TalkTalk problem

[ahinton]

What about those customers who ended up with TalkTalk when their custom was simply handed over by another company? This happened to some of us who had ADSL contracts with Virgin until last year.

I'm in the perhaps curious position of having a TalkTalk email address ending in @lineone.net which is an old Tiscali one that it took over but I'm not actually a TalkTalk customer by virtue of having no account with them as such; I've noticed no email service interruptions and, as I don;t pay them anything, they don't have my bank or other financial details (or at least not from me and they have no need of them anyway). The downside is that, when trying to get service from them when their email server is having problems, it's virtually impossible because I'm not a customer!

[Beef Oven!]

.......when trying to get service from them when their email server is having problems, it's virtually impossible because I'm not a customer!

Well, who'd've thought it!

[Dave2002]

Of course, if that is the case she should offer her resignation immediately!

Great strategy that! The words "horse" and "bolted" flash before me.

[ahinton]

Well, who'd've thought it!

Most if not all of those disgruntled folk who are their customers, I imagine!

[Anastasius]

Of course, if that is the case she should offer her resignation immediately!

However, the public needs to get a few more hard facts about security arrangements at Talk Talk and whether these differ/ed very much from its competitors.

.

What security arrangements? Does three hacking attempts not convince you? How about https://paul.reviews/value-security-avoid-talktalk/ Look at the response from the Executive Office.

Does that do convince you? Of course, she won't resign. But she should.

BTW, EE score an A

[ahinton]

What security arrangements? Does three hacking attempts not convince you? How about https://paul.reviews/value-security-avoid-talktalk/ Look at the response from the Executive Office.

Does that do convince you? Of course, she won't resign. But she should.

BTW, EE score an A

But even if she did resign or was sacked, what difference would it make to what's happened, the likelihood of its recurrence or the effect upon disaffected customers?

[Petrushka]

Am I correct in assuming that bank accounts can be accessed by hackers only in the event of customers giving out password details via scam phone calls and e-mails?

If that assumption is correct then why are people ignoring all the advice that's been given over the years? Everyone and his dog knows that you do not give out password details to anyone so why do people still get caught out? I routinely never answer the phone unless I know the number that is on caller display. Scam e-mails are usually obvious enough with a bit of diligence and due care. Again, the advice has been around for years never to click on strange e-mails and links. It isn't just TalkTalk who are careless with security, customers can be equally slapdash.

[ahinton]

Am I correct in assuming that bank accounts can be accessed by hackers only in the event of customers giving out password details via scam phone calls and e-mails?

A fair assumption though it might seem, I rather doubt it. Serious and accomplished hackers hack into systems in order to obtain security details including passwords so that they can then get on and do their stuff. Whilst there has indeed been a history of scam phone calls to TalkTalk customers, these are not to blame for what's just happened, which has been a direct attack on TalkTalk's systems rather than fraudulent approaches to its customers.

If that assumption is correct then why are people ignoring all the advice that's been given over the years? Everyone and his dog knows that you do not give out password details to anyone so why do people still get caught out? I routinely never answer the phone unless I know the number that is on caller display. Scam e-mails are usually obvious enough with a bit of diligence and due care. Again, the advice has been around for years never to click on strange e-mails and links. It isn't just TalkTalk who are careless with security, customers can be equally slapdash.

Whilst all this is true, customers can have no possible control over direct attacks upon the systems of companies to which they have provided security details. It's not possible to fly without having your passport scanned; a hacker has only to get into passport control systems to obtain the details on holders' passports and - job done, without any consequences thereof being within the control those holders.

The real "advice" (if one can call it that) is therefore that anyone who provides personal security details to companies in order to transact with them or access and use their services runs the potential risk at all times that those details and any other information that he/she provides at any time might be compromised by anyone sufficiently skilled and willing to hack that company's systems; almost no one can therefore guarantee escape from that risk.

[Frances_iom]

Am I correct in assuming that bank accounts can be accessed by hackers only in the event of customers giving out password details via scam phone calls and e-mails?

probably true but such details may be obtained via subterfuge - eg a phonecall perporting to come from talktalk and asking that they connect their computer for a test might well convince many but said test loads a keylogger and/or alter the DNS lookup in their router (it appaers that even tho you may set a password on your router there are wellknown 'backdoors' engineered into most to allow hacks to alter the settings) thus diverting calls and allowing 'driveby' loading of virus (after all it would appear to be a well attested technique by GCHQ)

[ahinton]

probably true but such details may be obtained via subterfuge - eg a phonecall perporting to come from talktalk and asking that they connect their computer for a test might well convince many but said test loads a keylogger and/or alter the DNS lookup in their router (it appaers that even tho you may set a password on your router there are wellknown 'backdoors' engineered into most to allow hacks to alter the settings) thus diverting calls and allowing 'driveby' loading of virus (after all it would appear to be a well attested technique by GCHQ)

Yes, but this kind of thing is intended to target individuals individually; it's quite a different matter to hacking entire systems and making off with the personal and security details of tens or hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting customers in one go.

[Anastasius]

But even if she did resign or was sacked, what difference would it make to what's happened, the likelihood of its recurrence or the effect upon disaffected customers?

So according to you, there need be no sanctions or negative repercussions for anyone doing anything badly. Hey ho...way to go.

[Anastasius]

Yep, happened to me recently when AOL was taken over by TalkTalk who immediately put up their charges. Since I'm paying by DD I am wondering whether changing one's bank account password actually prevents a hacker from emptying one's account. Does anyone know?

Don't worry...the answer is No.

[Anastasius]

A fair assumption though it might seem, I rather doubt it. Serious and accomplished hackers hack into systems in order to obtain security details including passwords so that they can then get on and do their stuff. Whilst there has indeed been a history of scam phone calls to TalkTalk customers, these are not to blame for what's just happened, which has been a direct attack on TalkTalk's systems rather than fraudulent approaches to its customers.


Whilst all this is true, customers can have no possible control over direct attacks upon the systems of companies to which they have provided security details. It's not possible to fly without having your passport scanned; a hacker has only to get into passport control systems to obtain the details on holders' passports and - job done, without any consequences thereof being within the control those holders.

The real "advice" (if one can call it that) is therefore that anyone who provides personal security details to companies in order to transact with them or access and use their services runs the potential risk at all times that those details and any other information that he/she provides at any time might be compromised by anyone sufficiently skilled and willing to hack that company's systems; almost no one can therefore guarantee escape from that risk.

Yawn...you really do like the sound of your own voice, don't you ? Was your degree in Pontification?

[Pianorak]

Don't worry...the answer is No.

Are you saying that changing the password does NOT prevent a hacker from emptying my bank account?

[ahinton]

So according to you, there need be no sanctions or negative repercussions for anyone doing anything badly. Hey ho...way to go.

No. I said nothing of the kind. The buck stops in the CEO's office and, whoever's fault the problem may be, she is in the position to take the rap for it. I did not and would not suggest that she should not resign or that she should be sacked if she's unwilling to do so. All that I said - quite clearly, as I'd hoped, but evidently not as clearly as I should have done - is that whatever now happens at and/or near the top at TalkTalk it will make no difference to those who have suffered from the outcome of the attack and that it will do nothing in and of itself to stop such an action recurring - no more, no less. Do please read what I wrote rather than what you appear to think that I wrote. Thanks.