Update: The notification DataBreaches read is not what was sent out to affected consumers. That one can be found on pages 3 and 4 of the embedded file. The consumer version is not as detailed as the disclosure I have raved about. But do read about the one they sent New Hampshire that was excellent.
DataBreaches will leave it to others to critique Byte Federal’s data security prior to their reported incident(s), but DataBreaches is giving them a huge “bravo!” for their detailed disclosure that explains, to the best of their knowledge, what happened, when, and how to approximately 58,000 customers.
As just two examples taken from their disclosure:
On September 30, 2024, Byte Federal became aware of an unauthorized attempt to manipulate our database. However, there was no indication at the time that any customer information was at risk. We immediately blacklisted the attacker’s public address. By 10:00 AM, we had identified the attacker’s IP addresses leading to a temporary halt in operations and database lockdown. Further investigation revealed that the breach originated from a misconfiguration in our web server, which exposed a Personal Access Token in the .git/config file of our staging website. This token granted the attacker access to our GitLab code repository, allowing them to extract hardcoded data.
[…]
The data was encrypted, but the attacker also acquired the encryption key. We confirm that no customer funds or assets were lost, but we cannot confirm whether the data was sold on the dark web or otherwise shared. We have no way of knowing the attacker or their origin.
What a pleasure not to read some entity claiming that “they have no evidence of misuse or fraud…”
This is how to do disclosure transparently, folks.
byte-federal-20241213The update has been edited to point to pages 3 and 4 of the embedded file rather than an external source.
You should know that the notice a company sends out to its customers cannot contain the same information as the one sent to the state Attorney Generals. This is because Massachusetts law about data breach notification completely prohibits the customer notice from including any details about “the nature of the breach of security or unauthorized acquisition or use.” Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 93H, § 3(b). In contrast, most state laws require these same details to be included in the notice to the state. This is just one of a myriad of reasons why we desperately need one federal omnibus rule that governs privacy and data protection for the whole nation.
I am used to Massachusetts notifications being devoid of useful information. But this was to the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office. And as you likely know, in many submissions to that state AG’s office, the letter is almost identical to what is sent to consumers, although the one to the state must include the number of New Hampshire residents affected. In this case, the one to the state and the one to consumers were significantly different, in my opinion. I was just so excited reading the first two pages of the file that I neglected to read the next two, which were the letter to consumers. But we definitely need one federal bill — as long as it is at least as strong as the strongest state law.