and Experian let you set your own PIN rather than relying on some incompetent to give you a deterministic 'random' PIN.

    2. Re:Just Looked at My PIN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "Incompetent" just doesn't cut it. Their name needs to become a verb. They've fucked up that hard.

      "Hey, buddy, don't equifax that document!"

    3. Re:Just Looked at My PIN by blincoln · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's nothing intrinsically wrong with using a timestamp

      Yes, there is, when the topic involves security (which is almost always). Unlike a well-vetted PRNG, truncating a timestamp (at either end) has no mathematical basis for producing high-entropy results.

      Just about every modern programming language has a built-in mechanism for generating random numbers with high entropy. There is no reason to not use that functionality in a case like this.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
  4. Racketeering by mentil · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It has become increasingly obvious that Equifax and their cohorts are running a racket, running roughshod over consumer rights. The congressionally-mandated free annual credit report was inadequate to solve all the problems with their business. I pray that racketeering charges are brought against Equifax, for their practice of punishing people who don't sign up for their protection services whenever Equifax makes a mistaken data entry, and by holding proprietary information over their head limiting access to any significant financial transactions (although lenders are as at fault here too.) Furthermore, 'identity theft' should be an Equifax/lender problem, rather than a consumer problem.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Racketeering by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right the big problem here is that there is not cost to the agencies to getting it wrong. If the report inaccurate information about it, it may cost you big, costs them nothing.

      The 'free credit report' solution was BS. I it should not be my responsibility to verify on a regular basis some entity isnt spreading material falsehoods about me. Mind you making it my responsibility might be the only practical way, if we give the credit agencies the doubt and assume they at least try to get it right, they have no way to address the problem. They need to be penalized for forwarding bad information in some way. Maybe that is making it extra easy for libel(like) civil suits to succeed against this type of a business, with lower standards of proof of harm.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  5. Faster method by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just ask the Nigerian prince. Quick turnaround if you help him with a little banking snafu.

  6. Dicey from start to finish by AlanObject · · Score: 4, Informative

    For as long as I can remember all credit scoring companies always behaved in opaque and obscure ways. That continues right up to this day.

    When I was in my twenties the law was they had to disclose "everything" if you asked for it and it came on a form that was printed on a 132-column line printer. So I was in credit trouble (that of course is the age for it) and got turned down for a card so they sent me the free report. Most of what was on it was wrong or benign. The late payments on credit cards that I actually did have were not on the report except for Sears who was always the most aggressive on reporting these things. There was nothing on it that would explain an extremely low credit score even though in my case the low credit score was deserved.

    I could only conclude that "everything" report in fact did not have everything on it in clear violation of what the law seemed to say. There was nothing I could do about it and nobody with actual influence seemed to care.

    Today I have a very high credit score: at the moment my FICO score 876 out of 900. A few years back I bought a car and the dealership had to run a credit report even though I was paying cash. The guy said he had never seen a score that high and his customers he had sold to included highly successful silicon valley execs. I'm not rich by any means but I can pay my bills so whatever.

    So I get a copy of the report and it had scant data on it but has a section "things that can adversely affect your score." It lists things there like "too many accounts with balances open." Say what? I don't owe a dime on any account except my mortgage. I have two credit cards with zero balance for months and I haven't paid a dime of interest or finance charge on them for a decade. But that's a problem: "No recent revolving balances." So if you aren't spending enough that's a negative.

    I am pretty sure that none of Bill Gates, Larry Ellison and Elon Musk could get a 900. (Not that they would care, nor anyone giving them credit), My point is if it is impossible to ace the test then it is not a good test. But that's the way the credit industry is built -- a complex data base of hidden rules that they can exploit to make money.

    It should surprise nobody that Equifax is using this crisis event to skim cash.

    1. Re:Dicey from start to finish by Shados · · Score: 3, Informative

      I am pretty sure that none of Bill Gates, Larry Ellison and Elon Musk could get a 900

      850 is the max for the scale people generally refer to when talking about credit scores. Googling around, some banks seem to use internally a different score scale, but let's set that aside for a sec.

      People can, and in fact do get perfect score. If you understand exactly how it works, its' not that difficult. It has very little to do with how much money you make, and is a pretty artificial metric.

      When you get a report and it says things like "too many accounts with balances open", it doesn't mean "you have too many accounts with balances open". It just means you don't have -precisely- the amount of accounts the algorithm uses for a perfect score, so you lost a non-zero amount of points for it, and since you said you have a mortgage, it's probably what it's referring to.

      To get a perfect score, you need a bunch of accounts open, that were opened several years ago (none recently), that are used but have 0 balance at the moment they were audited. Your available credit across those account has to be very high, and you need multiple accounts from different credit providers. There are a few other factors, but if you do it just right its pretty simple, given enough time, to manipulate your credit to get a perfect score.

      In fact, some people make a game out of it. The only gotcha is you have to use those accounts sometimes but they have to be at 0 or nearly 0 the moment they're reported, and you never know when that will be (since it can change). So often you'll hover between 845 and 850 (or whatever other scale you're looking at, though those may have slightly different criterias)

  7. Re:Beware of TrustID by dunkindave · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Personally, I'd just lock my credit records with Equifax. Leave them open with the other agencies, so lenders can still approve loans. Just not with Equifax.

    Is your name, address, birthdate, social security number, etc., with TransUnion and Experian different than the information leaked by Equifax? If so, why do you only worry about locking Equifax?

  8. Re:firefox: bad certificate for equifaxsecurity201 by arth1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The GeoTrust Global CA used to sign the GeoTrust DV SSL CA - G3 certificate is ancient (from 2002) and uses an SHA-1 algorithm, which is no longer considered secure..
    So even if the intermediate certificate is SHA-256 sign, the chain is not trusted by clients that require strong security.

    GeoTrust used to own Equifax Security, but sold out in 2006, and then got acquied by Verisign, which in turn got acquired by Symantec. So don't be too surprised at signs of incompetence.

  9. Everyone...it was everyone by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    These data breaches follow an inevitable life-cycle:

    1) Initial release: "We had a data breach which effected some, but not all, of our customers. The data breach was limited, and did not include bank account numbers, CC numbers, etc."

    2) A week or two later: "The data breach we reported may have included more customers than we initially reported. Some customers may have had sensitive information like CC information and bank account information compromised."

    3) A month later (in a quiet press release late on a Friday afternoon): "It was everyone, and they got everything."

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  10. Re:Beware of TrustID by sfcat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    All you'll do is discourage those banks and lenders from doing business WITH YOU and nothing more.

    I disagree, this is the first good idea about what to do about Equifax I've heard. If many many people all locked their Equifax accounts, then lenders would start expecting that this is common, rational behavior. They would then stop seeing the need to use Equifax. This is the first real idea that has a chance at actually impacting their business which is the only way to reform this horribly broken industry.

    --
    "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."