Yawn.....Another multi-million dollar data breach

[xoxoxoBruce]

No, Wolf said her card was replace and she SUSPECTED is was because of the publicized security breach, but they wouldn't confirm it.

I said my card was not replaced after the publicized security breach.

Classic said his card was not replaced and although they wouldn't confirm whether his card was breached or not, he was assuming it wasn't because it was not replaced.

If you didn't tail post you would have know that.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Classic said his card was not replaced and although they wouldn't confirm whether his card was breached or not,

Which is exactly what I posted. So your complaint is what? That you did not comprehend what was posted? Or that you now admit classicman's post as ambiguous?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Oh stop it. None of the posts were ambiguous, you're just stirring shit.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Oh stop it. None of the posts were ambiguous, you're just stirring shit.

Where does classicman say security was or was not breeched? He says neither. You keep pouring that shit on the floor. It's no longer just ambiguous. It's a downright slippery slope.

Meanwhile, many have probably seen a credit card number changed without comment. It suggests how widespread these security problems may be (or that security is actually working).

Originally Posted by richlevy

I am so glad that California and then Congress passed a law requiring notification in cases like this.

Card numbers changed without comment suggests a loophole may exist in those laws. For example, if they change your card number and claim a security breech was not yet known (only suspected), then they need not report the breech? If so, how many such breeches have actually existed unreported?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Where does classicman say security was or was not breeched? He says neither.

What, you can't read?

You keep pouring that shit on the floor. It's no longer just ambiguous. It's a downright slippery slope.

You're fucking with the wrong person, Tom.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

No, Wolf said her card was replace and she SUSPECTED is was because of the publicized security breach, but they wouldn't confirm it.

To clarify ...

My card was replaced after the 12/06 TJ Maxx breach. Citibank admitted that it was because of TJ Maxx that they were replacing the cards. Funny thing was, that I pretty much NEVER shop at TJ Maxx, except that was just after momwolf came home from the nursing home and in the midst of making Christmas extraspecial for her, I bought two nightgowns at TJ Maxx, which I then had to return. So ... had I not done a good deed, I wouldn't have exposed that particular card to that particular store.

So anyway ... it was just about three or four months ago that I received two new Citibank cards on that same account in fairly quick succession. The explanatory letter admitted to a security breach on the part of a large vendor. They did not, in the content of that letter, reveal the name of the vendor. They also would not, when I contacted the Citibank Security Department directly, reveal the name of the vendor, but they did confirm that a breach had occurred.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Then where ever it was, it's someplace that Classic and myself don't shop, so he was right in assuming his card had not been compromised*.




*That they know of.

[tw]

Originally Posted by wolf

So anyway ... it was just about three or four months ago that I received two new Citibank cards on that same account in fairly quick succession.

New cards on the same account - or new account numbers?

[wolf]

Originally Posted by tw

New cards on the same account - or new account numbers?

New account numbers, otherwise it wouldn't have been of interest, or of relevance to the thread.

[tw]

Originally Posted by wolf

New account numbers, otherwise it wouldn't have been of interest, or of relevance to the thread.

Your assumption is that new account numbers are the only security method. By not making that assumption, I asked if they changed the account; or used some other security method to maintain the same account number. Apparently changing account numbers remain the only solution to a security breech.

Meanwhile, both TheMercenary and I have seen account numbers changed without any notification. According to CA law as assumed, we should be notified if a security breech was detected. If no security breech was detected, then why change the account numbers even before the existing card was to expire? This inverse exposes a question. Does the law have loopholes? Apparently nobody here knows.