Endpoint

1/19/2018
02:28 PM
50%
50%

Up to 40K Affected in Credit Card Breach at OnePlus

The smartphone manufacturer has sent an email to anyone who may have been affected in the breach.

Chinese smartphone manufacturer OnePlus has reported a credit card breach affecting up to 40,000 users at oneplus.net. Users who entered their credit card data on the website between mid-November 2017 and January 11, 2018 could be at risk.

Over the weekend of Jan. 13, OnePlus customers reported unknown credit card transactions appearing on their accounts following purchases from oneplus.net. The company began an investigation and learned one of its systems was attacked. A malicious script was injected into the payment page code to discover credit card information as it was being entered.

The malicious script has been eliminated, the infected server quarantined, and all relevant system structures reinforced. Users who paid using a saved credit card, the "Credit Card via PayPal" option, or PayPal should not be affected, OnePlus reports.

"This breach should be a reminder that HTTPS, while encrypted, is not a guarantee of a secure transaction as attackers can compromise the systems at both ends of any encrypted conversation," says Chris Morales, head of security analytics at Vectra.

Read more details here.

Dark Reading's Quick Hits delivers a brief synopsis and summary of the significance of breaking news events. For more information from the original source of the news item, please follow the link provided in this article. View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
1/22/2018 | 10:24:40 PM
Re: Chase Bank
@REISEN: Same here, the other day.

I'm not even a Chase customer. So extra #FAIL on that one.

But, then again, they do deal in volume.

 
REISEN1955
50%
50%
REISEN1955,
User Rank: Ninja
1/19/2018 | 3:10:11 PM
Chase Bank
Just received a suspect email regarding insufficient funds in my chase account.  Oh, click on this link to verify.  I AM NOT DUMB so checked the account NORMAL method and funds there,  nobody hacked - so if you have a breach it comes often from some dumb user clicking on a bad link and off to hell the game goes. 
Want Your Daughter to Succeed in Cyber? Call Her John
John De Santis, CEO, HyTrust,  5/16/2018
New Mexico Man Sentenced on DDoS, Gun Charges
Dark Reading Staff 5/18/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
Flash Poll
[Strategic Security Report] How Enterprises Are Attacking the IT Security Problem
[Strategic Security Report] How Enterprises Are Attacking the IT Security Problem
Enterprises are spending more of their IT budgets on cybersecurity technology. How do your organization's security plans and strategies compare to what others are doing? Here's an in-depth look.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-11354
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, the IEEE 1905.1a dissector could crash. This was addressed in epan/dissectors/packet-ieee1905.c by making a certain correction to string handling.
CVE-2018-11355
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, the RTCP dissector could crash. This was addressed in epan/dissectors/packet-rtcp.c by avoiding a buffer overflow for packet status chunks.
CVE-2018-11356
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, 2.4.0 to 2.4.6, and 2.2.0 to 2.2.14, the DNS dissector could crash. This was addressed in epan/dissectors/packet-dns.c by avoiding a NULL pointer dereference for an empty name in an SRV record.
CVE-2018-11357
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, 2.4.0 to 2.4.6, and 2.2.0 to 2.2.14, the LTP dissector and other dissectors could consume excessive memory. This was addressed in epan/tvbuff.c by rejecting negative lengths.
CVE-2018-11358
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, 2.4.0 to 2.4.6, and 2.2.0 to 2.2.14, the Q.931 dissector could crash. This was addressed in epan/dissectors/packet-q931.c by avoiding a use-after-free after a malformed packet prevented certain cleanup.