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:

  • Two U.K. teenagers appear in court over Transport of London cyber attack
  • ModMed revealed they were victims of a cyberattack in July. Then some data showed up for sale.
  • Toys “R” Us Canada customers notified of breach of personal information
  • Gatineau gymnastics centre warns members of possible data breach
  • Confidence in ransomware recovery is high but actual success rates remain low
  • Kaufman County's data breach was their second one in three weeks
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

  • 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
  • A jailed hacking kingpin reveals all about the gang that left a trail of destruction
  • Army gynecologist took secret videos of patients during intimate exams, lawsuit says

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

  • 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
  • Always watching: How ICE’s plan to monitor social media 24/7 threatens privacy and civic participation

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.