Staysure.co.uk Limited

Posted on by

Breach details

What Customer records containing payment card data including CVV2/CVC2 data were extracted from a public-facing website by a malicious attacker.
How much 93,389 customer details containing 110,096 payment card records.
When 14 October 2013
Why A malicious attacker used a publicly known (since 2010) vulnerability in the JBoss Application Server to install a backdoor in the Staysure web server. This allowed the attacker to access and download all data stored within the system which included over three million customer records, although it appears that only payment card data was targeted by the attacker.

Regulatory action

Regulator ICO
Action Monetary penalty of £ 175,000.
When 20 February 2015.

Why the regulator acted

Breach of act Breach of the fifth data protection principle in that it was recognised that old payment card data should have been deleted, this activity was planned however due to human error it was not completed.
Breach of the seventh data protection principle as systems and processes were not in place to update software. Additionally PCI DSS prohibits the storage of CCV2/CvC2 data.
Known or should have known The Data Controller was aware of the Payment Card Industry (PCI) Data Security Standard (DSS) which requires security update management and prohibits storage of CVV2/CVC2. The patch to JBoss was available from the RedHat distribution and so the Data Controller should have know about its availability. Given the Data Controller processed payment card data it should have been aware that a breach of this data would be liable to cause its customers substantial damage and distress.
Likely to cause damage or distress Of the payment card data stollen, the Commissioner was aware that over 5,000 such payment cards were used to commit fraudulent transactions. Although the fraudulent transactions were reimbursed by the Data Subject’s bank, the Commissioner is of the opinion that distress had in fact occurred.

Links

View PDF of the Staysure Monetary Penalty Notice (Breach Watch Archive)
View PDF of the Staysure Monetary Penalty Notice (Via ICO Website)

Worldview Limited

Posted on by

Breach details

What Customer records containing encrypted payment card data including CVV2/CVC2 data were extracted from a public-facing website by a malicious attacker.
How much 3,814 records.
When 18 June 2013
Why A single web server also contained the customer database and the WordPress content management system. A malicious attacker used SQL injection techniques to extract the WordPress password hashes which the attacker was then able to brute force due to the use of weak passwords. The attacker was then able to extract records from the database including encrypted payment data, however the encryption keys were stored on the same drive as the encrypted data and therefore available to the attacker.

Regulatory action

Regulator ICO
Action Monetary penalty of £ 7,500.
When 31 October 2014.

Why the regulator acted

Breach of act Breach of the seventh principle in that insufficient technical and organisational measures were taken. The ICO highlighted:

  • Developer training
  • Security testing of web pages
  • Use of default passwords
  • Encryption/Decryption key management
Known or should have known The Data Controller was aware of The Payment Card Industry (PCI) Data Security Standard (DSS) and therefore should have been aware of the risks and the recommended controls.Given the nature of the information stored, it should have also been obvious to the Controller that a breach in security would be liable to cause damage or distress to the data subjects.
Likely to cause damage or distress The ICO argues that the loss of payment card data could lead to fraud and substantial damage to the data subjects affected (even though there was no evidence of this). The knowledge of the loss of their personal data would cause ‘substantial distress’ to a data subject.

Links

View PDF of the Worldview Monetary Penalty Notice (Breach Watch Archive)
View PDF of the Worldview Monetary Penalty Notice (Via ICO Website)

Ministry of Justice

Posted on by

Breach details

What An unencrypted, non-password protected, portable hard drive stored in a prison’s Security Department and used to back up the prisoner intelligence database, was lost. This followed a virtually identical breach in 2011.
How much 16,000 records and 2,935 records.
When October 2011 and 24 May 2013.
Why The hard drive had last been used on 18 May 2013 for the weekly back up, but had not been locked up afterwards in a fireproof safe, as required. Following the previous breach in 2011 remedial action had been taken including the distribution of encrypted hard drives to 75 prisons that had previously been using unencrypted portable hard drives. However it was not realised that the encryption software on these new drives required manual activation. As a result prisoner intelligence information was being held on portable unencrypted devices in 75 prisons for a period of at least 12 months.

Regulatory action

Regulator ICO
Action Monetary penalty of £180,000
When 26 August 2014.

Why the regulator acted

Breach of act Breach of the Seventh Data Protection Principle: The Ministry failed to take appropriate technical measures against unauthorised processing and accidental loss of confidential and sensitive personal data, such as taking steps to ensure that the portable hard drives that were used to back up the prisoner intelligence database in 75 prisons had actually been encrypted.
Known or should have known The Ministry was aware that prisons across the entire estate were backing up this information on a weekly basis pending the implementation of a new intelligence system. As a result of a virtually identical security breach in October 2011, the data controller was also aware that the portable hard drives used to back up this intelligence information in 75 prisons were unencrypted. As it was routine to handle sensitive personal data relating to prisoners it should have been obvious that such a contravention would be of a kind likely to cause substantial damage and/or substantial distress to the data subjects
Likely to cause damage or distress This scale of the breach posed a significant risk of causing serious detriment to thousands of prisoners in England and Wales. The data subjects would be likely to suffer from substantial distress knowing that their confidential and sensitive personal data may be accessed by unauthorised third parties, aggravated by the fact that the hard drive has still not been recovered. If the data has in fact been accessed by untrustworthy third parties then it is likely that the contravention would cause further distress and substantial damage.

Links

View PDF of the Ministry of Justice Monetary Penalty Notice (Breach Watch Archive)
View PDF of the Ministry of Justice Monetary Penalty Notice (Via ICO Website)

Think W3 Limited

Posted on by

Breach details

What A malicious hacker was able to access significant amounts of customer data, including credit card details, after targeting Think W3 Limited’s website.
How much 1,163,996 records containing credit or debit card details, of which 430,599 were current.
When 21 December 2012.
Why A system intended for internal purposes was installed on the same web-sever as the businesses e-commerce application containing customer data. In order to facilitate working from home this service could be accessed via a login page on a non-customer facing website which was publicly available over the internet. The login page was not secure due to a coding error that was missed, as no security testing had been done the basis that this page was not public facing. The hacker was able to exploit this vulnerability and gain administrative access to all the data on the web server.

Regulatory action

Regulator ICO
Action Monetary penalty of £150,000
When 23 July 2014.

Why the regulator acted

Breach of act Breach of the Seventh Data Protection Principle: Think W3 limited failed to take appropriate technical measures to ensue the security of personal data, predominately though failing to undertake suitable security testing, due to a failure to understand the extent to which the web server could be accessed via the internet, or to meet PCI DSS compliance requirements.
Known or should have known  By 2011 Think W3 Limited were aware of a number of issues with its PCI  DSS compliance, causing them to review their security practises. However they were slow in implementing improvements, despite being aware of the risk of contravention.
Likely to cause damage or distress Although CCV2 / CvC2 values were not obtained, the data obtained was clearly of interest to the attacker, due to the targeted nature of the attack, and could be used for fraudulent purposes. The data subjects would rightly be distressed to learn that their data had been accessed by a malicious third party.

Links

View PDF of the Think W3 Limited Monetary Penalty Notice (Breach Watch Archive)
View PDF of the Think W3 Limited Monetary Penalty Notice (Via ICO Website)

Kent Police

Posted on by

Breach details

What Highly sensitive and confidential information, including copies of police interview tapes, were left in the basement of a former police station, which had been sold in September 2012. This was discovered after a police officer visited some business premises on an entirely separate matter, and noticed a box of videotapes with the logo and name of Kent Police. The owner confirmed that he had found the videotapes and was intending to view the contents of the videotapes as a possible source of entertainment
How much Numerous records dating as far back as the late 1980s.
When 28 November 2012.
Why In the absence of any specific policies or procedures, it was unclear who was ultimately responsible for ensuring that the former police station was vacant at the point of sale. This lack of documented procedures was made worse by a failures in communication between the different departments involved in the extended process of decommissioning the building.

Regulatory action

Regulator ICO
Action Monetary penalty of £100,000
When 19 March 2014.

Why the regulator acted

Breach of act Breach of the Seventh Data Protection Principle: Kent Police failed to take appropriate organisational measures against unauthorised processing and accidental loss of confidential and sensitive personal data, such as having specific procedures in place to ensure that the basement of the former police station had been cleared of all items before it was sold to a buyer.
Known or should have known  The data controller was used to dealing with such information and had taken some steps to safeguard the information by carrying out inspections of the former police station, even though the steps taken proved to be inadequate.
Likely to cause damage or distress The failure to take appropriate organisational measures was likely to cause substantial distress to the data subjects even if this is simply by knowing that their confidential and sensitive personal data could have been accessed by the buyer who had no right to see that information. Furthermore there was a risk that the  data may be further disseminated, such as to the media, or used for other purposes by the buyer, with the potential to cause substantial damage to witnesses and informants, such as by putting them at risk of physical harm.

Links

View PDF of the Kent Police Monetary Penalty Notice (Breach Watch Archive)
View PDF of the Kent Police Monetary Penalty Notice (Via ICO Website)

British Pregnancy Advice Service

Posted on by

Breach details

What A hacker threatened to post the names and call back details of everyone who had submitted their contact details to the BPAS website.
How much 9,900 records.
When 08 March 2012.
Why The BPAS website was originally developed in 2007 and was to include an online ‘appointment booking service’. This was then scrapped due to security concerns, and BPAS mistakenly assumed that no call back data would be retained on the CMS. In 2008 another IT company was asked to host the website, but as BPAS was unaware that it was processing the call back data they did not ensure that administrative passwords were stored securely. BPAS also failed to carry out appropriate security testing so continued to remain ignorant of the website’s vulnerabilities. These vulnerabilities enabled an attacker to access the CMS and deface the website, threatening to publish the names of those whose call back details were held on the website. Fortunately, these were not published as the attacker was arrested the following day and the information was recovered following an injunction.

Regulatory action

Regulator ICO
Action Monetary penalty of £200,000.
When 07 March 2014.

Why the regulator acted

Breach of act Breach of the Seventh Data Protection Principle: BPAS failed to take appropriate measures against the unauthorised processing of personal data as they didn’t delineate specific parameters to ensure the website did not store personal data, nor set up appropriate security measures.
Known or should have known BPAS clearly knew that personal data of this nature needed to be held securely as they decided not to put in place their original ‘appointment booking system’ and provided promises of security in their privacy policy. They should have been able to prevent the contravention by having a detailed specification of the parameters of the CMS to either ensure that data was not stored on the website or provide adequate security for this information.
Likely to cause damage or distress The website’s privacy policy led users to believe that their information would remain secure and confidential, and the ability of a hacker to access this information is likely to cause substantial distress if this was known, particularly with the fear that this data could be further disseminated. If the data had been misused by the attacker or disclosed to untrustworthy third parties there is a risk that some individuals would have faced physical harm or even death given their ethnicity or social background and the nature of the advice they were seeking (including abortion and sterilisation).

Links

View PDF of the British Pregnancy Advice Service Monetary Penalty Notice (Breach Watch Archive)
View PDF of the British Pregnancy Advice Service Monetary Penalty Notice (Via ICO Website)

Treasury Solicitor’s Department

Posted on by

Breach details

What Disclosure of personal data.
How much 4 records.
When 06 February 2012, 24 August 2012, 30 August 2012 and 3 January 2013.
Why Three of these breaches involved case files containing un-redacted third party personal information to a claimant’s solicitor and the claimant themself. The fourth breach involved the sending of a case of papers relating to an unfair dismissal claim to an individual, although the papers contained personal information relating to another individual’s claim. All four of these breaches were self-reported. The Solicitor’s Department have some measures in place to safeguard personal data but there are gaps which are preventing further compliance.

Regulatory action

Regulator ICO
Action Undertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle.
When 26 February 2014.
Details The Solicitor’s Department is to implement a clear, documented procedure for the preparation of information for disclosure within six months, as well as creating a structured, formal procedure concerning communication requirements between Junior and Senior lawyers carrying out the disclosure process. Mandatory training about the requirements of the Act is also to be given to all staff.

Links

View PDF of the Treasury Solicitor’s Department Undertaking (Breach Watch Archive)
View PDF of the Treasury Solicitor’s Department Undertaking (Via ICO Website)

Department of Justice Northern Ireland

Posted on by

Breach details

What A locked filing cabinet containing sensitive personal data relating to claims arising from terrorist incidents in Northern Ireland was sold at auction.
How much Not specified – four-drawer filing cabinet.
When 12 May 2012
Why In the course of an office move the filing cabinet was sent to auction for disposal. Despite it being locked (and the weight of the cabinet must have indicated that it wasn’t empty) the Data Controller simply ignored the fact that there may have been personal data in the filing cabinet and set it to auction. When the purchaser of the cabinet forced the lock they realised the sensitivity of the information and called the police to take the information away.

Regulatory action

Regulator ICO
Action Monetary penalty of £ 185,000.
When 14 Jan 2014.

Why the regulator acted

Breach of act Breach of the seventh data protection principle. The Commissioner argued that the Data Controller should have had “detailed procedures in place for the removal of cupboards, pedestals and filing cabinets etc. from one office location to another”.
Known or should have known Given the sensitive political nature of the contents of the cabinet, and the fact that the cabinet was kept locked, the Data Controller should have known that the unauthorised release of the information was likely to case “substantial distress”.
Likely to cause damage or distress The Commissioner states that substantial distress was not actually caused in this case, but argues that had the buyer of the cabinet not contacted the police to remove the data, substantial distress would have occurred.

Links

View PDF of the Department of Justice Northern Ireland Monetary Penalty Notice (Breach Watch Archive)
View PDF of the Department of Justice Northern Ireland Monetary Penalty Notice (Via ICO Website)

First Financial (UK) Limited

Posted on by

Breach details

What Breach of the Privacy and Electronic Communications Regulations (PECR).
The sending of unsolicited marketing SMS.
How much 4,031 complaints.
When 01 February 2013 to 31 March 2013.
Why It appears that First Financial was set up in order to provide short-term loans, and was probably intended to be a transient company that could be closed before regulatory action was taken against them. During the period in question First Financial carried out a marketing campaign by sending text messages claiming the recipient was entitled to immediate cash claims through the First Financial website. The text messages were sent using unregistered SIM cards to avoid spam detectors. The individual who set up First Financial has since tried to dissolve the company, remove himself from the company register as director, and has refused to disclose the financial position of the company.

Regulatory action

Regulator ICO
Action Monetary Penalty of £175,000.
When 16 December 2013.

Why the regulator acted

Breach of act Breach of Regulation 22: sent unsolicited marketing SMS messages without asking for the consent of the individuals concerned.
Known or should have known The issue of unsolicited text messages has been widely publicized recently and so First Financial should have been well aware that they ran a high risk of contravening regulations by sending such a high volume of texts. The volume of texts indicates that there were no systems in place to ensure the consent of the recipients and by using unregistered SIM cards they were deliberately contravening PECR.
Likely to cause damage or distress The large numbers of individuals involved in this case ensured that the overall level of distress was substantial, particularly as only a very small percentage of recipients of texts such as these report them. Some individuals were concerned about the unsociable times they received these messages; others were troubled about where First Financial had obtained their details.

Links

View PDF of the First Financial Monetary Penalty Notice (Breach Watch Archive)
View PDF of the First Financial Monetary Penalty Notice(Via ICO Website)

Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead

Posted on by

Breach details

What Personal data disclosed on the council’s intranet in error.
How much 257 records.
When January 2013.
Why A spreadsheet containing details of individuals who had not signed a new employment contract was wrongly appended to a review document for general access on the intranet, rather than being added separately as a restricted item. The ICO investigation revealed that data protection and information security training for those with access to personal data had not been mandatory and that the policies on handling personal data were incomplete.

Regulatory action

ActionUndertaking to comply with the seventh data protection principle.

Regulator ICO
When 26 November 2013.
Details The Council will review and revise its data protection policies and ensure existing staff have appropriate training by 31 December 2013. All new staff whose roles involve access to personal data will receive training as soon as they begin their employment at the Council. Compliance with these policies and the training will be regularly monitored and enforced.

Links

View PDF of the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead Undertaking (Breach Watch Archive)
View PDF of the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead Undertaking (Via ICO Website)

Follow Up

The ICO conducted a follow up assessment on 3 April 2014 (published on 11 April).
View PDF of the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead Undertaking Follow Up (Breach Watch Archive)
View PDF of the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead Undertaking Follow Up (Via ICO Website)