McDonald’s, Walgreens Learn Joys Of Third-Party E-Mail Breaches

Written by Evan Schuman
December 15th, 2010

McDonald’s and Walgreens both learned this week the downsides of outsourcing E-mail marketing campaigns when their E-mail systems were breached, sending the personal information of customers of both chains into the cyber criminal world.

A key takeaway from these attacks is that retailers are becoming increasingly at risk for data losses from systems they can’t control. This goes beyond E-mail campaigns and includes a wide range of mobile programs, in addition to social site campaigns.

Given the way the two chains handle their E-mail data, different levels of personally identifiable information from their customers was stolen. McDonalds was using an E-mail firm, hired by a unit of the Leo Burnett advertising agency called Arc Worldwide. The E-mail firm has not yet been publicly identified. Walgreens is not saying how its E-mail was accessed, but while Walgreens spokesperson Michael Polzin confirmed that his chain works with Leo Burnett, he said that the E-mail was not through the same firm that lost McDonald’s data. He wouldn’t say where or how it had been handled.

McDonald’s sent an E-mail to customers this weekend that information provided to McDonald’s through a promotion “was improperly accessed by an unauthorized third party.” The McDonald’s Web site added: “Unfortunately, a third party was able to defeat the security measures put in place by the E-mail database management firm to protect the information you provided to us.”

That E-mail also described what was taken: “McDonald’s does not collect sensitive financial information, such as Social Security Numbers or credit card numbers online or through E-mail. As such, the information improperly accessed did not include this type of information. Rather, the limited information you provided to McDonald’s included information required to confirm your age, a method to contact you (such as name, mobile phone number, and postal address and/or E-mail address) and other general preference information.”

On its site, McDonald’s added a few more details: “The information contained in the database is limited to your E-mail address and potentially also your name, postal address, home or cell phone number, birth date, gender and certain information about your promotional preferences or Web information interests. This is information you provided when you signed up or subscribed. The database did not contain Social Security Numbers, credit card numbers or any sensitive financial information, since McDonald’s did not collect this information.”

A statement from Walgreens indicated the data hacked from it was much more limited.


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

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...

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.