Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

TJX Fires Employee For Disclosing Vulnerability

Posted by kdawson on Tue May 27, 2008 03:57 PM
from the shoulda-used-wikileaks dept.
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "A TJX employee was fired for an online post mentioning that TJX hasn't beefed up security after the recent, massive data breach that saw 94 million credit card numbers copied by criminals and money from their accounts stolen. The employee mentioned that, at first, their usernames were the same as their passwords. After they required stronger passwords, some managers complained, so they 'compromised' by allowing blank passwords. The whistleblower said he discussed his concerns with management, but that it was like talking to a brick wall. In spite of the weak internal security, TJX now has a firm that scours the internet to find bad things posted about them, which is how they found the message and fired him for it. Too bad they don't appear to have hired anyone to beef up operational security or to convince people to use strong passwords."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] TJX Security Breach Described 104 comments
Bunderfeld notes more details coming out about how bad guys got into the TJX network. Last time we discussed this, the best information indicated that a WEP crack had started the ball rolling. Now we learn that instead, or in addition: "Poorly secured in-store computer kiosks are at least partly to blame for acting as gateways to the company's IT systems, InformationWeek has learned. According to a source familiar with the investigation who requested anonymity, the kiosks, located in many of TJX's retail stores, let people apply for jobs electronically but also allowed direct access to the company's network, as they weren't protected by firewalls. 'The people who started the breach opened up the back of those terminals and used USB drives to load software onto those terminals,' says the source. In a March filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, TJX acknowledged finding 'suspicious software' on its computer systems."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by vertinox (846076) on Tuesday May 27 2008, @04:00PM (#23562135)
    Who is TJX and how can I avoid doing business with them, but then I realized they were TJ Maxx and Marshall's and I don't do business with them anyways.
  • One store (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 27 2008, @04:01PM (#23562143)
    This was a server at one store, not the TJX headquarters where the data is kept.
    • Re:One store (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 27 2008, @04:35PM (#23562659)
      "This was a server at one store, not the TJX headquarters where the data is kept"

      The original loss of data was caused by weak passwords on wireless routers. War dialers parked outside a store (or stores) captured data that was then used to collect millions of credit card numbers from the HQ servers. One of the problems was that TJX kept CC numbers on file long after they had any use for the information. This is a case where bad security at one store compromised the whole corporation. Sounds like nothing has changed
      • Re:One store (Score:5, Informative)

        The war dialers logged into TJX HQ servers and were able to install applications that sniffed network traffic and logged passwords. TJX not only kept CC numbers long after they had any use for the information, they also kept transactional CC data that was not supposed to be kept after a transaction was done.
        • Re:One store (Score:4, Insightful)

          by jamstar7 (694492) on Tuesday May 27 2008, @06:59PM (#23564513)

          TJX not only kept CC numbers long after they had any use for the information, they also kept transactional CC data that was not supposed to be kept after a transaction was done.

          Um, isn't this what the US government wants done with the new regulations? As well as sharing this info with the gov, of course...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 27 2008, @04:02PM (#23562159)
    I used the same password as this account, and obviously some people found out about it and have been posting under my username for ages! :(
  • by ee_smajors (1157317) on Tuesday May 27 2008, @04:06PM (#23562233)
    This guy should be promoted to CIO for the company and given carte blanc to clean house on the asshole who did not deal with the original issue. Until I hear that this guy is justly treated, we will not ever spend another penny in TJX stores. Enough of us and the CEO will be looking for a new job.
  • by SlshSuxs (1089647) on Tuesday May 27 2008, @04:08PM (#23562265)
    This data is implicitly safe now by the weak American Dollar, it would be like stealing Pesos.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 27 2008, @04:11PM (#23562307)
    Here's the TJX web site [tjx.com] [warning: Flash], where you'll learn that they are TJMaxx, Winners, Marshalls, HomeSense, HomeGoods, TKMaxx, AJWright, and Bob's Stores. You can also read a nice letter from the TJX president and CEO [tjx.com] describing how they have "...worked diligently with some of the world's best computer security firms to further enhance our computer security."

    Blank passwords. Wow. No bad guys would ever try that. Disclosing that policy would really compromise security, wouldn't it?

  • Dear TJX (Score:5, Funny)

    by Archangel Michael (180766) on Tuesday May 27 2008, @04:11PM (#23562317) Journal
    Dear TJX,

    We're the Slashdot community, and would like you to meet Ms Barbara Streisand, who can help you with your media relations problem.

    Yours Truly,

    Slashdot Community.
  • Since when? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MrNougat (927651) <.ckratsch. .at. .gmail.com.> on Tuesday May 27 2008, @04:36PM (#23562661)
    Since when is "allowing blank passwords" a compromise, and not stupid?
  • by mrkitty (584915) on Tuesday May 27 2008, @06:00PM (#23563791) Homepage
  • Gold Mine (Score:4, Funny)

    by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Tuesday May 27 2008, @06:12PM (#23563953)

    In spite of the weak internal security, TJX now has a firm that scours the internet to find bad things posted about them, which is how they found the message and fired him for it.

    Then they've found a Gold Mine here on Slashdot.

    • RTFA (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 27 2008, @04:06PM (#23562225)
      "So last August, Benson took to Sla.ckers.org, a website dedicated to web application security, and began anonymously reporting the shoddy practices in this user forum."
      • Re:RTFA (Score:5, Informative)

        by TubeSteak (669689) on Tuesday May 27 2008, @04:26PM (#23562553) Journal

        began anonymously reporting the shoddy practices in this user forum."
        He was the squeaky wheel at the store, then went online and squeaked some more.
        http://ha.ckers.org/blog/20080522/tjx-whistle-blower/ [ckers.org]

        They tracked him down by IP (we're still not completely sure how they did this, but we think it may have to do with a DynDNS account he uses), contacted his ISP to find out who he was, brought him into the office, questioned him about what he found, asked for him to write down his thoughts on how to fix the issues and then promptly fired him.
        Long story short: You aren't anonymous unless you're going through an anonymous overseas proxy or three.
        At least it'll be harder to get your IP from a foreign company.
        • Re:RTFA (Score:5, Interesting)

          by moxley (895517) on Tuesday May 27 2008, @04:32PM (#23562617)
          However they found out who he was it can't have been legal.

          He should fixate on this and sue them.
          • Re:RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)

            If there's anybody he can sue, it would only be his ISP for divulging his information without his permission and also without a warrant. While the company was certainly out of line in the lengths they went through to accomplish this, there's nothing ILLEGAL about discovering an internet persona's true identity. They were perfectly free to ask all the questions they did. Whether the ISP had any right to divulge that information is another matter I don't really care to guess on.
            • Re:RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)

              by mwvdlee (775178) on Tuesday May 27 2008, @05:05PM (#23563069) Homepage
              Asking somebody to break the law can be illegal too, depending on the exact details.
              Trouble is, due to their own well-documented incompetence in security, they'd have a pretty good chance to claim they simply didn't know it was illegal.
              • Re:RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)

                by compro01 (777531) on Tuesday May 27 2008, @05:12PM (#23563141)
                And whatever happened to "ignorance of the law is no excuse"? One would think that should be doubly so for large corporations with legal departments to tell them what is and isn't legal.
                • Re:RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)

                  by ConceptJunkie (24823) on Tuesday May 27 2008, @05:45PM (#23563577) Homepage Journal
                  You're assuming large corporations are actually subject to the law.
                • Re:RTFA (Score:4, Interesting)

                  by frank_adrian314159 (469671) on Tuesday May 27 2008, @06:01PM (#23563809) Homepage
                  Oddly enough, even though ignorance of the law is not an excuse, it can be a mitigating factor. If you get caught, you're more likely to get a reduced sentence if what you are charged with is not obviously illegal. If you check and find out an action is illegal and then get caught, you're more likely to get the book thrown at you. It's sort like patent infringement. If you do a search, find a device/process you're infringing upon, and use it anyway, it's willful infringement and the patent holder can get triple damages; if you don't know it's infringement, you only get normal damages. As such, managers are advised to ask about legality sparingly.

                  P.S. I am not an attorney. Do not take this as valid legal advice.

            • Re:RTFA (Score:5, Interesting)

              by Zero__Kelvin (151819) on Tuesday May 27 2008, @06:19PM (#23564035) Homepage
              It seems likely to me that he is protected by the Whistle Blower Law [wikipedia.org], since he posted to the thread:

              News and Links

              If you have some interesting news or want to throw up a link to discuss it, here's the place. Anything is okay, even shameless vendor launches (since that is often applicable to what we work on).
              He tried to resolve it internally, and when the internal approach failed, he posted it to a news portion of the sla.ckers.org [ckers.org] website.

              I concede that IANAL, so of course, I could be wrong, however the courts have already ruled that blogs and other web based news sites qualify under protections provided to the media.
            • Re:RTFA (Score:5, Informative)

              by conlaw (983784) on Tuesday May 27 2008, @05:04PM (#23563063)
              AFAIK, there is no federal law that would apply in this situation and the only Kansas statute that I could find on whistleblowing applies only to government employees. However, there appear to be a couple of Kansas cases holding that firing someone for whistleblowing is against public policy.
    • Re:um duh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gnosi (893875) on Tuesday May 27 2008, @04:07PM (#23562243)
      Have they not learned from the others that have gone on before them. It is not the original error that will get you, but how you cover up your error that does.

      Anyone remember Nixon... and a few others.

      -- sig.com not found post halted
    • by JSBiff (87824) on Tuesday May 27 2008, @04:11PM (#23562301) Journal
      To protect whistleblowers, aren't there? Although, that might only be in the government, and maybe government contractors. Not sure if it extends to the private sector.

      The thing I'm puzzled about is, I thought that the electronic payment networks (MasterCard, Visa, Discover, Amex, etc) had very specific requirements for data security, including audits, which filter down to merchants (I realize that merchants don't generally do business directly with the networks [unless, maybe, they're Walmart or Sears], and instead go through intermediate companies that 'resell' the network services, but I thought the security requirements, and audit regimen, bubble down through the whole hierarchy?)
      • by athakur999 (44340) on Tuesday May 27 2008, @04:26PM (#23562545) Homepage Journal
        The whistleblower protection laws in the USA protect an employee from termination for reporting the employer acting illegally. Shoddy security may be stupid but I don't know if it's illegal or not. Also, the employee needs to be reporting to the proper authority, not a random Internet forum.

        • by kmahan (80459) on Tuesday May 27 2008, @04:44PM (#23562783)
          And who would the "proper authority" be in this case? His management doesn't care.

          Apparently PCI Compliance doesn't allow for input from the "little people" -- or would someone care to post a link that allows for submitting information to them?
        • by TubeSteak (669689) on Tuesday May 27 2008, @05:33PM (#23563397) Journal

          The whistleblower protection laws in the USA protect an employee from termination for reporting the employer acting illegally.
          Yea and construction workers can legally refuse to work on an unsafe site.
          Neither set of laws will keep you from getting fired for coming back from lunch 3 minutes late.

          If your company wants a reason to fire you, unless you're perfect, they'll find one.
        • by Pepebuho (167300) on Tuesday May 27 2008, @07:29PM (#23564787) Homepage
          I am not a lawyer, but I think there might be some way to tie Sarbanes-Oaxley into this.
          As a Public Company, TJX is subject to Sarbanes Oaxley.

          Section 302 demands the certification of Internal Control on Financial data. With such shoddy password system I fail to see how they can comply with it.
          Section 404 demands management to assess risk and solve it
          Section 802 accrues criminal penalties for violations to Sarbanes Oaxley and (TADAM!!!)
          Section 1107 accrues criminal penalties for retaliations against whistleblowers.

          I think this guy should get hold of Section 1107 and run it for all it is worth!!!!

          From Wikipedia:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act [wikipedia.org]

          Section 1107 of the SOX 18 U.S.C. 1513(e) states:[23]

          " Whoever knowingly, with the intent to retaliate, takes any action harmful to any person, including interference with the lawful employment or livelihood of any person, for providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information relating to the commission or possible commission of any federal offence, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
          I am not sure if posting to a blog could be construed as "providing to a law enforcement officer any truthful information bla bla bla", but I think this is his best shot.

          My 2 cents
          • by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Tuesday May 27 2008, @07:03PM (#23564557)

            I think you've pretty much got to the root of the problem there: if this behaviour isn't criminally negligent, it should be. In a world where identity theft is one of the fastest growing (and most damaging) crimes in town, dealing with a business that has previously shown itself to be incompetent in handling personal data and is actively avoiding improving the situation, it's time to start throwing the directors in jail.

    • Hey, yeah, what was this guy thinking, doing the right thing in spite of the risks? He deserved to get screwed over, right? Everyone just play along, don't rock the boat, do what you're told, and shut the hell up. Thanks so much for sharing your sage wisdom and mature outlook.

      Maybe he expected exactly what happened and blew the whistle anyway. So, wise elder, what would you have done?
    • by pla (258480) on Tuesday May 27 2008, @05:01PM (#23563013) Journal
      Seriously, what did he expect, that a lazy corporation was going to reform its security policies because a 23-year-old hourly employee complained anonymously on a blog?

      If they had any integrity - Yes, that sounds like the best possible outcome of this.

      Think about it - The CIO didn't say "okay, after a major data breach, go ahead and keep using pathetic passwords". The order came down from On High to use secure passwords. This proved inconvenient to hundreds of piddling middle-managers, who ordered "their" IT guys to find a way around all that nasty security. The local IT guys complied, by allowing blank passwords (Corporate probably never expected anything that stupid, and so didn't have a policy stating otherwise).

      So, sometime later, Corporate discovers what has happened, and it enrages them. They meet, discuss, take aim, and fire...

      ...At their own foot.


      And what did he think they were going to do when they caught him, give him a raise and a promise to change their cheap lazy ways?

      They could have addressed the problem and rewarded the child who dared to laugh at the naked emperor. By chosing not to, they have very effectively told me they care more about appearances than the security of my credit card data. As a result, I will no longer shop there.
        • by dgatwood (11270) on Tuesday May 27 2008, @07:28PM (#23564775) Journal

          The heck it didn't. It had to do with a complete lack of security on computer systems that were used in financial transactions. It's hard to keep accurate financial records if key financial systems can be trivially compromised. It also represents a HUGE threat to the financial viability of the company, and technically, failure to include such risks as part of your regular corporate reporting to the SEC is a pretty major case of investor fraud, which was the whole point of Sarbanes-Oxley....

          Sadly, covering up security problems seems to be the norm in banking circles. Really gives you a lot of trust in their ability to guard your money, doesn't it?

          Oh, and here's a similar story [hugesettlements.com] from 2005 that also suggests that this is likely SarbOx territory.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 27 2008, @04:28PM (#23562589)
        What security people don't understand is that good security can be very, very, VERY expensive. Far more expensive than some simple PR. I'm not just talking about the up-front cost of doing security right in the first place, but the less noticeable costs of user training, user re-training, tech support, lost productivity (senior manager forgot his admin password), and the cost of letting people go who are very valuable and good at their jobs but too stupid to follow the proper security protocols.

        Good managers understand this and realize that spending that much money on protecting something that's really not very important to the company (customer identities) is just not good business. Until people start hearing on the nightly news that "TJMaxx gave your credit information to terrorists who used it to buy nuclear weapons and assassinate Jesus," the negative publicity they'll suffer is negligible.
        • by AB3A (192265) on Tuesday May 27 2008, @04:48PM (#23562827) Homepage Journal
          Very expensive? Compared to what? Going out of business?

          What if your bank decided that those pesky safe deposit boxes would be a whole lot cheaper if only they could use unlocked filing cabinets instead. Would you still want to do business with them?

          The sad state of affairs here is that the problem doesn't become apparent until someone gets hacked.

          I think a firm that has a security breech ought to be forced to make restitution to the customers. Managers may not understand security, but they will understand lawsuits and damages.

          Only once you've rubbed a manager's nose in the problem can you expect a solution. We don't HAVE to address everything, but managers should at least be aware of the risks they're taking.

          It's a telling point that they've chosen to persecute instead of promote the person who exposed the flaws. These idiots would rather hide in the corner than address the risks up front.
        • by moderatorrater (1095745) on Tuesday May 27 2008, @05:38PM (#23563459)
          This has been a struggle for centuries.

          Engineer: "I don't care what you read in 'Feudal Lords Monthly', if you want this castle to be secure, we need 2000 foot tall walls, 700 feet thick with a moat of pure acid that's 200 feet deep."
          Lord: "But I read that this spell of invisibility and Norton(tm) balsa wood framework is just as good. It leads the industry!"
        • by Tom (822) on Wednesday May 28 2008, @01:03AM (#23567215) Homepage Journal

          What security people don't understand is that good security can be very, very, VERY expensive.
          Maybe. But the point here wasn't about good security it was about minimum security.

          Good security can be expensive. But adequate security is fairly cheap. "password == username" and "blank password" are essentially equal to "no password". Having any password at all, even if it's weak from the POV of a security expert (say, a word from the dictionary) is still a whole lot better than having no password. And it's not very expensive. A billion people in millions of companies manage to remember their login password from monday through friday, and sometimes even over the weekend. I'm sure with just a little training, TJX managers would be able to do that, too.