Hackers steal information on up to 100,000 Interserve employees

James Cook reports:

Outsourcing group Interserve is recovering from a cyberattack which took place over the weekend that may have seen the details of up to 100,000 people stolen.

Hackers broke into a human resources database owned by the outsourcing firm, which recently helped build the Birmingham Nightingale Hospital, on May 9 and stole information on current and former Interserve employees, a company insider said.

The information stolen in the breach could have included sensitive data such as employee names, addresses, bank details, payroll information, next of kin details, HR records, dates of absences and pension information.

Read more on Telegraph (UK).

About the author: Dissent

3 comments to “Hackers steal information on up to 100,000 Interserve employees”

You can leave a reply or Trackback this post.
  1. Anon - May 14, 2020

    #FakeNews
    Interserve haven’t got 100,000 employees, this article source was from a disgruntled employee who hasn’t got the balls to get a new job so decided to spread fake news.

    • Dissent - May 14, 2020

      The Telegraph’s reporting didn’t say that there were 100,000 current employees possibly affected. It says 100,000 people which could be more than 50,000 current employees plus former employees plus clients, etc. etc. In any event, I have submitted a question about that to Interserve and will update this if and when I get a response.

      • Dissent - May 14, 2020

        So I heard back from Interserve who simply sent me a copy of the same statement they had already made and noted that they currently have 53,500 employees. They would not respond to the questions I put to them as to whether the 100k was current and former employees, 100k people that might be non-employees, or if the 100k was an overestimate, etc. And they wouldn’t respond to my query about any disgruntled former employee.

        So I cannot confirm “Anon’s” claim of #FakeNews. It may not be fake. Or it might, but if so, the firm is somewhat foolish not to accept the opportunity to respond and clarify.

Comments are closed.