Slashdot Log In
Hacking Ring Nabbed By US Authorities
Posted by
samzenpus
on Thu Aug 07, 2008 02:13 AM
from the go-directly-to-jail dept.
from the go-directly-to-jail dept.
Slatterz writes "The members of a hacking ring responsible for stealing more than 40 million credit and debit card numbers from retail organizations in the US have been caught and charged. The case before the US Department of Justice is believed to be the largest hacking and identity theft case ever prosecuted. The criminals allegedly obtained bank details by hacking into the retailers' computer networks and then installing 'sniffer' programs to capture card numbers and password details as the customers moved through the retailers' credit and debit processing networks."
Related Stories
Submission: Hacking ring nabbed by US authorities by Anonymous Coward
[+]
IT: Details Emerge of 2006 Wal-Mart Hack 66 comments
plover writes "Kim Zetter of Wired documents an extensive hack of Wal-Mart that took place in 2005-2006. She goes into great detail about the investigation and what the investigators found, including that the hackers made copies of their point-of-sale source code, and that they ran l0phtCrack on a Wal-Mart server. 'Wal-Mart uncovered the breach in November 2006, after a fortuitous server crash led administrators to a password-cracking tool that had been surreptitiously installed on one of its servers. Wal-Mart's initial probe traced the intrusion to a compromised VPN account, and from there to a computer in Minsk, Belarus.' Wal-mart has long since fixed the flaws that allowed the compromise, and confirmed that no customer data was lost in the hack — which is why they did not need to report the breach publicly earlier." This intrusion happened around the same time that Albert Gonzalez's gang was breaking into Marshall's and its parent company, TJX. The MO was quite similar: researching and closely targeting the point-of-sale systems in use. But the article notes that "There's no evidence Wired.com has seen linking Gonzalez to the Wal-Mart breach."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
will there be changes? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:will there be changes? (Score:5, Funny)
Of course not. After all, they caught the people that abused it. Why waste money to protect something from criminals when the criminals were already caught. Nobody would dare to try it again.
Parent
Re:will there be changes? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm going to go out on a limb and say the core of the problem isn't the security of the computers, it's the fact that in order to use a credit card number you have to reveal it. There will always be some retailer or customer without a secure system. _We can't change this, it's too hard_.
I think the solution is a small device with an embedded secret key. All it has to do is sign data [secondary: show text, wireless, usb, etc].
For example, to complete a transaction, a store asks you to sign this:
[
VISA Credit Transfer
"here's a one-line ad because we just can't help it!"
amount: 12.34$us
buyer: John Doe
seller: Matt's Grocery Store
date: August 7, 2008
buyer public key: 09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0
seller public key: 4B 3D BA 71 3B D8 56 43 2B A7 E8 F4 69 CA C5 5A
seller transaction id: 594864purplebunnies
protocol version: 1
]
Then the store also signs it, and sends it and the signatures to VISA, or whoever.
The beauty here is that the security is now entirely encapsulated in a) the signing device, and b) the plaintext format for requesting credit.
In the example I have given the buyer only has to check that the amount is correct because all other modifications give them free groceries. The store only needs to ensure they match the format specified by VISA, and that the buyer's signature is valid. VISA takes most of the work, checking that the format is correct, the signatures are valid, the transaction id is unique for the seller, the buyer has enough credit, etc.
I'm sure there are holes, but it's a hell of a lot better than what we have now.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In the example I have given the buyer only has to check that the amount is correct because all other modifications give them free groceries. The store only needs to ensure they match the format specified by VISA, and that the buyer's signature is valid. VISA takes most of the work, checking that the format is correct, the signatures are valid, the transaction id is unique for the seller, the buyer has enough credit, etc.
I'm sure there are holes, but it's a hell of a lot better than what we have now.
I'm surp
Re:will there be changes? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, it's a misconception that the signature has meaning to the retailer if they match. If you look at the slip you sign, it says something to the effect of "I agree to pay this debt according to the terms of the cardholder agreement" or similar.
SIgning your card is an indication that you accept the cardholder agreement (i.e., the card is valid). Technically, a store can refuse to accept any card that is unsigned, says "CHECK ID" or similar because those cards are invalid (because you haven't indicated you accept the cardholder agreement, which covers things like... repayment of debt). The slip is used to indicate that you, the cardholder, will pay the issuer the amount listed, who will then pay the merchant that amount.
During a dispute, the best proof a merchant has is the signed slip. What makes life interesting are those places where signing the slip isn't necessary (e.g., some for transactions under $25).
Parent
Re:will there be changes? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or you could.. ya know.. discover that there's vulnerabilities inherent in the system and just use cash instead. Using cards (even debit) causes price inflation. Cash is king.
But your cash is counterfeit. Please step to the side and speak with the nice policeman. Thank you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Will not happen because credit card companies are NOT The ones on the hook for the losses. The charade of PCI compliance has foisted all responsibility back to the merchant. The Visa/Mastercard cartel actually make MORE money from fraud because there are many more transactions, and they profit from every single transaction. Visa/mastercard took approximately $40 Billion last year in interchange fees, this is in addition to any customer interest or late penalties. They have no incentive to change and teh mer
Re:will there be changes? (Score:4, Insightful)
are security measures going to be changed with this revelation to the public?
If they secured credit cards so that there was no fraud, then how would the providers justify their exorbitant [unfaircreditcardfees.com] fees?
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
More details (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Criminal informations were also released today in Boston on related charges against Christopher Scott and Damon Patrick Toey, both of Miami."
Informations? The DOJ can't find a person who knows basic English to write their PRs?
Re: (Score:2)
They only know legalese.
Re:More details (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:More details (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
indictment links (Score:5, Informative)
Links to the indictments of the top two suspects:
suspect 1 [usdoj.gov]
suspect 2 [usdoj.gov]
Better Article (Score:5, Informative)
So now we will get even MORE draconian measures to stop the "evil hackers" when in reality, it was a combination of bad intentions, and old-fashioned stupidity. The article specifically mentions looking for "vulnerable" access points. This means that whoever set the network up for these stores did not do a proper job in securing said network. Also, why the HELL were the systems used to process credit card transactions on the same insecure wireless network? There is NO excuse for that. I'm not excusing what these guys did, but once again we have a case where whoever setup the hardware in these places needs to be held for criminal negligence.
Re:Better Article (Score:5, Insightful)
whoever setup the hardware in these places needs to be held for criminal negligence
IANA(legal scholar), but this doesn't seem to fit the definition of criminal negligence for two reasons:
1) Doing a bad job at something and allowing others to come to harm isn't enough. Essentially, you must be aware of the risk of your actions (or inaction), or you must intentionally allow yourself too little information to make a proper decision.
2) I'm pretty sure that once you commit a negligent act, it has to be nature that takes something "the rest of the way." If your act simply allows someone else to commit a crime, then the crime falls the perpetrator, not you.
Keep in mind too, that I'm talking about criminal negligence. You can sue in civil courts on a much broader basis.
In fact, I find your entire comment rather ironic, since you imply that the recent crimes will be an excuse for some 1984-state to implement "MORE draconian measures," but then go on to suggest criminalizing what is essentially poor job performance.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot is days behind the news (Score:5, Insightful)
There used to be a time when you read tech-news first on slashdot. Nowadays I read it in my (Dutch) newspaper first (yep, the paper one that they actually have to print and deliver first) end a few days later it appears in /.
What the hell is wrong?
Was the ring working in a windowless environment? (Score:5, Funny)
;-)
Re: (Score:2)
The NES version, or the Apple ][ version?
Who foots the bill? (Score:3, Interesting)
So, who foots the bill for this? The retailer, the credit card comany / debit card issuer, or the customer?
Re:Who foots the bill? (Score:5, Funny)
So, who foots the bill for this? The retailer, the credit card comany / debit card issuer, or the customer?
The credit card company raises my rates to cover their expenses, the government uses my taxes to pay for the investigation and prosecution, looks like I'm paying for it!
Drinks for everyone! Here, use my card!
Parent
Re:Who foots the bill? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, who foots the bill for this? The retailer, the credit card comany / debit card issuer, or the customer?
The credit card company raises my rates to cover their expenses, the government uses my taxes to pay for the investigation and prosecution, looks like I'm paying for it!
Dude, the customer pays for everything one way or another -- haven't you figured that out by now?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Defendant worked for the Secret Service (Score:5, Interesting)
-- In about 2003, Gonzalez and others found an unencrypted wireless access point at a BJ's Wholesale Club store. BJ's reported a breach of its computer networks in early 2004.
-- In 2004, other members of the ID theft ring compromised an OfficeMax wireless access point in Miami, and they were able to steal credit card data. After law enforcement officials in 2006 identified OfficeMax as the victim of a data breach, the company said it hired an outside auditor to conduct an investigation and found no evidence of a security breach. An OfficeMax spokesman didn't immediately return a message seeking comment.
So either the Secret Service was letting this go on just so they could make one bust, or they had no idea that their own informant was committing major breaches while under their supervision. Also, how stupid is this guy that he didn't even stop breaking the law after getting busted and becoming an informant? Some people are just begging to be sent to prison, and it looks like the prosecuters are going to grant his wish. For the rest of his life if they have their way.
P.S.: The Threat Level post [wired.com] with the info about him being an informant also contains a link [wired.com] to another case about another informant who was stealing social security numbers while working on a computer inside the Secret Service offices.
The usdoj.gov website seems to be down for me at the moment but should come back up eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Defendant worked for the Secret Service (Score:5, Informative)
I believe his point is, they were supposed to be former criminals, in the past tense. Law enforcement's job is to see that they stay that way, not to go run amok with 40+ million credit cards.
In the case of the other informant he linked, the guy stole information directly from the Secret Service office's computers while the agents are on duty (though probably off viewing porn while the informant conducts non-authorized criminal activity). Mind you, they had a huge monitor displaying whatever the informant was doing on there aside from keylogging. Seriously, that's a huge lax on monitoring, if they can't even watch an informant in their own office. Makes you wonder if they are even capable of doing their jobs.
He's basically saying that this bust is just a front for the US government cleaning up a mess they created in 2003 by not initially locking this guy up or restricting his computer access/monitoring him more closely.
One other thing, the informant did absolutely no time for all previous criminal activity he conducted before turning informant, after his initial arrest in 2003 (which according to the FBOP inmate tracker [bop.gov], he is 27). Thus, he could have been doing this for some time. Basically, he got a free pass on whatever crime he did before his intial arrest, plus almost five more years of reeking havoc on the banking system. This is in sharp contrast to what most people would assume "informing" is, where a criminal cuts a deal for reduced time or perhaps probation/house arrest, but still gets charged. This guy however has not been charged, until now.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Time to wakey wakey young one, the world is more complicated than your parents told you...
In order to catch a thief, law enforcement officials will use people who are criminals themselves. When, in the course of an investigation, they have enough evidence to put away suspect A, A will often turn over information on other people the government wants to put away more. As the leaders of criminal organizations usually protect themselves by passing orders on to underlings & often do not commit overtly illega
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, no. It is law enforcement's job to apprehend people who have committed a crime. It is not their job to ride shotgun on people who have in the past committed crimes, only to catch them again if they repeat.
priceless (Score:5, Funny)
hacking ring responsible for stealing more than 40 million credit and debit card numbers from retail organizations in the US have been caught and charged.
To which they replied.. "put it on the card"
This was in Wednesdays newspaper! (Score:2, Informative)
This was in Wednesdays newspaper!
Kill some trees! Better than Slashdot!
Re:This was in Wednesdays newspaper! (Score:5, Informative)
This was in Wednesdays newspaper!
It was also in Tuesday's /. [slashdot.org]
Parent
one time CC numbers (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:one time CC numbers (Score:4, Informative)
If you don't feel you are getting your money's worth from the annual fee, you should consider switching to one of the hundreds (thousands?) of cards available without an annual fee.
Parent
Sort of Frightening (Score:4, Insightful)
The people arrested were in several nations. What is unusual and a bit frightening is that it seems like they were able to get arrest warrants or whatever was needed crossing international lines really quickly. It almost seems like some uber government organization was at work on this affair.
Re:Hacking? (Score:5, Informative)
1. (computing) Unauthorized attempts to bypass the security mechanisms of an information system or network.
Hack [merriam-webster.com]
You may prefer to use other definitions yourself, but the usage here is perfectly correct.
Parent
Re:Hacking? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Hacking? (Score:5, Funny)
kick to the chest
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Trust me, linking to Eric S. Raymond's tiresome ramblings should never be necessary.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dear hackers,
You can't own a word. Get over it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The price for correcting the Editors is being moderated as a troll, apparently.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Billing department infiltration (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's a link to a DIY hardware version: http://www.bobblick.com/techref/projects/tonedec/tonedec.html [bobblick.com] And a quick search should turn up software solutions, or you could write one yourself since the tones are standard. Wiki lists all the tones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DTMF#Keypad [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re: (Score:2)