DataBreaches.Net

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

Today’s exercise in reading between the lines

Posted on May 30, 2022 by Dissent

A recent notification by Aon had DataBreaches wondering exactly what went on with their incident response. Consider their description of what happened:

What Happened?
On February 25, 2022, Aon identified a cyber incident that, upon investigation, impacted a limited number of systems. Once the incident was discovered, Aon immediately retained leading cybersecurity firms to assist in responding and help conduct a thorough investigation of the incident.

The investigation revealed that an unauthorized third party accessed certain Aon systems at various times between December 29, 2020 – February 26, 2022. Findings from the investigation indicate the unauthorized third party temporarily obtained certain documents containing personal information from Aon systems during this period. Aon has taken steps to confirm that the unauthorized third party no longer has access to the data and Aon has no indication the unauthorized third party further copied, retained, or shared any of the data. We have no reason to suspect your information has or will be misused.

The third party “temporarily” obtained certain documents containing personal information?  So documents exfiltrated between December 2020 and February 2022 weren’t in the threat actors’ possession for more than one year? What do they mean by “temporarily?”

And what do they mean that they have “no indication that the unauthorized third party further copied, retained, or shared any of the data.”  Is absence of evidence evidence of absence?  Or did they pay the threat actor to delete data?  How can they say “We have no reason to suspect your information has or will be used?”  Do they have reason to suspect it won’t be?

These types of notifications that are not fully transparent seem deceptive, at best.

DataBreaches sent an inquiry to Aon Saturday about the basis for their claims of “no reason to suspect” but received no reply by the time of this publication.

You can read their full notification template at the California Attorney General’s website.

In this case, the types of data involved in the breach included names and one or more of the following: Social Security number, driver’s license number, and, in a small number of cases, benefit enrollment information.

The incident was first disclosed by Aon in February in an SEC -K filing noted by Reinsurance News.

 


Related:

  • SEC Voluntarily Dismisses SolarWinds Litigation
  • A Swath of Bank Customer Data Was Hacked. The F.B.I. Is Investigating.
  • Ph: Department of the Interior and Local Government to probe alleged data breach by hackers
  • Des Moines Man Charged with Computer Fraud
  • CrowdStrike catches insider feeding information to ScatteredLapsus$Hunters
  • Two suspected Scattered Spider hackers plead not guilty over Transport for London cyberattack
Category: Breach IncidentsBusiness SectorCommentaries and AnalysesHackU.S.

Post navigation

← Ransomware attack sends New Jersey county back to 1977
Data breach at Australian pension provider Spirit Super impacts 50k victims following phishing attack →

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

  • Village of Golf Manor considering paying ransom amid cyberattack (1)
  • Teen who allegedly stole millions of personal data records arrested in Spain
  • Akira ransomware: FBI tallies 250 million in payouts
  • IE: HSE confirms second ransomware attack but ‘no evidence’ patient data was stolen
  • Examining impact of federal relief program after major healthcare cyberattack — Research Brief
  • Justice Department Announces Actions to Combat Two Russian State-Sponsored Hacking Groups
  • Should entities be required to disclose the name of a vendor if the breach was at the vendor’s?
  • The Hidden Risks of Information Disclosure: A Costly Lesson from Cornwall
  • Defense Bill Would Require New Cyber Requirements for Some DoD Telecom Contracts
  • Tell the truth, or someone will tell it for you — Trumbull County, Ohio edition (1)

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

  • U.S. Plans to Scrutinize Foreign Tourists’ Social Media History
  • ANNOUNCEMENT: EFF Launches Age Verification Hub as Resource Against Misguided Laws
  • FTC Denies Petition from SpyFone App CEO to Vacate 2021 Order
  • Privacy concerns raised as Grok AI found to be a stalker’s best friend
  • PRIVACY—S.D. Cal.: Employee did not waive privacy right in personal email data on company provided laptop, (Dec 5, 2025)

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net
Security Issue: security[at]databreaches.net
Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight
Signal: Dissent.73
DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.