It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Target Staff Ignored Security Alerts As Hackers Pilfered Customers' Card Data

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 10:14 AM
Target Failed to Stop the Theft of 40 Million Credit Card Records Despite Escalating Series of Alarms

Apparently, Target staff failed to act after a security company, Fire Eye, noticed a mal-ware type hack and only took action after warnings from the Feds, two weeks after the initial attack. What's worse? The attack could have been stopped by using a feature of Fire Eye, but it was intentionally disabled.

FireEye's technology could have auto-nuked the Target malware but the functionality was disabled. The FireEye system was installed six months prior to the breach and it could be that Target's security team hadn't yet got to the point where they trusted it to act semi-autonomously.

Their working theory is that the hack started at Fazio Mechanical Systems, Target's refrigerating system supplier:

Investigators are working on the theory that the initial breach of Target's systems was carried out after first hacking into the network of its supermarket refrigerating system supplier, Maryland firm Fazio Mechanical Services.

Why would Target's top brass just "brush off" concerns raised by Fire Eye? Could it be because, according to the article, they had only been using the system for six months? Wonder why they switched from what ever system they were utilizing prior to the breach to Fire Eye?

To me, this raises even more questions than it answers. Hope they get to the bottom of it soon.

posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 10:55 AM
You have to wonder if there is much left in the U.S. that does not have a form of corruption imbedded in it.

You can't tell me that people running a corporation like Target are so stupide that they would ignore a warning from there new security system...but then again how could they be so obvious, either way they are for sure mentally challenged and should be put away with a 300 lb. dude looking for a new cell "mate" .

posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 10:58 AM
Just reading up and its quite common for there to be false positives with this sort of thing and locking down when theres a false positive could cause a lot of trouble when it may take a day or more to work out if it is a false positive so i'd imagine the IT staff were letting it run and seeing what it 'would' do as if each lockdown cost a days sales it could easily cause major headaches so the staff would have to be 110% sure it wouldn't cause trouble before letting it go skynet mode

posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 11:03 AM
Target has one of the biggest and best Asset Protection/Loss Prevention divisions in retail. It's shocking that this happened to them of all retailers.

So it makes me wonder two things:

1.. if there is an inside element to this.


2...if not and no one in Target itself is involved...WAY MORE retailers have been impacted than we know of - yet.

posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 11:04 AM
It's quite simple, people don't understand technology. This includes the bigwigs at target. So if a brand new security system starts sending out warnings, if you don't understand it fully, you may disregard it or shelve it for a later date. Where do you think Targets' executives' priorities lie: approving the new ad winter ad campaign to rake in holiday shoppers or listening to a warning from a system you don't fully understand? Foresight is 20/20, but this appears, to me, like humans being humans.

posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 11:17 AM
You all are thinking the same things I am thinking. I just don't get how a super-retailer, like Target, could brush off the warningS and not investigate or implement a plan until the Feds got involved.

That'd be like me, a nurse, ignoring all sort of vital sign changes or breathing changes and doing nothing until the patient flat lines or codes. Luckily, for me & my patients, I pay attention to the "little things" because they're usually pretty important.

Seems an IT department, especially Target's, would've paid a bit more attention to those repeated warnings, or at least thought they warranted a further look, or reassessment (nurse pun intended). Especially since they had a new system in place, less than six months old.

Seems their CIO, Beth Jacob, stepped down in early March.

Bet she got one heck of a severance deal...

posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 11:29 AM
reply to post by lovebeck

I'd bet a lot of the IT work there is contracted out so the actual team is quite small and probably spends a lot of its time firefighting more obvious problems so having the time to sit down and check what the softwares doing will probably be rare so the chance to gain confidence that its working as intended and can be deployed will be low especially if the staff don't have the skills or maybe the actual server permissions (without spending time talking to contract staff) to look for stuff

posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 11:42 AM

posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 12:09 PM
Please add comments to the existing thread:


log in