[³o½g¤å³¹³Ì«á¥Ñrainbow¦b 2005/04/17 08:47pm ²Ä 3 ¦¸½s¿è]P/Y~
³o½g´£¤Î Tufts University ®դͤ]¨ü®`.$/
©½t¥Í³N¼Æ¬ã¨sªÀ -- ³N¼Æ¬ã¨s¡@¡@ a
LexisNexis Reveals Further Breaches of Database'^
By David Pringle and Rachel Zimmerman*rkE
Wall Street Journal , April 13, 2005
LexisNexis said 310,000 Americans, nearly 10 times its[W8Vqh
original estimate, have had their personal datadltK`:
accessed by unauthorized individuals via its computeraA]r
systems, raising fresh concerns about thez
data-collection industry's ability to guard against/\JZJR
hackers amid a surge in identity-theft crimes.
Separately, Tufts University sent a "precautionary"@/p
letter to alumni last week warning them that personal&'&x]y
information may have been stolen from a computer_
database used for fund raising. The letter, sent tot(E
about 106,000 graduates and other donors, says TuftsP
"detected abnormal activity" on a computer thateS7"{
included names, addresses, Social Security and{
credit-card numbers.
The latest revelations are likely to give new urgency=jBn
to the clamor for laws to prevent data brokers fromjb
amassing sensitive personal information without^AyTm
consent and for better safeguards of other databases.|J)
Recently, data broker ChoicePoint Inc. of Alpharetta,FI'#
Ga., said identity thieves had obtained information onav_iUo
about 145,000 people by posing as legitimateFJ|
customers. Sensitive data also have been compromised;
at some banks, mutual funds and other universities.
LexisNexis, a legal- and business-information providerPi%t]l
owned by Reed Elsevier PLC of the United Kingdom, said: my
it has identified 59 security breaches over two years/c+_RK
-- a rate of about one every two weeks -- making theL
problem far more pervasive than it had previouslyB
realized. The accessed information included Social3m
Security, driver's license numbers and other personal]U
information.
U.S. law-enforcement agencies are investigating ther@hJ;
breach, and Reed said it is offering fraud insurancen'
and other services such as credit checks, free of,
charge, to individuals whose data were accessed byj
unauthorized people. Reed's latest announcement comesa_j
five weeks after its initial disclosure that breaches-/%
had affected about 30,000 people.
Once individual information has been purloined, it canZ=
be used by identity thieves to fraudulently obtainZ'Ds1
credit cards, mortgage loans and car loans, amongEu
other things. The Federal Trade Commission estimatesW7KM"
27.3 million Americans were affected by identity theftHg4
in the five years through 2003, with the pace of theft9RA[
quickening toward the end of that period.
Data brokers, which collect and sell personalbC
information, represent a new and still largely>Sabz
unregulated industry -- but virtually every state ise
considering some kind of privacy legislation. In at2wjw6
least 20 states, the law would require companies toukQ
notify individuals when their personal information is'I@
compromised, according to the Electronic Privacyhk
Information Center, a public-interest research group5=7/-w
in Washington, D.C. Congress is also considering a_C<+
federal notification standard, based on a CaliforniaI.'
law that exposed the ChoicePoint breach.
The Senate Judiciary Committee plans to hold a hearingxf2p
today on the recent wave of data breaches and on thee0s`
proposed legislation.
Laws governing the collection and movement of personal+TDUD&
data are much stricter in Europe and the region hasn'tk
had the spate of security breaches experienced in the%Oxc
U.S.
Data brokers such as LexisNexis promote theiry(x=C^
"risk-management" services to banks, insurance<M5O-{
companies, law-enforcement agencies and otherq"X|>R
legitimate organizations that need to guard against9vK9b
financial fraud. Banks, for instance, buy the data so{5
they can run checks when deciding whether to approve aa6wi7
mortgage application. Reed executives say the\?[N
data-brokering business is an important tool in =/&/
preventing fraud.
LexisNexis said it began investigating thousands ofg%E/I
customers' accounts last month, after announcing that;L
information on 30,000 people held by its SeisintE@wZEV
data-brokering division may have been accessed byB{
criminals. Yesterday Reed said that it had uncoveredM
dozens of Seisint security breaches that predated its5
acquisition of the company late last year, as well asKy=n
a handful of incidents in other parts of LexisNexis.+\e,
Kurt Sanford, head of U.S. corporate and federalk
markets for LexisNexis, said the company didn't have{<~
any idea of the extent of the problem before the~
investigation.
The security breaches typically took one of three0fm3h
forms, Mr. Sanford said, all related to#
misappropriation of passwords. In some cases, an" Jn
unauthorized individual was able to access LexisNexisUjA/
databases after figuring out a legitimate customer's+AE^
too-obvious password. In others, a former employee ofA
a legitimate customer was able to continue accessing#,"G
the LexisNexis databases because the customer didn't@
change the account details after the employee left. Inh%Jdbg
still others, criminals obtained an account~
administrator's identification details, allowing theml;@mj
to create unauthorized accounts.
LexisNexis executives say they are now monitoringd_@
customers' usage patterns closely to spot anyk
irregular activity. They say they are also trying toy/\$
force customers to beef up their security by reviewing<1
passwords monthly and requiring authorizations fromZKMG
two managers for each new account.
LexisNexis said that so far none of the 30,000 people>Cw
notified of a breach in December and January have comeUqE82
back to report instances of identity theft. Privacy9|1U{!
advocates, however, say criminals don't always(
immediately use data they obtain, preferring sometimes]fx(r
to sell them on the Internet. Or, they say, a criminal{
may open a credit card in an individual's name, but=tQ
use a different address, so the individual doesn't seeq
the credit-card statements and isn't aware of the>)
fraud.
Reed's LexisNexis unit pushed deeply into dataxW[S
brokering when it purchased Seisint Inc. of BocaQe}QLS
Raton, Fla., for $775 million late last year. SeisintN~
was known for having some of the top software forAv^Ci
searching databases. It also sold data searches for ast
little as 25 cents apiece.
Reed said the financial cost of the breaches will be,
manageable and didn't change its earnings forecasts.
At Tufts, Betsey Jay, director of advancement[
communications and donor relations, said there is "no,F
evidence that any data is being misused." Still, theFF0JtR
letter urged alumni to contact their banks and checkZ!
credit reports for any signs of unauthorized activity.%`eIl
©½t¥Í³N¼Æ¬ã¨sªÀ -- ³N¼Æ¬ã¨s¡@¡@ GCM
Ms. Jay said analysts detected "unusual activity,"KZO@
during routine checks on a server used for telephone+M#
fund raising that is owned by Tufts but managed by antmU
outside vendor. The suspicious activity --.6n
specifically, large amounts of data moving through the1 I.$
machine -- occurred Oct. 31 and Dec. 19, she said. One6Q)VC
theory was that someone was using the computer as a+0\
distribution point for movies and other entertainment\t3
media, Ms. Jay said. At the time, Tufts decided thereVu4?xJ
wasn't enough evidence to notify alumni about the*R
unusual activity. But, she said, after recent8
revelations about security breaches at financial andM4+7
educational institutions, Tufts decided to alert its$)2
donors. She said there is no evidence that theexu
break-in was carried out by students, faculty members56Z
or employees.
---
--David Pringle and Rachel Zimmerman
Christopher Conkey contributed to this article.
L