Petco Is Latest Victim Of The All-Too-Common Data Breach Via Stolen Laptop

Written by Evan Schuman
August 1st, 2012

Petco this week became the latest retailer to suffer a data breach by way of auditors and stolen laptops. The breach in this instance involved sensitive employee data—names and Social Security numbers—but neither customer data nor payment-card information. Still, this situation raises the questions: What data-handling requirements for contractors are reasonable, and when do they become absurd?

In the case of Petco’s auditors, quite a few good precautions had been used. The “laptop computers were protected with a strong password and the Plan information was contained in a software program that is protected with an encrypted password,” according to an employee memo.

The theft happened inside an office, but we’ve seen far too many cases recently of laptops stolen from cars. (New line for all contractor agreements: Don’t leave my stuff in a car or else you’ll pay 40 percent of your fee in a stupidity penalty.)

As is often the case with such crimes, the thieves in the Petco incident apparently didn’t know—or care—about the data inside the laptops. “The police officers from the City of San Diego Police Department to whom the outside auditor reported the theft believe that the thieves targeted the equipment rather than the information stored on the equipment,” the memo said. That’s quite likely the case, because the thieves probably don’t want the laptops for themselves. They’ll be quickly sold through a wide range of channels, including eBay. The problem is not necessarily the thieves but whoever receives the laptops, and then sees what data is on the devices. Depending on who the purchaser is, that data could still get to an identity thief. Social Security numbers—of course—unlike payment-card numbers, can’t be easily cancelled. (It can be done, by the way. But it’s far from easy, and it requires the person to wait until after harm has been done. Preventive SS# changes are almost impossible.) They can be flagged, but that provides relatively minimal protection.

By the way, there was an interesting line in the Petco memo: “On Tuesday, July 3, 2012, the outside auditor of Petco’s 401(k) Plan informed us that five laptop computers had been stolen from their offices during the weekend of May 18-20, 2012. We are seeking an explanation from the outside auditor’s office for the lapse of time in informing Petco of this incident.” So Petco learned of this situation on July 3 and yet didn’t tell employees until July 28? Is Petco also seeking an explanation for its own delay?


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.