DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

If you don't respond to notifications of a leak, the problem doesn't go away – it gets worse

Posted on November 7, 2014 by Dissent

On September 3, SLC alleged that WakeMed was leaking patient information:

Type: PII
Area: Healthcare
First Noted: 3 September 2014
Location: NC
Total Records: 5000+
Status: Not Monitoring for Follow Up (Not a client)

SLC Security Services LLC has noted that this medical establishment has failed to secure patient records. Observed were patient name and date of birth as well as specific medical information. SLC Security Services LLC has confirmed the information in this report.

Company Location and Contact Information:
Various Locations – Central NC

Additional Follow up: IT staff contacted us. We provided what information was known. The entity is not a client of SLC Security Services LLC. We are unable to verify if the company has resolved the issue at this time.

Update: As of 25 Sept 2014 this vulnerability still exist. We are seeing multiple PHI and PII from this source. The issue may be attributed to an outside source.

On October 31, SLC updated their report:

SLC Security Services LLC will begin notifying patients of Cape Fear Valley Health System (Fayetteville, NC) and WakeMed (Various Locations) after formal notification has been made to the entities formally.

We have previously contacted both entities and neither entity responded to our notification letters.

Well, it appears that WakeMed IT personnel did originally respond to the notification, but what happened after that? Perhaps SLC meant to say that WakeMed didn’t respond effectively as the information is still allegedly leaking?

As I commented previously in response to their report about Cape Fear Valley Health System (also in North Carolina, and also now having their patients notified by SLC): entities need to respond to notifications or things will get worse. Certainly, this is no way for patients to find out about a security problem.

Not only did Cape Fear Valley Health System allegedly not follow up on SLC’s report to them, they did not respond to an inquiry sent to them in September by PHIprivacy.net.

Neither Cape Fear Valley Health System nor WakeMed are listed on HHS’s public breach tool as having reported breaches to HHS.

Today, PHIprivacy.net asked SLC Security via Twitter if they have reported their findings to HHS. PHIprivacy.net also tweeted inquiries to WakeMed and Cape Fear Valley Health System to inquire whether they were aware of leaks and whether they were aware that their patients were being directly notified by SLC Security.

If I get responses, I will update this post.


Related:

  • Maintenance Note
  • CISA Alert: Reported Supply Chain Compromise Affecting XZ Utils Data Compression Library, CVE-2024-3094
  • System Status Note
  • System Status Note
  • System Status Note
  • Fraudster's fake data breach claims should remind media to be careful what we report
Category: Uncategorized

Post navigation

← FL: Defendant Convicted In Identity Theft Tax Fraud Scheme Involving Medical Patients’ Personal Identifying Information
NY: Mount Sinai Beth Israel Hospital reports stolen laptop →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • Doctor Alliance Data Breach: 353GB of Patient Files Allegedly Compromised, Ransom Demanded
  • St. Thomas Brushed Off Red Flags Before Dark-Web Data Dump Rocks Houston
  • A Wiltshire police breach posed possible safety concerns for violent crime victims as well as prison officers
  • Amendment 13 is gamechanger on data security enforcement in Israel
  • Almost two years later, Alpha Omega Winery notifies those affected by a data breach.
  • Court of Appeal reaffirms MFSA liability in data leak case, orders regulator to shoulder costs
  • A jailed hacking kingpin reveals all about the gang that left a trail of destruction
  • Army gynecologist took secret videos of patients during intimate exams, lawsuit says
  • The Case for Making EdTech Companies Liable Under FERPA
  • NHS providers reviewing stolen Synnovis data published by cyber criminals

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • Data broker Kochava agrees to change business practices to settle lawsuit
  • Amendment 13 is gamechanger on data security enforcement in Israel
  • Changes in the Rules for Disclosure for Substance Use Disorder Treatment Records: 42 CFR Part 2: What Changed, Why It Matters, and How It Aligns with HIPAAs
  • Always watching: How ICE’s plan to monitor social media 24/7 threatens privacy and civic participation
  • Who’s watching the watchers? This Mozilla fellow, and her Surveillance Watch map

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net
Security Issue: security[at]databreaches.net
Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight
Signal: +1 516-776-7756
DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.