Home > Identity Theft > The Michaels & Fox Data Breaches: Coincidence or Cohesion?

Comments 0 Comments

MagnifyingGLass_Jonny_Hughes_CCFlickrWell, two fascinating—and repellant—things happened in the last few days, which but for the broadest possible subject matter connection, would seem to be unrelated. On May 6, a group calling itself LulzSec hacked Fox Entertainment network computers and released personal information about people from the database of potential contestants for the popular Fox show “X Factor.” Five days later, the same group announced in quite caustic terms that it also had hacked Fox.com computers to gain access to the personal information, including email addresses, of 363 Fox employees. Within a nanosecond or two, the group also had defaced the profiles of 14 of those employees on LinkedIn, a popular business-oriented social networking site (which found and corrected the hackers’ work quickly and efficiently). These announcements were made by the hackers, appropriately enough, on Twitter—one of the most trafficked social networking sites in the universe.

[Article: Bin Phishin’?]

Within those same few days, Michaels Stores—the popular arts and crafts retailers—announced it had discovered that in at least 80 of its stores nationwide, debit card swipe pads had been either swapped out or otherwise tampered with so as to allow debit card numbers and pins to be systematically and routinely stolen. Unlike other attacks of this type, such as the one directed at Stop & Shop in 2007 in which only a few stores located in the New England region were compromised, the Michaels Stores were geographically located all over the country from New Mexico to Massachusetts. Very quickly it was also discovered that the compromised information had already been used to drain the bank accounts of scores of Michaels customers through the use of ATM machines. The process is quite simple really; the information from the bogus swipe pads is collected and transmitted to the thieves, who quickly create equally bogus ATM debit cards, consisting of very little but a piece of plastic with a magnetic strip. It works just like the real thing at an ATM, though. Michaels announced that within two weeks it would replace more than 7,200 swipe pads at all of its stores, and in the meantime would utilize a much slower yet more secure manual method of processing debit card transactions.

[Article: Playstation Invasion: Child Identity Theft is No Game]

Now what do these seemingly unrelated attacks have in common? First, both were cleverly executed. One assumes that Rupert Murdoch is quite sensitive when it comes to security—data security in particular. It couldn’t have been a walk in the park for LulzSec to hack the Fox computers. Similarly, think of the scale of the Michaels attack; it must’ve taken a large number of folks, all of whom had to be reasonably technical, and all of whom were coordinated in a very precise and premeditated way across all those pads in all those stores in all those states. This crime was organized, even if it was not accomplished by organized crime.
On the other hand, think of the profound differences between these two events. There is no indication that LulzSec was attempting to do anything other than send a pointed and disruptive message. There isn’t a hint of a profit motive, and given the nature of their target, one might naturally assume that these folks are a technologically talented band of fellow travelers out to have a little fun at the expense of the Right. In fact, there is no indication of any criminal motive, aside from the fact that what they did was in itself a crime. But the Michaels battalion of attackers could only be it for the money—and to do what they did they must have invested quite a bit up front. Moreover, the methods of the madness were so different from one another.

The Michaels & Fox Data Breaches (cont.) »

Image: Jonny Hughes, via Flickr.com

Pages: 1 2

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Credit.com receives compensation for the financial products and services advertised on this site if our users apply for and sign up for any of them.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team