Picking Apart The Hannaford Breach- What Might Have Happened

There goes another one. According to multiple sources, the Hannaford Brothers grocery chain suffered a major breach with 4.2 million credit cards exposed. Hannaford had published an FAQ for their customers. Odds are it will be months until we find out what really happened, but I’m going to speculate anyway, pick apart the press coverage and FAQ, and see if we can learn something from this now. As usual, the information released is incomplete and contradictory. PORTLAND, Maine (AP) – A security breach at an East Coast supermarket chain exposed 4.2 million credit and debit card numbers and led to 1,800 cases of fraud, the Hannaford Bros. grocery chain announced Monday. Hannaford said credit and debit card numbers were stolen during the card authorization process and about 4.2 million unique account numbers were exposed. The breach affected all of its 165 stores in the Northeast, 106 Sweetbay stores in Florida and a smaller number of independent groceries that sell Hannaford products. This is interesting since there is a direct tie to fraud, as opposed to many other breaches. This often means the fraud was detected in the credit system and then traced back to the retailer, which seems to be what happened based on the FAQ. As a researcher it’s always helpful to be able to tie the breach to illegal activity. This does, of course, suck for the victims, but as long as it’s credit card fraud they are protected. Since the information was stolen during the authorization process, and was distributed over many locations, it means a compromise of the central authorizations system or the credit card processor. It could be as simple as sniffing unencrypted communications, or a more complex compromise of a database or application. My money is 70% on sniffing, 30% on something in the database. No personal data such as names, addresses or telephone numbers were divulged – just account numbers. This can’t be true. Without names, the card numbers are unusable. Hannaford became aware of the breach Feb. 27. Investigators later discovered that the data breach began on Dec. 7; it wasn’t contained until March 10, said Carol Eleazer, Hannaford’s vice president of marketing in Scarborough. “We have taken aggressive steps to augment our network security capabilities,” Hannaford president and CEO Ronald C. Hodge said in a statement released Monday. “Hannaford doesn’t collect, know or keep any personally identifiable customer information from transactions.” This reinforces the likelihood of a network breach and sniffing, assuming the statement is true. How was the network breached? Could be any one of hundreds of ways. Targeted phishing and compromise of the central network from a remote location are common. I can’t add anything more than pure speculation on this one. The company urged its customers to monitor their credit and debit cards for unusual transactions and report any problems to authorities. Actually, card issuers should reissue the cards and just eliminate the chance of greater fraud. This is irresponsible. Since this is just loss of credit cards, there is no need for identity theft protection. Mark Walker, an attorney for the Maine Bankers Association, said his organization sent an advisory to member banks Friday after learning of the breach. Only a few had reported suspicious activity involving the credit and debit cards they had issued customers, Walker said. “I had expected there would be more than we’ve heard of,” Walker said. “But it’s still too early for us to tell.” Strange- I consider 1,800 to be a large number. It could be that the fraud was performed directly in the Hannaford system or something. Or this is an erroneous statement. The FAQ gives us a little more information and narrows things down. What happened? Hannaford announced containment of a data intrusion into its computer network that resulted in the theft of customer credit and debit card numbers. This data was illegally accessed from Hannaford”s computer systems during the card verification transmission process in transactions. Further, Hannaford is cooperating with credit and debit card issuers to ensure those customers who may be affected by the theft are protected Somewhat contradictory, with a mention of data security and network, but I don’t expect everyone to be as picky about those details as we are. I suspect the last sentence means fraud alerts are in place, and cards are probably being reissued to some extent. When did you discover the intrusion? Hannaford was first made aware of suspicious credit card activity on Feb. 27, and immediately initiated a comprehensive investigation with the assistance of leading computer security experts Bingo. It was detected by the banks or credit card companies, then brought to Hannaford. Is it safe to continue shopping in your stores? We have continually devoted significant round-the-clock resources to ensure Hannaford has comprehensive data security systems in place. For example, our security measures meet industry compliance standards and many go above and beyond what is required by industry standards. In other words, PCI is worthless. In conclusion, it looks like some sort of a network breach (which could be anything from phishing/malware to compromise from a retail location to a full network hack). A sniffer was possibly installed, since it seems they don’t keep credit card information (again, assuming statements are true). The fraud was detected by the banks or credit card companies, then it took a little under two weeks to contain. Not great, and indicative of either a little sophistication on the attacker’s part, or a lack of sophistication on Hannaford’s part. How to prevent this? We won’t know until more information is out, but since they shouldn’t be PCI compliant if they transmitted credit card numbers in the clear, perhaps my guess of sniffing is off. I’m still laying odds on that, and if so, encryption is the answer. < p style=”text-align:right;font-size:10px;”>Technorati Tags: Data Breach, Hannaford Share:

Read Post

Do Mac Users Need Antivirus?

I just published an article on TidBITS on this very issue. Basically, I don’t think the average Mac user needs it yet. AV comes at a performance cost that isn’t justified by the risks it addresses. It isn’t that Macs are more secure than Windows- it’s that they aren’t as big a target yet, and I’m not convinced that desktop antivirus will help much once Mac malware really starts proliferating. If you are a lone Mac in a Windows environment you might need to install it to protect your Windows brethren (don’t be the vector that infects them – sending viruses you don’t even notice is not nice), and if you go to a lot of risky places you should consider it. For the record, I don’t use AV on Mac or Vista, but I do use it on XP. And if Apple is smart, they can finish off the Leopard security features and harden the platform enough that it won’t be as easy a target even as market share rises. (I was amused reading the Slashdot comments, which I usually ignore. I don’t mind the criticism, but at least read the fricking article, guys). < p style=”text-align:right;font-size:10px;”>Technorati Tags: Apple, Mac, antivirus Share:

Read Post

Totally Transparent Research is the embodiment of how we work at Securosis. It’s our core operating philosophy, our research policy, and a specific process. We initially developed it to help maintain objectivity while producing licensed research, but its benefits extend to all aspects of our business.

Going beyond Open Source Research, and a far cry from the traditional syndicated research model, we think it’s the best way to produce independent, objective, quality research.

Here’s how it works:

  • Content is developed ‘live’ on the blog. Primary research is generally released in pieces, as a series of posts, so we can digest and integrate feedback, making the end results much stronger than traditional “ivory tower” research.
  • Comments are enabled for posts. All comments are kept except for spam, personal insults of a clearly inflammatory nature, and completely off-topic content that distracts from the discussion. We welcome comments critical of the work, even if somewhat insulting to the authors. Really.
  • Anyone can comment, and no registration is required. Vendors or consultants with a relevant product or offering must properly identify themselves. While their comments won’t be deleted, the writer/moderator will “call out”, identify, and possibly ridicule vendors who fail to do so.
  • Vendors considering licensing the content are welcome to provide feedback, but it must be posted in the comments - just like everyone else. There is no back channel influence on the research findings or posts.
    Analysts must reply to comments and defend the research position, or agree to modify the content.
  • At the end of the post series, the analyst compiles the posts into a paper, presentation, or other delivery vehicle. Public comments/input factors into the research, where appropriate.
  • If the research is distributed as a paper, significant commenters/contributors are acknowledged in the opening of the report. If they did not post their real names, handles used for comments are listed. Commenters do not retain any rights to the report, but their contributions will be recognized.
  • All primary research will be released under a Creative Commons license. The current license is Non-Commercial, Attribution. The analyst, at their discretion, may add a Derivative Works or Share Alike condition.
  • Securosis primary research does not discuss specific vendors or specific products/offerings, unless used to provide context, contrast or to make a point (which is very very rare).
    Although quotes from published primary research (and published primary research only) may be used in press releases, said quotes may never mention a specific vendor, even if the vendor is mentioned in the source report. Securosis must approve any quote to appear in any vendor marketing collateral.
  • Final primary research will be posted on the blog with open comments.
  • Research will be updated periodically to reflect market realities, based on the discretion of the primary analyst. Updated research will be dated and given a version number.
    For research that cannot be developed using this model, such as complex principles or models that are unsuited for a series of blog posts, the content will be chunked up and posted at or before release of the paper to solicit public feedback, and provide an open venue for comments and criticisms.
  • In rare cases Securosis may write papers outside of the primary research agenda, but only if the end result can be non-biased and valuable to the user community to supplement industry-wide efforts or advances. A “Radically Transparent Research” process will be followed in developing these papers, where absolutely all materials are public at all stages of development, including communications (email, call notes).
    Only the free primary research released on our site can be licensed. We will not accept licensing fees on research we charge users to access.
  • All licensed research will be clearly labeled with the licensees. No licensed research will be released without indicating the sources of licensing fees. Again, there will be no back channel influence. We’re open and transparent about our revenue sources.

In essence, we develop all of our research out in the open, and not only seek public comments, but keep those comments indefinitely as a record of the research creation process. If you believe we are biased or not doing our homework, you can call us out on it and it will be there in the record. Our philosophy involves cracking open the research process, and using our readers to eliminate bias and enhance the quality of the work.

On the back end, here’s how we handle this approach with licensees:

  • Licensees may propose paper topics. The topic may be accepted if it is consistent with the Securosis research agenda and goals, but only if it can be covered without bias and will be valuable to the end user community.
  • Analysts produce research according to their own research agendas, and may offer licensing under the same objectivity requirements.
  • The potential licensee will be provided an outline of our research positions and the potential research product so they can determine if it is likely to meet their objectives.
  • Once the licensee agrees, development of the primary research content begins, following the Totally Transparent Research process as outlined above. At this point, there is no money exchanged.
  • Upon completion of the paper, the licensee will receive a release candidate to determine whether the final result still meets their needs.
  • If the content does not meet their needs, the licensee is not required to pay, and the research will be released without licensing or with alternate licensees.
  • Licensees may host and reuse the content for the length of the license (typically one year). This includes placing the content behind a registration process, posting on white paper networks, or translation into other languages. The research will always be hosted at Securosis for free without registration.

Here is the language we currently place in our research project agreements:

Content will be created independently of LICENSEE with no obligations for payment. Once content is complete, LICENSEE will have a 3 day review period to determine if the content meets corporate objectives. If the content is unsuitable, LICENSEE will not be obligated for any payment and Securosis is free to distribute the whitepaper without branding or with alternate licensees, and will not complete any associated webcasts for the declining LICENSEE. Content licensing, webcasts and payment are contingent on the content being acceptable to LICENSEE. This maintains objectivity while limiting the risk to LICENSEE. Securosis maintains all rights to the content and to include Securosis branding in addition to any licensee branding.

Even this process itself is open to criticism. If you have questions or comments, you can email us or comment on the blog.