Dataset containing data from Wired circulating on hacker forums

"An actor operating under the alias Lovely claims to have millions of Wired subscription details in their possession. According to the claim, this involves more than 2.3 million records. The hacker is threatening to publish tens of millions more records from other Condé Nast publications. The dataset appeared on various hacker forums around December 20, where access was offered for a small fee, reports BleepingComputer."

"Analysis of the leaked data by external parties indicates that the file does indeed consist of real subscription data. A sample of records was found to match existing Wired accounts. In total, the dataset contains over 2.36 million entries with almost as many unique email addresses. The corresponding timestamps range from the 1990s to very recent dates, raising questions about the consistency of the metadata."

"Most records consist of an internal identification number and an email address. In some cases, additional personal data is present, such as names, addresses, phone numbers, or dates of birth. Only a small number of records contain multiple pieces of this data combined, indicating highly variable completeness within the database. Security researchers have further tested the authenticity of the leak by comparing the data with previously stolen login details from infostealer campaigns. Similarities were found, making it likely that this is not fabricated data."

An actor using the alias Lovely claims to have stolen more than 2.36 million Wired subscription records and threatens to publish tens of millions more from other Condé Nast publications. The dataset appeared on hacker forums around December 20 and was offered for a small fee. External analysis found samples matching existing Wired accounts and cross-references with previously stolen credentials, suggesting authenticity. Records mostly include internal IDs and email addresses, with a minority containing names, addresses, phone numbers, or birth dates; data completeness varies widely. Timestamps span the 1990s to recent dates, raising metadata consistency questions. Condé Nast has not yet confirmed an incident.

Read at Techzine Global