advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

FedEx: When Your Data Absolutely, Positively Has To Be Lost Overnight

March 30th, 2012

Iron Mountain, however, issued a statement saying, “these storage devices were being sent to us via third-party shipping company, as per the state agency’s defined disaster recovery protocol.” So Iron Mountain is saying that California insisted on FedEx, not Iron Mountain. California’s Lally said using FedEx “was not our directive,” adding, “the state was agreeable to using FedEx.”

As for how the disks got lost, Lally said the fault for that is shared by IBM, whose people did not properly secure the containers, which enabled four disks to fall out of the container. “We believe that the containers were not properly secured at the IBM facility,” she said.

Regardless of who brought in FedEx and who packaged the crate, who was making sure that quality control was maintained? Did California, IBM or Iron Mountain make special arrangements with FedEx to handle sensitive data or was this thrown in a truck along with 50 fruit baskets?

A bit late to the party, California has apparently learned that shipping sensitive disks in 2012 is perhaps not the most secure—or cost-effective—way to move data. “The California Office of Technology Services (oTech) is working with their contractors to strengthen their information security practices. oTech is also in the process of establishing new systems and processes that will eliminate the need for shipping storage devices in the future,” said a California statement.

Lally clarified that the new system—which will electronically transfer the data to offsite locations—is very near term. “We anticipate that this service will be up and running by the end of this year,” she said.

To be fair, this all likely seemed entirely reasonable at the time to all of the players. If it went well, FedEx is likely the cheapest and fastest alternative. But sensitive data transports need to be handled with extra care.

Maybe California will run into some luck finding the cartridges. In a terrible irony, the most recent news release from Iron Mountain—dated March 6, six days before the California incident—is a new service “aimed at helping customers to find and retrieve files stored on magnetic tape cartridges.” That’s convenient. It can start by finding these cartridges, which Iron Mountain—with help from IBM and FedEx—lost.


advertisement

Comments are closed.

Newsletters

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!
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.