advertisement
advertisement

Did Retailers Learn Any Lessons From Gonzalez?

Written by Evan Schuman
April 29th, 2010

Albert Gonzalez succeeded—for several years, at least—as arguably the world’s most effective cyberthief, breaking into many of the largest retail chains (Target, 7-Eleven, TJX, JCPenney, Sports Authority, etc.). His methodologies for breaking in were clean, but his methods of avoiding detection for years (despite extensive network activity and huge file transfers) and of cleaning up his tracks forensically kept the world’s top law enforcement agents stymied.

A post-conviction look at how Gonzalez was caught suggests a change in the type of retailers likely to be targeted and ways today’s largest chains can better protect themselves. But it also raises questions about whether the very nature of such a large-scale cyber-attack could ever succeed, assuming success is defined as both getting the money and not getting caught. Retailers are worried about protecting against similar attacks, but it’s not likely to be repeated—at least not in the same way.

According to the federal prosecutors who oversaw the cases, they got used to referring to Gonzalez as 201679996. That was his identification on the ICQ instant messaging service he used. For quite some time, authorities were convinced that 201679996 was behind the retail break-ins, but they had yet to identify that it was Gonzalez–their former paid, confidential informant.

As happens so often with elaborate, sophisticated criminal operations, the break in the case doesn’t typically come from standard detective work. It’s usually a matter of luck, coupled with one of the lower level people involved in the operation getting arrested for something. And then that person makes a deal. In a way, that’s what happened with Gonzalez.

His multinational crew was actually quite strict about communication procedures, and most had no idea who their colleagues really were. This tactic minimizes the damage to the group if one member gets caught. But when one Gonzalez colleague, Maksym Ystremskiy of the Ukraine, was arrested in July 2007 by the Turkish National Police, the officers seized his laptop and password and shared an image of his hard-drive with the U.S. Secret Service.

It was there they found stored ICQ messages, including a huge number from their friend, 201679996. The messages included lots of references to the break-ins, and at least one message broke code and said “TJX.” Another said “D&B,” standing for Dave & Buster’s, one of the first chains to be hit.

Another message spoke of a participant who was arrested the day before, so the Secret Service started pouring through their records of people who had been arrested on that date until they found a match. From there, the trail quickly led to various people and, ultimately, to Gonzalez.

The plans “were brilliantly executed. It was an incredible challenge to trace back and figure out” who was behind it, said Kim Peretti who, as senior counsel in the U.S. Department of Justice’s Computer Crime Section, oversaw almost all of these cases.

Although Gonzalez did type letters that would ultimately destroy his operation, Peretti makes a good case that there really wasn’t much of a choice for him. To hit as many chains as Gonzalez did, a lot of people—with various skillsets—were needed. And with the stolen data hidden in servers in multiple countries, communication among team members was essential.


advertisement

Leave a Reply

Readers, specifically those who want to comment on a story:
Our Comment SPAM system is getting very aggressive these days and has been blocking legitimate comments. If you post a comment and don't see it appear within 2 hours or so, can you please send a heads-up to customer-service@storefrontbacktalk.com? Ideally, please include the time you posted the comment. That will allow us to try and hunt for it. Thanks! P.S. We're working on fixing the system, but we don't want to lose any valuable comments in the meantime.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 17,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

StorefrontBacktalk
Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.