DataBreaches.Net

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

Stockdale Radiology’s notification may confuse readers

Posted on April 10, 2020 by Dissent

On January 18, the ransomware group known as Maze Team, notified me via email that one of their “partners” (victims) was Stockdale Radiology. They provided me with sample data to prove it. I reported on it without naming the medical center on January 21.

On January 28, I named Stockdale Radiology in a post after Maze Team publicly added them to their site, although at that time, they did not make any data publicly available.

Stockdale Radiology recently submitted its notification to California’s Attorney General’s Office. I read it there and thought it was somewhat confusing or misleading, but didn’t blog about it.  Then I saw a media report that seems to warrant concern about whether the notification might be misleading in some respects.

Here’s what the notification said about what happened:

On January 17, 2020, Stockdale Radiology was the victim of a ransomware attack. We immediately contacted the FBI who arrived at our offices within 30 minutes and are currently investigating the matter. A limited number of files were publicly exposed by the intruder. In addition, on January 29th, based upon our investigation, we determined that some other files were accessible by the unknown intruder but not exposed. You are receiving this letter because your information may have been accessible but was not exposed by the intruder. Again, we are not aware of any misuse of the personal information in your files as a result of this incident.

Now look at what Bill Toulas reported based on what he (understandably) understood the notification to mean (emphasis added by me):

The Stockdale Radiology medical diagnostics and analysis center is circulating notices of a data breach to its patients. As it seems, the company has fallen victim to a ransomware attack on January 17, 2020, with the network intruders managing to access locally stored patient data. This was determined on January 29, 2020, when the internal investigation was concluded, and both the FBI and the California data protection officer were informed immediately. The firm clarifies that, while the data was accessible, there is no indication they have been exposed, misused, or exfiltrated.

Is that what Stockdale Radiology meant when they said the patient’s PHI was “accessible” but “not exposed?”  Are they claiming that Maze Team never accessed the data at all even though Maze Team had claimed to have gotten it all? Or are they claiming that Maze Team accessed it but didn’t publicly display it? What are they really saying?

Maze Team removed the listing and the samples they had dumped. On inquiry by this site, they indicated that they removed the listing and the data because Stockdale Radiology paid them.

 

Related posts:

  • Maze Team continues its campaign of naming, shaming, and dumping victims’ data while other attackers adopt the same model
  • Two healthcare-related entities disappeared from Maze Team’s website …. why?
  • Maze Team updates its site, dumps more victims’ data
  • “Without Undue Delay,” Part 2
Category: Breach Incidents

Post navigation

← Another COVID-19 Research Firm Targeted by Ransomware Attack
ReportaClaim may need to report a leak →

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

  • Texas Centers for Infectious Disease Associates Notifies Individuals of Data Breach in 2024
  • Battlefords Union Hospitals notifies patients of employee snooping in their records
  • Alert: Scattered Spider has added North American airline and transportation organizations to their target list
  • Northern Light Health patients affected by security incident at Compumedics; 10 healthcare entities affected
  • Privacy commissioner reviewing reported Ontario Health atHome data breach
  • CMS warns Medicare providers of fraud scheme
  • Ex-student charged with wave of cyber attacks on Sydney uni
  • Detaining Hackers Before the Crime? Tamil Nadu’s Supreme Court Approves Preventive Custody for Cyber Offenders
  • Potential Cyberattack Scrambles Columbia University Computer Systems
  • 222,000 customer records allegedly from Manhattan Parking Group leaked

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

  • Germany Wants Apple, Google to Remove DeepSeek From Their App Stores
  • Supreme Court upholds Texas law requiring age verification on porn sites
  • Justices nix Medicaid ‘right’ to choose doctor, defunding Planned Parenthood in South Carolina
  • European Commission publishes its plan to enable more effective law enforcement access to data
  • Sacred Secrets: The Biblical Case for Privacy and Data Protection
  • Microsoft’s Departing Privacy Chief Calls for Regulator Outreach
  • Nestle USA Settles Suit Over Job-Application Medical Questions

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.