DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

TalkTalk gets record £400,000 fine for failing to prevent October 2015 attack

Posted on October 5, 2016 by Dissent

From the Information Commissioner’s Office, this announcement about what is a record fine for them:

Telecoms company TalkTalk has been issued with a record £400,000 fine by the ICO for security failings that allowed a cyber attacker to access customer data “with ease”.

The ICO’s in-depth investigation found that an attack on the company last October could have been prevented if TalkTalk had taken basic steps to protect customers’ information.

ICO investigators found that the cyber attack between 15 and 21 October 2015 took advantage of technical weaknesses in TalkTalk’s systems. The attacker accessed the personal data of 156,959 customers including their names, addresses, dates of birth, phone numbers and email addresses. In 15,656 cases, the attacker also had access to bank account details and sort codes.

Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham said:

“TalkTalk’s failure to implement the most basic cyber security measures allowed hackers to penetrate TalkTalk’s systems with ease.

“Yes hacking is wrong, but that is not an excuse for companies to abdicate their security obligations. TalkTalk should and could have done more to safeguard its customer information. It did not and we have taken action.”

The data was taken from an underlying customer database that was part of TalkTalk’s acquisition of Tiscali’s UK operations in 2009. The data was accessed through an attack on three vulnerable webpages within the inherited infrastructure. TalkTalk failed to properly scan this infrastructure for possible threats and so was unaware the vulnerable pages existed or that they enabled access to a database that held customer information.

TalkTalk was not aware that the installed version of the database software was outdated and no longer supported by the provider. The company said it did not know at the time that the software was affected by a bug – for which a fix was available. The bug allowed the attacker to bypass access restrictions. Had it been fixed, this would not have been possible.

The attacker used a common technique known as SQL injection to access the data. SQL injection is well understood, defences exist and TalkTalk ought to have known it posed a risk to its data, the ICO investigation found.

On top of that the company also had two early warnings that it was unaware of. The first was a successful SQL injection attack on 17 July 2015 that exploited the same vulnerability in the webpages. A second attack was launched between 2 and 3 September 2015.

Ms Denham said:

“In spite of its expertise and resources, when it came to the basic principles of cyber-security, TalkTalk was found wanting.

“Today’s record fine acts as a warning to others that cyber security is not an IT issue, it is a boardroom issue. Companies must be diligent and vigilant. They must do this not only because they have a duty under law, but because they have a duty to their customers.”

The ICO’s investigation was limited to TalkTalk’s compliance with the Data Protection Act. It concluded that TalkTalk failed to have in place the appropriate security measures to protect the personal data it was responsible for. This is a breach of the seventh principle of the Data Protection Act.

A criminal investigation by the Metropolitan Police has been running separately to the ICO’s investigation.

There’s more information about how the ICO’s investigation unfolded in our timeline article.

Category: Business SectorHackNon-U.S.Of Note

Post navigation

← Ca: Patient information shows up at wrong Corner Brook company
CA: Apria Healthcare notifies patients of breach →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • Turkish Group Hacks Zero-Day Flaw to Spy on Kurdish Forces
  • Cyberattacks on Long Island Schools Highlight Growing Threat
  • Dior faces scrutiny, fine in Korea for insufficient data breach reporting; data of wealthy clients in China, South Korea stolen
  • Administrator Of Online Criminal Marketplace Extradited From Kosovo To The United States
  • Twilio denies breach following leak of alleged Steam 2FA codes
  • Personal information exposed by Australian Human Rights Commission data breach
  • International cybercrime tackled: Amsterdam police and FBI dismantle proxy service Anyproxy
  • Moldovan Police Arrest Suspect in €4.5M Ransomware Attack on Dutch Research Agency
  • N.W.T.’s medical record system under the microscope after 2 reported cases of snooping
  • Department of Justice says Berkeley Research Group data breach may have exposed information on diocesan sex abuse survivors

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • License Plate Reader Company Flock Is Building a Massive People Lookup Tool, Leak Shows
  • FTC dismisses privacy concerns in Google breakup
  • ARC sells airline ticket records to ICE and others
  • Clothing Retailer, Todd Snyder, Inc., Settles CPPA Allegations Regarding California Consumer Privacy Act Violations
  • US Customs and Border Protection Plans to Photograph Everyone Exiting the US by Car
  • Google agrees to pay Texas $1.4 billion data privacy settlement
  • The App Store Freedom Act Compromises User Privacy To Punish Big Tech

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.