Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Hackergate thread part three - PLEASE read

999 replies

TheOnlyOliviaMumsnet · 19/08/2015 12:10

Hi all,

This thread is about to max out please continue here and we will update with info as an when we have it.

We will get to all emails and reports but it may take some time Huge apologies.

Here is Justine's OP from the previous thread:

On the night of Tuesday 11 August, Mumsnet came under attack from what's known as a denial of service (DDoS) attack. Our servers were bombarded with requests, which required our internet service provider to massively increase server capacity to cope. We were able to restore the site at 10am on Wednesday 12 August. Meanwhile a Twitter account, @DadSecurity, claimed responsibility, saying in various tweets "Now is the start of something wonderful", "RIP Mumsnet", "Nothing will be normal anymore" and "Our DDoS attacks are keeping you offline".

To add to the 'fun', it seems @DadSecurity also resorted to Swatting attacks. Swatting is a criminal practice in which someone makes an emergency call to the police claiming that a crime is taking place at the house of the intended victim, in order to get them to send a swat team to the address.

An armed response team turned up at my house last week in the middle of the night, after reports of a gunman prowling around. A Mumsnet user who engaged with @DadSecurity on Twitter was warned to "prepare to be swatted by the best" in a tweet that included a picture of a swat team, after which police arrived at her house late at night following a report of gunshots. Needless to say, she and her young family were pretty shaken up. It's worth saying that we don't believe these addresses were gained directly from any Mumsnet hack, as we don't collect addresses. The police are investigating both instances.

@DadSecurity also claimed that he had access to Mumsnet user data. Later on 12 August, it became apparent that someone/ones had hacked into some of Mumsnet's administrative functions, at which point they were able to redirect our homepage to the @DadSecurity Twitter profile page, as well as to edit posts from two users' account and an MNHQ account on our forums.

Someone claiming to be the hacker also posted on the thread on which users were discussing the site outage. We immediately locked down all access to our admin functions and reported the attack to the police. We were confident that users' passwords had not been accessed, because MNHQ doesn't hold them as plain text; they're all encrypted, so that no one - not even us - can see them.

However, over the weekend, a user reported that posts had been made under her name which weren't by her, and we spotted two other cases where this had happened. This clearly suggested that the hacker had nonetheless been able to get hold of some users' passwords.

Our best guess at this stage (and it is just a best guess) is that this has been done via a form of phishing, in which the hacker creates a fake Mumsnet login page to which users are directed when clicking on our login button. The page would have had a different url but otherwise would look just like the usual page. The hacker would have been able to see passwords in plain text when they were typed in.

We take great care to protect the information you give us and not to ask for or store any more information than we need to run the site, but though we can't know how many accounts have been affected, there have been enough breaches for us to ask all Mumsnet users to change their passwords. As a result, you'll no longer be able to log in to Mumsnet with your current password, and will need to create a new one, here.

This will mean that any passwords the hacker has been able to harvest up to this point will be useless. We are looking into what we can do to strengthen our defences against phishing, but in the meantime we need to ask you to be vigilant, and to check the URL of the login page for the foreseeable future. The correct URL is www.mumsnet.com/session/login and it reads rather than at the beginning. We will place a warning on the login page reminding you to do this.

Alternatively use the social login option (ie Facebook/Google) as then you won't be required to enter a password. And if you log into any other sites using the same password that you use on Mumsnet, it makes sense to change your password on those sites, too.

We're really sorry for the alarm and inconvenience this might cause, and we realise you're likely to have further questions about what's been happening, so here's a summary of answers to the most obvious questions.

You say the hacker was able to access Mumsnet users' data: was data from my personal account accessed?
We have no way of knowing how many Mumsnetters were affected - so far we have evidence of 11 user accounts being hacked but it's an ongoing investigation. Those users have been informed, and their passwords have been reset. We think it prudent, however, that everyone reset their passwords - which in any case is a sensible thing to do from time to time.

What data could the hacker see?
By using your password and login, he would have been able to see the data on your profile - so that includes your username or email plus your password, your postcode if you've supplied it, your username history and your Mumsnet inbox.

Now that I've changed my password, can you guarantee that my data is safe?
Unfortunately, we can't give you a cast-iron guarantee of this - no site can. By forcing a password reset the hacker won't be able to log in as you; however, if phishing was the cause, the page could be phished again, which is why it's important that you check the URL of the login page when you enter your details, or use your social login. If the URL is anything other than www.mumsnet.com/session/login, don't use it.

Final thoughts
The internet is of course brilliant, but it's not 100% safe and secure. Whenever you share anything on the web, either publicly (such as on a Mumsnet thread) or privately (such as the data you give to a website when signing up), have a think about how happy you'd be for that information to fall into the hands of someone else. Make your passwords as secure as possible and change them every few months. Use different passwords for different accounts. Close redundant accounts that you no longer use.

And if you read nothing else...
I do realise this post is long, so here's a quick summary:

DO reset your Mumsnet password
DO make passwords really strong to reduce the risk of them being guessed
DO check the URL of any login page to reduce risk of phishing
DO verify that is being used on login pages
DO use social login to avoid typing passwords
DON'T give out information to any organisations without verifying they are who they say they are (such as the fake @mumsnetsupport twitter account that had also been started but has now been removed by Twitter)

Please post here or mail us on [email protected] with any questions or thoughts. As you can imagine our inbox is fairly voluminous at the moment but we'll get back to you as quickly as we can.

Thanks very much for reading,

Justine

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
RuckingMarvellous · 19/08/2015 23:06

Yes I guess so. I just feel all twitchy about this. I feel like so much of me is invested in mn and this whole episode just makes me uneasy.

But I'm glad it's not just me cupcake re the emails as that does probably sound right that they're slowing churning then all out.

Hackergate thread part three - PLEASE read
WellWhoKnew · 19/08/2015 23:08

Me too.

nsld · 19/08/2015 23:13

"We believe that the hacker has used a password from the old hack to gain access to another system (external to Mumsnet) on which we store client information."

I have no words, at least not ones I tend to use publicly.

The "old hack" was 16 months ago and you still haven't secured your systems?

Why am I reminded of the scene in Zoolander when they try to get the files from the computer?

akkakk · 19/08/2015 23:14

exciting note about email servers ;)
any email server that sends out too many emails in one go is virtually automatically listed as spam and blacklisted... therefore anyone doing genuine large mailings will batch send them - often each batch is as small as 20-100 emails - it may only take a short time for a batch to go, but with 7,000,000 registered members (is that right) it will always take MN a long time...

then you have other delays - for example, one anti-spam measure is that some mail servers automatically reject an email and wait for it to be resent - most spammers don't bother resending, so a resent email is considered to be more likely to be genuine... of course the MN mail server is in the middle of sending out millions of emails, so resending might end up delayed!

other email servers can spot patterns such as a flurry of emails with none previously, and delay new emails coming in in case they are spam...

some email servers simply send all emails to Brazil for 24 hours for a nice holiday :)

and lots of other techniques...

so never expect emails to be instant and in this case they can be very slow - I have just received tonight one from MN talking about issues from yesterday!

MagpieCursedTea · 19/08/2015 23:15

I struggled with resetting my password on the mobile site until I saw a message on the other thread saying it had to be over 10 characters long. That message doesn't come up on the mobile site. It just says there was an error but gives no explanation. So unless your new password is between 10 and 40 characters long and contains letters and numbers it won't accept it. That's their complex password parameters.

KateMumsnet · 19/08/2015 23:16

@Lavenderice

can someone please tell me what happens if you don't change your password, will your account be deleted?

No, Lavender, you just won't be able to log in and post.

WastingValuableTime · 19/08/2015 23:19

I have a question about deregging.

Once an account is deregged, does it remove forever the links between username and usersnamechanges, or are these recorded somewhere else as well as the user account? I've decided it's worth the loss of a few threads I'm on or watching, in order to start afresh with an email which doesn't link to anything else, but I'd like to know, even with the old account deleted, whether it's still a security risk from that point of view.

I have sent my address via PM, those will be in others accounts, but under various names as I've always changed regularly. I'd like to know if the receiver didn't delete, whether those can link back to most current username?

Solo · 19/08/2015 23:23

Good grief! I've just had to reset my password again!! I don't mind, but for the fact I then have to remember it and I have trouble remembering my actual name at times!!

akkakk · 19/08/2015 23:24

Magpie
That is generally sufficient - and don't forget that this event was not down to hacking passwords necessarily, but capturing them as typed - so it wouldn't matter how simple or complex they are - two different issues...

I suspect and hope that this is one quick step and that there may be a future tightening up as well

your point about the mobile app is good though - they should list the requirements

VivaDevaVegas · 19/08/2015 23:28

2 password changes and now I've changed my name for the first time ever Hmm

BertieBotts · 19/08/2015 23:28

Just posting so this stays in I'm on (though wer'e about to head to thread 4, aren't we?) because I keep thinking it's there and it's not!

Have not been logged out or forced to change password a second time yet.

catzpyjamas · 19/08/2015 23:30

If you are trying to reset your password on the mobile site and you get an error message saying you can't use this password because.... ,
the blank bit should read:
Password must be between 10-40 characters and include a combination of letters and at least one number or symbol. It must not be a password you have previously used.
This message appears on the desktop site but not on mobile, MNHQ

Solo · 19/08/2015 23:32

Can someone point me in the direction of the list please?!

BertieBotts · 19/08/2015 23:33

BTW, I know that you are all busy and this seems minor but I found the wording of this on the FAQ post a bit confusing/misleading:

--

It may look like a google page, but if it doesn't have google.com as the first part of the address then it's fake.
Here are examples of genuine Google addresses:
www.google.com/...
mail.google.com/...

And examples of fake addresses:
www.google.com.account.co/...
google.com.login.uk/

--

Emphasis mine. The thing is that the two examples of fake addresses do have google.com as the first part. And the mail.google.com doesn't.

I think it would be less confusing to say that the part before the single forwards slash must END in google.com. Because anybody can set up a web page saying google.com.whatever.else.I.want

I understand the point but I think it's a bit confusing to people who don't really understand how web addresses work.

howtorebuild · 19/08/2015 23:33

Solo, chat, am I on the list, page 11

BertieBotts · 19/08/2015 23:33

Solo I think it's on Chat.

Allisgood1 · 19/08/2015 23:33

I haven't been locked out yet.

MagpieCursedTea · 19/08/2015 23:36

I wasn't saying that I didn't think it was sufficient akkakk, just pointing out the parameters. I think it's a perfectly reasonable level of password security even if I struggle to think of ones that long

ChwatFeechers · 19/08/2015 23:37

I've just sent a PM on here and when I pressed 'send' the following page was a blank screen with 'success' at the top left hand corner of the screen... Never seen it like that before?

Gah. I'm not 'on the list' though.

twirlypoo · 19/08/2015 23:39

Chwat I just pmed you to check - nothing unusual my side im afraid Confused

ChwatFeechers · 19/08/2015 23:41

Just got your message twirlypoo, I'd just changed password before it and was paranoid anyway at checking the https in the address bar!

Eeek.

WellWhoKnew · 19/08/2015 23:45

I got that yesterday evening Chwat and it made me think too.

I'm not on the list either.

SaskiaRembrandtWasFramed · 19/08/2015 23:50

"It may look like a google page, but if it doesn't have google.com as the first part of the address then it's fake.
Here are examples of genuine Google addresses:
www.google.com/...
mail.google.com/...

And examples of fake addresses:
www.google.com.account.co/...
google.com.login.uk/

I think it would be less confusing to say that the part before the single forwards slash must END in google.com. Because anybody can set up a web page saying google.com.whatever.else.I.want

I understand the point but I think it's a bit confusing to people who don't really understand how web addresses work."

BertieBotts Definitely. That's something people really should be aware of!

For anyone who is confused - mail.google.com is a Google website. However, google.somedomain.com is not.

BertieBotts · 19/08/2015 23:52

Just to be clear I took that from the MN FAQ, I didn't write it.

twirlypoo · 19/08/2015 23:54

I'm using the app - I don't know if that makes a difference? Try not to worry, God knows what's going on at the moment so fingers crossed everything has settled down in the morning Thanks