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:

  • KT Chief to Resign After Cybersecurity Breach Resolution
  • Cyber-Attack On Bectu’s Parent Union Sparks UK National Security Concerns
  • A business's cyber insurance policy included ransom coverage, but when they needed it, the insurer refused to pay. Why?
  • Before Their Telegram Channel Was Banned Again, ScatteredLAPSUS$Hunters Dropped Files Doxing Government Employees (2)
  • Attorney General James Secures $14.2 Million from Car Insurance Companies Over Data Breaches
  • Months After Being Notified, a Software Vendor is Still Exposing Confidential and Sealed Court Records
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

  • Suspected Russian hacker reportedly detained in Thailand, faces possible US extradition
  • Did you hear the one about the ransom victim who made a ransom installment payment after they were told that it wouldn’t be accepted?
  • District of Massachusetts Allows Higher-Ed Student Data Breach Claims to Survive
  • End of the game for cybercrime infrastructure: 1025 servers taken down
  • Doctor Alliance Data Breach: 353GB of Patient Files Allegedly Compromised, Ransom Demanded
  • St. Thomas Brushed Off Red Flags Before Dark-Web Data Dump Rocks Houston
  • A Wiltshire police breach posed possible safety concerns for violent crime victims as well as prison officers
  • Amendment 13 is gamechanger on data security enforcement in Israel
  • Almost two years later, Alpha Omega Winery notifies those affected by a data breach.
  • Court of Appeal reaffirms MFSA liability in data leak case, orders regulator to shoulder costs

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

  • Lawmakers Warn Governors About Sharing Drivers’ Data with Federal Government
  • As shoplifting surges, British retailers roll out ‘invasive’ facial recognition tools
  • Data broker Kochava agrees to change business practices to settle lawsuit
  • Amendment 13 is gamechanger on data security enforcement in Israel
  • Changes in the Rules for Disclosure for Substance Use Disorder Treatment Records: 42 CFR Part 2: What Changed, Why It Matters, and How It Aligns with HIPAAs

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: +1 516-776-7756
DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.