[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Fwd: Equifax hack worse than previously thought: Biz kissed goodbye to card expiry dates, tax IDs etc

theo geurts gtheo at xs4all.nl
Tue Feb 13 21:14:40 UTC 2018


I am off target?

I think I am very on target since the very start of this WG trying to 
bridge data protection and fighting abuse.

Theo
On 13-2-2018 21:56, Chen, Tim wrote:
> Theo - this comment is off target on many levels and takes us well 
> outside of Whois.    The #1 abuse-driving issue is cheap domains, due 
> to pricing schemes and business models of registrars and registries.  
> Bad actors target COM bc it's popular and well-known.  Lots of tools 
> we need to fight abuse, Whois is but one.  But a powerful one.
>
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:56 AM, Theo Geurts <gtheo at xs4all.nl 
> <mailto:gtheo at xs4all.nl>> wrote:
>
>     John,
>
>     I think some of us are still mystified that there are no "huge"
>     issues in 147 million ccTLDs while there seems to be "huge" issues
>     with 181 million gTLDs ,25% of them using privacy proxy services.
>
>     Personally I am more mystified why we keep on relying on WHOIS to
>     combat such issues while the abuse rate goes up in the gTLD space
>     each year. Perhaps time to come up with something better? It looks
>     like we rather patch up the boat sinking deeper down each year, as
>     opposed to create a new sea worthy vessel.
>
>     Theo
>
>
>
>     On 13-2-2018 18:43, John Horton via gnso-rds-pdp-wg wrote:
>>     I am mystified as to why some people in this group don't
>>     recognize that while (that's US for "whilst," for my European
>>     friends!) legitimate business may do that -- and indeed, may be
>>     required to in Ireland and Japan and a few other countries, a)
>>     there is no requirement in other locations to do so, and b) the
>>     bad actors either don't publish it or put falsified information
>>     on their website...but the Whois record, whether accurate or
>>     falsified (and sometimes even with privacy protection) is helpful
>>     in anti-money laundering, consumer protection, certification,
>>     anti abuse and trust and safety. Let's all acknowledge that we
>>     live in a world where there are many, many legitimate e-commerce
>>     businesses but many illicit ones as well! Our solutions have to
>>     accommodate for all of the above.
>>
>>     John Horton
>>     President and CEO, LegitScript
>>
>>
>>     *FollowLegitScript*: LinkedIn
>>     <http://www.linkedin.com/company/legitscript-com>  | Facebook
>>     <https://www.facebook.com/LegitScript>  | Twitter
>>     <https://twitter.com/legitscript>  | _Blog
>>     <http://blog.legitscript.com/>_  |Newsletter
>>     <http://go.legitscript.com/Subscription-Management.html>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:33 AM, Volker Greimann
>>     <vgreimann at key-systems.net <mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>> wrote:
>>
>>         John, if businesses want to publish their information, they
>>         should do it on their website, as they are legally required
>>         to (at least over here). No need for whois for that. So that
>>         purpose is out the window already.
>>
>>         Volker
>>
>>
>>         Am 13.02.2018 um 18:07 schrieb John Bambenek via gnso-rds-pdp-wg:
>>>
>>>         No it doesn't because there are large incentives for
>>>         institution and individuals to continue to publish
>>>         information. Businesses, for instance, WANT to be contacted.
>>>         If you want mail delivered, certain best practices are imposed.
>>>
>>>         If consent is not the solution, YOU are deciding what the
>>>         rest of the world can and cannot do with their data. Who
>>>         exactly made ICANN the arbiter of what I can do with my data?
>>>
>>>
>>>         On 2/13/2018 11:04 AM, Volker Greimann wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         I am not sure you want that, because that means completely
>>>>         dark whois.
>>>>
>>>>         I'd prefer an approach where we do not need to rely on
>>>>         consent (but can still offer it as an option). The hard bit
>>>>         is finding the right principles of who gets access to what
>>>>         and how even when there is no consent.
>>>>
>>>>         Consent is not the solution.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         Am 13.02.2018 um 18:00 schrieb John Bambenek via
>>>>         gnso-rds-pdp-wg:
>>>>>
>>>>>         Ok, so you agree with my in principle and we're just
>>>>>         haggling over the details now. Flip a coin for all I care,
>>>>>         opt-in/opt-out and move forward.
>>>>>
>>>>>         So let's do that. When can we implement?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         On 2/13/2018 10:58 AM, Volker Greimann wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         You are still looking at the wrong end of the horse.
>>>>>>         Privacy is not the choice, it is the default. Divulging
>>>>>>         data is the choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Am 13.02.2018 um 17:57 schrieb John Bambenek via
>>>>>>         gnso-rds-pdp-wg:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         Exactly right. As far as I'm concerned if we made
>>>>>>>         privacy a free choice, make the fields optional for all
>>>>>>>         I care, and whatever they do make is public... we have
>>>>>>>         solved this problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         People who ACTUALLY protect society against privacy
>>>>>>>         threats have the data to do their jobs, consumers who
>>>>>>>         want privacy have a free option for it, and registrars
>>>>>>>         can be in compliance with the law.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         On 2/13/2018 10:54 AM, DANIEL NANGHAKA wrote:
>>>>>>>>         This is just an example but there is a lot of damage
>>>>>>>>         that can be caused with data being exposed. In our case
>>>>>>>>         we have phone numbers, addresses, emails which is
>>>>>>>>         required to verification.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         This takes us to issue of consent.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         On Tuesday, February 13, 2018, John Bambenek via
>>>>>>>>         gnso-rds-pdp-wg <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>>>>>>         <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>             Let's be honest here, we're talking about phone
>>>>>>>>             numbers and email addresses. The threat model is
>>>>>>>>             RADICALLY different with the data we are talking about.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>             On 2/13/2018 10:45 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             Undeterred by the fact that noone has responded to
>>>>>>>>>             my last post, I offer the following update to the
>>>>>>>>>             Equifax breach to further illustrate my point.  As
>>>>>>>>>             many companies have found out, you don't find out
>>>>>>>>>             what you've got till it's gone.....a further
>>>>>>>>>             reason for data minimization and short retention
>>>>>>>>>             periods.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             	
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             	
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             	
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             	
>>>>>>>>>             To: 	
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/13/equifax_security_breach_bad/
>>>>>>>>>             <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/02/13/equifax_security_breach_bad/>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             *Equifax hack worse than previously thought: Biz
>>>>>>>>>             kissed goodbye to card expiry dates, tax IDs etc*
>>>>>>>>>             Pwned credit-score biz quietly admits more info lost
>>>>>>>>>             By Iain Thomson in San Francisco 13 Feb 2018 at 02:13
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             Last year, Equifax admitted
>>>>>>>>>             https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/09/07/143m_american_equifax_customers_exposed/
>>>>>>>>>             <https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/09/07/143m_american_equifax_customers_exposed/>
>>>>>>>>>             hackers stole sensitive personal records on 145
>>>>>>>>>             million Americans and hundreds of thousands in the UK
>>>>>>>>>             https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/10/10/equifax_uk_records_update/
>>>>>>>>>             <https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/10/10/equifax_uk_records_update/>
>>>>>>>>>             and Canada.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             The outfit already said cyber-crooks "primarily"
>>>>>>>>>             took names, social security numbers, birth dates,
>>>>>>>>>             home addresses, credit-score dispute forms, and,
>>>>>>>>>             in some instances, credit card numbers and driver
>>>>>>>>>             license numbers. Now the credit-checking giant
>>>>>>>>>             reckons the intruders snatched even more
>>>>>>>>>             information from its databases.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             According to documents provided by Equifax to the
>>>>>>>>>             US Senate Banking Committee,
>>>>>>>>>             and _revealed this month by Senator Elizabeth
>>>>>>>>>             Warren (D-MA)_,
>>>>>>>>>             https://apnews.com/2a51e3e5f9a945978df4ad96246b8ecc
>>>>>>>>>             <https://apnews.com/2a51e3e5f9a945978df4ad96246b8ecc>
>>>>>>>>>             the attackers also grabbed taxpayer identification
>>>>>>>>>             numbers, phone numbers, email addresses, and
>>>>>>>>>             credit card expiry dates belonging to some Equifax
>>>>>>>>>             customers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             Like social security numbers, taxpayer ID numbers
>>>>>>>>>             are useful for fraudsters seeking to steal
>>>>>>>>>             people's identities or their tax rebates, and the
>>>>>>>>>             expiry dates are similarly useful for online
>>>>>>>>>             crooks when linked with credit card numbers and
>>>>>>>>>             other personal information.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             *Contradictory*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             "As your company continues to issue incomplete,
>>>>>>>>>             confusing and contradictory statements and hide
>>>>>>>>>             information from Congress and the public, it is
>>>>>>>>>             clear that five months after the breach was
>>>>>>>>>             publicly announced, Equifax has yet to answer this
>>>>>>>>>             simple question in full: what was the precise
>>>>>>>>>             extent of the breach?" Warren fumed in a missive
>>>>>>>>>             late last week.
>>>>>>>>>             https://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2317
>>>>>>>>>             <https://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2317>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             Equifax spokeswoman Meredith Griffanti stressed to
>>>>>>>>>             The Register today that the extra information
>>>>>>>>>             snatched by hackers, as revealed by Senator
>>>>>>>>>             Warren, belonged to "some" Equifax customers. In
>>>>>>>>>             other words, not everyone had their phone numbers,
>>>>>>>>>             email addresses, and so on, slurped by crooks just
>>>>>>>>>             some. How much is some? Equifax isn't saying,
>>>>>>>>>             hence Warren's (and everyone else's) growing
>>>>>>>>>             frustration.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             The senator is a cosponsor of the _proposed Data
>>>>>>>>>             Breach Prevention and Compensation Act, _
>>>>>>>>>             https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/10/credit_reporting_agencies_fines/
>>>>>>>>>             <https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/10/credit_reporting_agencies_fines/>
>>>>>>>>>             which, if passed, would impose computer security
>>>>>>>>>             regulations on credit reporting agencies, with
>>>>>>>>>             mandatory fines that would have led to Equifax
>>>>>>>>>             coughing up $1.5bn for its IT blunder.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             Some regulation or punishment is obviously needed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             No senior Equifax executives were fired over the
>>>>>>>>>             attack instead the CEO, CSO and CIO were all
>>>>>>>>>             allowed to retire with multi-million dollar golden
>>>>>>>>>             parachutes. The US government's Consumer Financial
>>>>>>>>>             Protection Bureau promised a full investigation
>>>>>>>>>             into the Equifax affair, and then gave up. On
>>>>>>>>>             February 7, an open letter [PDF]
>>>>>>>>>             https://www.schatz.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CFPB%20Equifax%20Letter%202-7-18.pdf
>>>>>>>>>             <https://www.schatz.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CFPB%20Equifax%20Letter%202-7-18.pdf>
>>>>>>>>>             from 32 senators to the bureau asked why the probe
>>>>>>>>>             was dropped, and the gang has yet to receive a
>>>>>>>>>             response. ®
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>             gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>>>>>>             gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>>>>>>>             <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>>>>>             https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>>>>>>>             <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>             -- 
>>>>>>>>             --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>             John Bambenek
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         -- 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         Regards
>>>>>>>>         Nanghaka Daniel K.
>>>>>>>>         Executive Director - ILICIT Africa / Chair - FOSSFA /
>>>>>>>>         Community Lead - ISOC Uganda Chapter / Geo4Africa Lead
>>>>>>>>         / Organising Team - FOSS4G2018
>>>>>>>>         Mobile +256 772 898298 <tel:+256%20772%20898298> (Uganda)
>>>>>>>>         Skype: daniel.nanghaka
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>         ----------------------------------------- /"Working for
>>>>>>>>         Africa" /-----------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         -- 
>>>>>>>         --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         John Bambenek
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>         gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>>>>         gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>>>         https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>>>>>         <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>>>         gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>>>         gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>>         https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>>>>         <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>>>>>
>>>>>         -- 
>>>>>         --
>>>>>
>>>>>         John Bambenek
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>>         gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>>         gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>         https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>>>         <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>         gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>         gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>>         https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>>         <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>>>
>>>         -- 
>>>         --
>>>
>>>         John Bambenek
>>>
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>         gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>         https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>         <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>         gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>         https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>         <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>     gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>     gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>     <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20180213/071d21cd/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list