DataBreaches.Net

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

First Choice Community Healthcare discloses breach but doesn’t reveal it was a ransomware attack

Posted on August 2, 2022 by Dissent

First Choice Community Healthcare (FCCH) is a non-profit healthcare system in New Mexico providing a range of services to the community. In a press release issued today, they describe a security incident that they discovered on March 27, 2022.  The notice is also posted on their website.

Their notice talks about how the incident “may have involved” personal and protected health information and that information “may have been accessed or acquired without authorization.”  The type of information involved included:

Provider names, Social Security numbers, First Choice patient ID number, diagnosis and clinical treatment information, medications, dates of service, health insurance information, medical record number, patient account number, date of birth, and provider information.

Nowhere in their notice do they forthrightly tell people that this was a ransomware attack, that some data was leaked by the ransomware team, and that they paid ransom.

On April 7, DataBreaches reported the addition of FCCH to Hive’s dedicated leak site. DataBreaches inspected the internal documents and patient files that Hive disclosed as proof and then reached out to FCCH to ask them about the incident, noting that how shortly after the listing first appeared, it disappeared.

FCCH never replied to the inquiries.

FCCH was listed as a target on Hive’s dedicate leak site on April 7, 2022. Hive claimed to have acquired HR, financial, and patient records and claimed that they had four database tables with a total of approximately 550,000 records. The listing, which included samples of the data, was removed shortly thereafter.

Weeks later, HHS issued an analyst’s report on Hive ransomware.

Today, DataBreaches sent another email to FCCH asking them about whether they had been able to decrypt any encrypted files and whether they had paid ransom to Hive. No reply has been received as of the time of this publication.

FCCH’s notification seems to be one more example of an unwelcome trend towards less transparency rather than more transparency.

Why is the transparency important as long as people get notified, you ask? Well, for one thing, the ransomware team had information in their hands that may have included credentials that can be used to attack other victims. As Steffen Zimmermann recently told DataBreaches when discussing ransomware attacks and how ransomware teams find other victims to explore:

in industry cases I have seen so far, spear phishing was the main entrance — spear phishing by reusing stolen data from other ransomware victims.

More or less walking through the supply chain.

In general:

— Attempts to protect the entity from disclosing anything that could be used against them in possible litigation may leave patients without information that might help them assess their risk and what steps they may need to take to protect themselves, and

— Attempts to protect the entity from disclosing anything that could be used against them in possible litigation may leave other entities at risk because they are not learning that their credentials may have fallen into the hands of a ransomware team who will then start using the information to compromise them.

Attempts to protect the entity are selfish endeavors that fly in the face of regulations intended to notify those at risk from a breach.  What they are doing may be legal, but it is a self-serving cover-up that basically says “Screw the patients and the people whose information we failed to protect. Now we are just looking out for ourselves.”

DataBreaches will continue to call out entities who fail to disclose ransomware attacks or to be more forthcoming about incidents, and hopes that others will also call  them out.  Maybe we need a #StopTheCoverUp  hashtag on Twitter?

Update: Post-publication, DataBreaches received a reply email from FCCH that said, in its entirety:

Patient care was not impacted. Beyond that, what we have on our site is all we are going to say at this time. Thank you.

So even when asked directly, they did not admit that this was a ransomware incident and that ransom was paid.

Update2: The incident has just appeared on HHS’s public breach tool as affecting 101,541 patients. It was reported to HHS on August 1, more than four months after they discovered the attack and almost four months since DataBreaches first reported the breach publicly.

 


Related:

  • Cyber-Attack On Bectu’s Parent Union Sparks UK National Security Concerns
  • Attorney General James Announces Settlement with Wojeski & Company Accounting Firm
  • JFL Lost Up to $800,000 Weekly After Cyberattack, CEO Says No Patient or Staff Data Was Compromised
  • John Bolton Indictment Provides Interesting Details About Hack of His AOL Account and Extortion Attempt
  • UK: 'Catastrophic' attack as Russians hack files on EIGHT MoD bases and post them on the dark web
  • A business's cyber insurance policy included ransom coverage, but when they needed it, the insurer refused to pay. Why?
Category: Commentaries and AnalysesHealth DataMalwareOf Note

Post navigation

← 2022 Mid-Year Healthcare Data Breach Deep Dive — Protenus
Bits ‘n Pieces (Trozos y Piezas) →

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

  • From bad to worse: Doctor Alliance hacked again by same threat actor
  • Surveillance tech provider Protei was hacked, its data stolen, and its website defaced
  • Checkout.com Discloses Data Breach After Extortion Attempt
  • Washington Post hack exposes personal data of John Bolton, almost 10,000 others
  • Draft UK Cyber Security and Resilience Bill Enters UK Parliament
  • 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

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

  • Surveillance tech provider Protei was hacked, its data stolen, and its website defaced
  • Once a Patient’s in Custody, ICE Can Be at Hospital Bedsides — But Detainees Have Rights
  • OpenAI fights order to turn over millions of ChatGPT conversations
  • Maryland Privacy Crackdown Raises Bar for Disclosure Compliance
  • Lawmakers Warn Governors About Sharing Drivers’ Data with Federal Government

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.