[³o½g¤å³¹³Ì«á¥Ñrainbow¦b 2005/04/17 08:47pm ²Ä 3 ¦¸½s¿è]'
³o½g´£¤Î Tufts University ®դͤ]¨ü®`.PY
©½t¥Í³N¼Æ¬ã¨sªÀ -- ³N¼Æ¬ã¨s¡@¡@ so
LexisNexis Reveals Further Breaches of Database\N
By David Pringle and Rachel Zimmerman\p!JR
Wall Street Journal , April 13, 2005
LexisNexis said 310,000 Americans, nearly 10 times itsn)0o/
original estimate, have had their personal datac,rr
accessed by unauthorized individuals via its computerA/Sw
systems, raising fresh concerns about the0w|
data-collection industry's ability to guard againstK_
hackers amid a surge in identity-theft crimes.
Separately, Tufts University sent a "precautionary"G<
letter to alumni last week warning them that personal*Th$
information may have been stolen from a computerxUBlG
database used for fund raising. The letter, sent to5xi_
about 106,000 graduates and other donors, says Tufts7?uQL
"detected abnormal activity" on a computer thatv
included names, addresses, Social Security and$
credit-card numbers.
The latest revelations are likely to give new urgencyvW#=
to the clamor for laws to prevent data brokers fromm~:L|W
amassing sensitive personal information withoutU
consent and for better safeguards of other databases.8(H
Recently, data broker ChoicePoint Inc. of Alpharetta,qR^z
Ga., said identity thieves had obtained information onu%+F
about 145,000 people by posing as legitimate&`*\1
customers. Sensitive data also have been compromised6/
at some banks, mutual funds and other universities.
LexisNexis, a legal- and business-information providerHlg
owned by Reed Elsevier PLC of the United Kingdom, saidSBM
it has identified 59 security breaches over two years"
-- a rate of about one every two weeks -- making ther?WaB
problem far more pervasive than it had previouslyE
realized. The accessed information included SocialqA,z[
Security, driver's license numbers and other personalU=I%D)
information.
U.S. law-enforcement agencies are investigating thex]
breach, and Reed said it is offering fraud insurance1{}I0
and other services such as credit checks, free of0*
charge, to individuals whose data were accessed by/
unauthorized people. Reed's latest announcement comesjyp
five weeks after its initial disclosure that breaches_/_
had affected about 30,000 people.
Once individual information has been purloined, it canIbA}
be used by identity thieves to fraudulently obtain)
credit cards, mortgage loans and car loans, amongm5hD:
other things. The Federal Trade Commission estimatesIv
27.3 million Americans were affected by identity theftc
in the five years through 2003, with the pace of theftX
quickening toward the end of that period.
Data brokers, which collect and sell personalw-B{
information, represent a new and still largely]gn}B
unregulated industry -- but virtually every state isBW3&9
considering some kind of privacy legislation. In at&TX
least 20 states, the law would require companies tor4}sw
notify individuals when their personal information isAq
compromised, according to the Electronic Privacy{a$V-#
Information Center, a public-interest research group?r|[$^
in Washington, D.C. Congress is also considering a?VSbT+
federal notification standard, based on a CaliforniaN,Hi++
law that exposed the ChoicePoint breach.
The Senate Judiciary Committee plans to hold a hearingfH/-
today on the recent wave of data breaches and on the4Io-](
proposed legislation.
Laws governing the collection and movement of personal[J6a
data are much stricter in Europe and the region hasn'tTRS*Aj
had the spate of security breaches experienced in theVAQ*D
U.S.
Data brokers such as LexisNexis promote theirC%wu^
"risk-management" services to banks, insurance8
companies, law-enforcement agencies and otherUC-
legitimate organizations that need to guard againstjD[~
financial fraud. Banks, for instance, buy the data soG-
they can run checks when deciding whether to approve ayN%;)^
mortgage application. Reed executives say the4c5
data-brokering business is an important tool inYrst
preventing fraud.
LexisNexis said it began investigating thousands ofh8>
customers' accounts last month, after announcing thatxc0
information on 30,000 people held by its Seisint\@cku=
data-brokering division may have been accessed byg8%
criminals. Yesterday Reed said that it had uncoveredf:k0
dozens of Seisint security breaches that predated itse
acquisition of the company late last year, as well asJ>yo77
a handful of incidents in other parts of LexisNexis.R
Kurt Sanford, head of U.S. corporate and federalcuT
markets for LexisNexis, said the company didn't haveC54m,
any idea of the extent of the problem before thePnT
investigation.
The security breaches typically took one of three|H\
forms, Mr. Sanford said, all related toO
misappropriation of passwords. In some cases, an;z
unauthorized individual was able to access LexisNexiswcLMS{
databases after figuring out a legitimate customer'so{
too-obvious password. In others, a former employee ofU+4A
a legitimate customer was able to continue accessing"4
the LexisNexis databases because the customer didn'tdvw5r
change the account details after the employee left. In&&
still others, criminals obtained an account2
administrator's identification details, allowing them'q.
to create unauthorized accounts.
LexisNexis executives say they are now monitoring%4b5
customers' usage patterns closely to spot anyqcv8"
irregular activity. They say they are also trying to~q
force customers to beef up their security by reviewingPKs;^
passwords monthly and requiring authorizations fromO5M
two managers for each new account.
LexisNexis said that so far none of the 30,000 people2X''7
notified of a breach in December and January have come6}`MN
back to report instances of identity theft. Privacy%G[
advocates, however, say criminals don't alwaysH^u"
immediately use data they obtain, preferring sometimesK)
to sell them on the Internet. Or, they say, a criminal2P2^3
may open a credit card in an individual's name, butO,|[P
use a different address, so the individual doesn't seex/<|PX
the credit-card statements and isn't aware of thee(
fraud.
Reed's LexisNexis unit pushed deeply into data2r#
brokering when it purchased Seisint Inc. of BocaM9Kwi
Raton, Fla., for $775 million late last year. Seisint-32-6
was known for having some of the top software for6LE
searching databases. It also sold data searches for asBz%y
little as 25 cents apiece.
Reed said the financial cost of the breaches will be*0g^uD
manageable and didn't change its earnings forecasts.
At Tufts, Betsey Jay, director of advancement[#~I
communications and donor relations, said there is "no-/v
evidence that any data is being misused." Still, theP9
letter urged alumni to contact their banks and check{
credit reports for any signs of unauthorized activity.q_wg
©½t¥Í³N¼Æ¬ã¨sªÀ -- ³N¼Æ¬ã¨s¡@¡@ 9{GC
Ms. Jay said analysts detected "unusual activity,"TK
during routine checks on a server used for telephoneZO
fund raising that is owned by Tufts but managed by an=$w
outside vendor. The suspicious activity --q@E.h
specifically, large amounts of data moving through thev+(?d
machine -- occurred Oct. 31 and Dec. 19, she said. One{F?742
theory was that someone was using the computer as aQ
distribution point for movies and other entertainment;V{
media, Ms. Jay said. At the time, Tufts decided thereA\Dr
wasn't enough evidence to notify alumni about the;e:+V}
unusual activity. But, she said, after recentRb
revelations about security breaches at financial andmTI
educational institutions, Tufts decided to alert itsRQ[v
donors. She said there is no evidence that the*
break-in was carried out by students, faculty members["g<[
or employees.
---
--David Pringle and Rachel Zimmerman
Christopher Conkey contributed to this article.
DuE*UF