There is a growing trend where organisations are strictly limiting the amount of information that they disclose in relation to a data breach. Linked is an ongoing example of such a drip feed of PR friendly motherhood statements.

As an ICT professional with 40 years experience, I’m aware that there’s a massive gap between disclosing how something was compromised, versus what data was exfiltrated.

For example, the fact that the linked organisation disclosed that their VoIP phone system was affected points to a significant breach, but there is no disclosure in relation to what personal information was affected.

For example, that particular organisation also has the global headquarters of a different organisation in their building, and has, at least in the past, had common office bearers. Was any data in that organisation affected?

My question is this:

What should be disclosed and what might come as a post mortem after systems have been secured restored?

  • @tsonfeir@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    131 month ago

    Every little detail. Including access to the raw data that was leaked (that pertains to the individual). The steps taken to correct the action if possible. The source of the attack, including raw access logs if possible.

    Basically, let me decide how fucked I am, how it happened, and who now has my data.

    • @delirious_owl@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      9
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Please no. I don’t want a copy my passport image included in the announcement about the data leak. Its extremely hard to change my passport, and its better if its not on the official announcement, even if it is being traded on the darknet.

      They should say what data fields were leaked, but not re-leak the actual raw data to the world on the clearnet.

      • @tsonfeir@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        31 month ago

        I didn’t mean they would publish the information to the internet in an insecure way. But I should, if i CHOOSE, get a copy of the leaked data. You don’t have to ask for it.

          • @a4ng3l@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            41 month ago

            Nha they publish metadata describing the leaked data. If you’re a data subject concerned by the incident you then request a copy of yr information which requires proper identification.

            Why would they share the data itself….

  • The Doctor
    link
    fedilink
    English
    51 month ago

    Companies are trying to go back to the time when they got popped and told nobody.

  • @sic_semper_tyrannis@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    51 month ago

    Everything. Data breaches/leaks happen all the time. The more these companies have to admit what happened and be shamed and fined the more they will care about security for their customers.

      • @thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        41 month ago

        i mean, i don’t think anyone has actually considered including the leaked data in the leak announcement. it seems so obvious to just say which fields are leaked that i hadn’t even considered that someone might think to include the data itself.

        • @delirious_owl@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          3
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          I responded to a comment that said everything. Everything means everything. We should qualify that it shouldn’t be everything.

          There’s literally someone in another comment on this thread saying that they should be able to get the raw data that was leaked from the company on request.

  • @Clbull@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    21 month ago
    • Date that the breach occurred.
    • What parts of the system were accessed.
    • What data was compromised and if any of it is sensitive.
    • If any of this data was encrypted/hashed and what algorithm was used (i.e. I’d be far less worried about having passwords that are bcrypt hashed exposed compared to ones hashed with SHA1 or stored in plain text.)