Slashdot Mirror


Squabble With Contractor Delayed Equifax's Response To Data Breach (bloomberg.com)

An anonymous reader quotes Bloomberg's report on the contractor Equifax first hired to investigate their breach: Equifax and Mandiant got into a dispute just as the hackers were gaining a foothold in the company's network... Mandiant warned Equifax that its unpatched systems and misconfigured security policies could indicate major problems, a person familiar with the perspectives of both sides said. For its part, Equifax believed Mandiant had sent an undertrained team without the expertise it expected from a marquee security company...

That rift, which appears to have squelched a broader look at weaknesses in the company's security posture, looks to have given the intruders room to operate freely within the company's network for months. According to an internal analysis of the attack, the hackers had time to customize their tools to more efficiently exploit Equifax's software, and to query and analyze dozens of databases to decide which held the most valuable data. The trove they collected was so large it had to be broken up into smaller pieces to try to avoid tripping alarms as data slipped from the company's grasp through the summer... By the time they were done, the attackers had accessed dozens of sensitive databases and created more than 30 separate entry points into Equifax's computer systems.

"They may not have immediately grasped the value of their discovery, but, as the attack escalated over the following months, that first group -- known as an entry crew -- handed off to a more sophisticated team of hackers," reports Bloomberg, suggesting that the attack may have been sponsored by a nation-state.

1 of 127 comments (clear)

  1. You'd be surprised ... by jfgob · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... or possibly not how unbelievably common this is. And most of the time, in my experience, the management is not even aware of the issues. The last security assessment I did were shot down as "unpractical and impossible to execute on" by the IT managers or directors. Simply because it started with "take XXX days to level all systems to a known updated state" along with the report from a vulnerability scanner. These IT managers/directors were actually the ones saying "if I go to my management with this proposal, I will lose my job", not the top management itself, happily thinking that everything was hunky-dory. My experience is that many CTOs do not like telling their CEO "we need to talk" or "we need to fix up things and that involves changing the way people think too."