School districts hit with extortion attempts after PowerSchool breach
One of the largest providers of education tech paid off hackers so that they wouldn't publish tens of millions of children's personal information. But school districts are facing extortion attempts anyway.
The company, PowerSchool, missed a basic cybersecurity step, according to a cybersecurity audit obtained by NBC News, and was hacked last year, leading to one of the largest breaches to date of American children's personal data. PowerSchool reportedly paid an undisclosed sum to the hackers in exchange for a video of them purporting to delete the files they had stolen, which included some students' Social Security numbers and other information, like health and disciplinary records.
But 'a threat actor' is using that stolen data to try to extort schools and school districts in both the U.S. and Canada, according to statements from PowerSchool and various school districts issued Wednesday.
'PowerSchool is aware that a threat actor has reached out to multiple school district customers in an attempt to extort them using data from the previously reported December 2024 incident,' PowerSchool wrote in a statement Wednesday. 'We do not believe this is a new incident, as samples of data match the data previously stolen in December.'
Public schools across North Carolina received extortion emails Wednesday morning, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction Superintendent Mo Green said in a public bulletin. The threat actor appears to have students' and staffers' names, contact information, birthdays, medical information, parental information, and in some cases Social Security numbers, he said.
Several Canadian school authorities have announced they are also among the victims, including the Peel District School Board in Ontario and the Toronto District School Board. The Calgary Board of Education also issued a warning to parents this week based on communication it had received from PowerSchool.
It was not immediately clear who was behind the current extortion attempt. PowerSchool said it believes that the threat actor is using data stolen from the original incident last year, indicating that the original hackers either are behind the current attempts or kept the data and made it accessible to other people.
'We have reported this matter to law enforcement both in the United States and in Canada and are working closely with our customers to support them. We sincerely regret these developments– it pains us that our customers are being threatened and re-victimized by bad actors,' PowerSchool's statement said.
'As is always the case with these situations, there was a risk that the bad actors would not delete the data they stole, despite assurances and evidence that were provided to us,' it said.
It is not clear if other American school districts had been victims of the renewed extortion attempt. PowerSchool declined to name victims, saying only that it was aware of 'multiple school district customers.' A majority of U.S. states have at least one school district that was affected by the original breach.
PowerSchool is one of the largest companies in the educational technology industry, which became particularly widespread during the Covid pandemic and uses software to streamline school processes. One of its primary programs helps school districts track students, and the company servers stored information like their names, family members, addresses and birthdays.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Chrisley family returns to reality TV with new show but experts warn of comeback risks
Now that Todd and Julie Chrisley have received a full pardon from President Donald Trump, the couple's journey post-prison is set to be captured in a docuseries – and experts are weighing in on whether it is the right move for the reality TV stars. The Lifetime network previously greenlit "The Untitled Chrisleys Project" on the family prior to Todd and Julie's release from prison. The project, which is set to premiere later this year, showcases how Savannah Chrisley, Chase Chrisley, Grayson Chrisley, Chloe Chrisley and Nanny Faye Chrisley navigated the family hardship while Todd and Julie were behind bars for bank fraud and tax evasion. The reality couple were not initially expected to be included in the show since they were in prison. However, Savannah confirmed last week that fans can expect to see everything unfold on camera while she was waiting for her father outside the Pensacola, Florida, federal prison. Savannah also shared on her podcast Tuesday that production has "started back up now that mom and dad are home" and that they are ecstatic to be making their "new start at life." Todd And Julie Chrisley Return To Reality Tv After Trump Pardon Frees Them From Prison As Todd and Julie – who were found guilty in June 2022 of not only bank fraud and tax evasion but also conspiring to defraud the IRS, and sentenced to 12 and seven years, respectively – were deep in scandal, experts cautioned that "redemption is a grind" when it comes to the reality family regaining their popularity and the public's trust. Read On The Fox News App "Redemption is a grind, not a headline. If you want the crown back, start by crawling --because no celebrity gets to skip the hard part," Reputation Management Consultants CEO Eric Schiffer told Fox News Digital. "You can't Netflix your way out of disgrace. Substance beats spectacle. A strong comeback is built on humility, not headlines. Redemption doesn't come from a camera crew but the grind when nobody's looking." He added, "Don't try to outshine your scandal -- outwork it." Trump Announces Pardon For Todd And Julie Chrisley After Reality Tv Stars' Fraud, Tax Evasion Convictions The couple were convicted of conspiring to defraud community banks out of more than $30 million in fraudulent loans as well as tax evasion. Their sentences were later reduced. As another expert pointed out, in many ways, a celebrity's "comeback is framed by the substance of the underlying charges and conviction." "A lot of fans balked at the substantive allegations surrounding the Chrisley's convictions, while an even larger swath of American parents related to--at least, in part--Lori Loughlin's actions on behalf of her child," Doug Eldridge, founder of Achilles PR, shared with Fox News Digital. In 2019, the "Full House" star was arrested for her involvement in the college admissions scandal in 2019. One year later, Loughlin served two months in prison, completed 150 hours of community service and paid a $150,000 fine after pleading guilty to conspiracy charges stemming from making payments to William "Rick" Singer, the mastermind of the scam, to get her daughters, Isabella and Olivia Jade, into the University of Southern California. "In cases like the Chrisley's, Loughlin, or Martha Stewart, a 'relatable conviction' doesn't absolve them from wrongdoing or somehow make it right," Eldridge told Fox News Digital. Trump Pardons Todd, Julie Chrisley: What To Know About Reality Tv Stars "In each of these cases, there was a lingering sense of relatability in terms of the actions, charges, and conviction and that's incredibly important when discussing a post-conviction comeback. How they feel about you going in, will dramatically impact how they feel about you coming out." In 2004, Stewart served time at Alderson Federal Prison Camp in West Virginia after being found guilty on charges related to insider trading. "It's hard to overstate the importance of relatability and its causal connection to likability and eventually, marketability," Eldridge stated. "For a case study in relatability, look no further than Meghan Markle: this is the one aspect that has eluded the 'Duchess' over the last seven years and its absence has effectively served as the prevailing winds that drove her ship into the rocks, every time she has tried to push a new venture out of port. If they can't relate to you, they'll never like you and they certainly won't invest in you," Eldridge noted. Since Markle and Prince Harry's royal exit in 2020, the Duchess of Sussex launched her new lifestyle brand, As Ever, in April. She additionally launched a lifestyle Netflix show in March titled, "With Love, Meghan." Meanwhile, a Hollywood actor who appeared to have played his cards right is Tim Allen, according to experts. "Tim Allen didn't hide from his past; he joked about it and moved forward -- authenticity wins," Schiffer remarked. The "Home Improvement" star was arrested in 1978 at the Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International Airport in Michigan while carrying over a pound of cocaine. He later pleaded guilty to drug trafficking charges and, at 23, spent two years and four months in federal prison. Although he was not expecting such a long sentence, Allen said on a podcast that he "wanted to be able to come out with something." Like What You're Reading? Click Here For More Entertainment News "I just shut up and did what I was told," he recalled. "It was the first time ever I did what I was told and played the game... I learned literally how to live day by day. And I learned how to shut up. You definitely want to learn how to shut up." In a press release about the Chrisleys' docuseries, it stated that "[i]n the new series, the Chrisleys don't know best anymore, but they're doing their best to be there for each other." Todd and Julie's children, along with other family members, faced the challenges of "carrying on the Chrisley name and legacy on their own with only phone calls and brief visits with their incarcerated parents," the release, obtained by Fox News Digital last month, added. Click Here To Sign Up For The Entertainment Newsletter Despite their decision to televise their post-prison release, expert Schiffer advised that, "Redemption is earned in silence, not syndication." Meanwhile, based on past celebrity cases, Eldridge noted that a comeback for the Chrisleys will be based on "the formula" that "will always be the same: relatability determines likability, which drives marketability."Original article source: Chrisley family returns to reality TV with new show but experts warn of comeback risks
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘I'm Treating Guys Who Would Never Be Caught Dead in a Casino'
Gambling has swallowed American sports culture whole. Until early 2018, sports betting was illegal under federal law; today, it's legal in 39 states and Washington, D.C. (and easy enough to access through backdoor channels even in the states where it isn't). During NFL games, gambling commercials air more often than ads for beer. Commentators analyze not just whether a team can win, but if they might win by at least the number of points by which they're favored on betting apps. Nearly half of men younger than 50 now have an account with an online sports book, and Americans spent about $150 billion on sports wagers last year. I regularly get ads on my phone offering me a complimentary $200 in sports bets, as long as I gamble $5 first. As betting has overrun American sports, other forms of gambling are also on the rise. According to industry data, American casinos are more popular now than at any point on record. The age of their average patron had been crawling upward for years, but since sports betting was legalized at the federal level, it has plummeted by nearly a decade, to approximately 42. Some signs point to gambling problems increasing, too. No centralized entity tracks gambling addiction, but if its scale comes even close to matching the new scale of sports betting, the United States is unequipped to deal with it. In its power to ruin and even end lives, gambling addiction is remarkably similar to drug dependency. Imaging studies show that pathological gamblers and people with substance addictions share patterns of brain activity. They are more likely to experience liver disease, heart disease, and sleep deprivation, whether it originates in the anxiety of concealing a gambling addiction or because someone is up wagering on contests, such as cricket and table tennis, that happen in faraway time zones. The best national survey available, which dates to well before the rise of sports betting, found that 2 million to 4 million Americans will experience a gambling disorder at some point in their life; one in six people with a gambling disorder attempts suicide. Even if their death certificate says differently, 'I've had several patients who died because of the emotional pain from their gambling disorder,' Timothy Fong, a psychiatrist specializing in addiction treatment and a co-director of UCLA's gambling-studies program, told me. Fong, like the other researchers I spoke with, said that rapid forms of gambling, especially those that allow you to place multiple bets at one time, tend to be especially addictive. For decades, sports betting mostly involved wagers on who'd win a match, by how much, and total points scored—outcomes resolved over the course of hours. Now apps offer endless in-game bets decided in seconds. Last year, I watched the Super Bowl with a friend who bet on the national anthem lasting less than 90.5 seconds—the smart money, according to the analysts. He lost when Reba McEntire belted the song's last words twice. The ability to place one bet after another encourages a hallmark behavior of problem gamblers—when deep in the red, instead of walking away, they bet bigger. 'Viewing sports gambling as a way to make money is likely to end badly,' Joshua Grubbs, a gambling researcher at the University of New Mexico, told me. 'Gamblers that think that gambling is a way toward economic success or financial payouts almost always have far more problem-gambling symptoms.' And some apps actively blur the already hazy line between betting and other financial activities. For instance, the financial platform Robinhood, where millions of people trade meme stocks and manage their retirement accounts, began offering online sports 'events contracts' (a type of investment whose payout depends on traders' correctly predicting the outcome of a specified event) during March Madness this year through a partnership with the financial exchange Kalshi. (A Robinhood spokesperson told me this 'emergent asset class' differs significantly from sports betting because users, not the house, set the prices, and can more easily exit their positions. But the experience of 'investing' in an events contract is virtually indistinguishable from betting.) Financial markets have recently started offering services like this even in states where sports betting is illegal. State gambling regulators have called foul, but the federal government has so far made no move to stop the companies. As the courts sort out whether any of this is legal, Robinhood decided to let customers trade on the Indy 500 and the French Open. Several recent trends suggest that problem gambling might be on the rise in the U.S. Calls to state gambling helplines have increased. (This might be partly explained by advocacy groups marketing their helplines more aggressively than ever; gambling companies also tack the numbers onto their ubiquitous ads.) Fong said that he was recently invited to speak to a consortium of family lawyers, whose divorce clients have started asking, 'How do I protect my children from the damage of their father's gambling?' Researchers and counselors are especially worried about single young men who play in fantasy sports leagues, bet on sports, day trade, and consider gambling a good way to make money. Gamblers Anonymous is rolling out groups for young people. 'I'm treating guys who would never be caught dead in a casino,' James Whelan, a clinical psychologist who runs treatment clinics for gambling addiction in Tennessee, told me. [Read: How casinos enable gambling addicts] These imperfect proxy measures, along with incomplete data trickling out of a few states, are the best indicators that researchers have about the extent of gambling addiction. Experts are also unsure how long any increase in problem gambling might last: Some studies suggest that the prevalence of gambling problems tends to equalize after a spike, but those findings are usually limited to physical casinos and remain debated within the field. According to researchers I spoke with, no study has established the prevalence of gambling addiction in the U.S. since sports betting became widespread. Federal agencies dedicated to alcoholism and substance abuse allocate billions of research dollars to American universities every year. Yet for decades, the federal government—the largest funder of American research—has earmarked zero dollars for research on gambling activity or addiction specifically, despite collecting millions annually from gambling taxes. (The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which collects national data on behavioral health and funds research into it, declined to comment.) Gambling-addiction treatment is '50 years behind where we are with drugs or alcohol or any other substance,' Michael Sciandra, the executive director of the Nebraska Council on Problem Gambling, told me. Doctors and therapists, even those who specialize in treating addiction, rarely screen for issues with gambling, he said. Among the handful of dedicated gambling-addiction treatment providers around the country, many deploy cognitive behavioral therapy, which studies suggest can at least temporarily improve patients' quality of life and reduce the severity of their gambling problem. But discrepancies in treatment approaches and tiny trial sizes make it difficult to say exactly how many patients the therapy helps. Two medications used to treat alcoholism and opioid addiction have also been found to reduce the severity of gambling addiction across a handful of small clinical trials. But the evidence needed for FDA approval would require large and expensive clinical trials that no one seems eager to fund, Marc Potenza, the director of Yale's Center of Excellence in Gambling Research, told me. Because the federal government doesn't fund gambling-addiction treatment, each state decides what resources to make available. A Tennessee caller to the national helpline 1-800-GAMBLER might be put through to their state's helpline and then connected to the network of government-subsidized clinics Whelan runs across the state. But in states with bare-bones offerings, workers typically refer callers to peer-support groups such as Gamblers Anonymous, or to online resources on budgeting, says Cole Wogoman, a director at the National Council on Problem Gambling, which runs the helpline. Studies have found that each of these strategies is less effective than therapy. [Charles Fain Lehman: Legalizing sports gambling was a huge mistake] Texas could be an example of how unprepared the U.S. is to deal with any increase in problem gamblers. The state's gambling laws are among the strictest in the country, and yet it still sends the second-highest number of callers (behind California) to 1-800-GAMBLER. This November, Texans might vote on a constitutional amendment to allow sports betting. The state of more than 30 million has no funding for gambling treatment and only three certified gambling counselors, according to Carol Ann Maner, who is one of them. The state's official hub for gambling help, which Maner leads, was founded just this spring. Once they find the money, Maner and her colleagues plan to finally set up the state's own helpline. But first, they need to recruit and train more therapists for a job that, thanks to a lack of state and federal funding, might require turning away uninsured clients. That's a daunting task. Finding the apps Texans can use to get around gambling restrictions is easy. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court blocks Mexico's lawsuit against US gun makers over cartel violence
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday in favor of U.S. gun manufacturers and blocked a liability lawsuit brought by the government of Mexico, which sought to hold the companies accountable for the trafficking of their weapons south of the border to fuel violence by the cartels. The government argued in its historic lawsuit that American firearms manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson, Glock, Beretta and Colt, were "aiding and abetting" the illicit flow of weapons across the border. Mexico sought $10 billion in damages, court-mandated safety mechanisms and sales restrictions for U.S.-made guns. MORE: Supreme Court likely to shoot down Mexico's $10B lawsuit against US gun makers Justice Elena Kagan said in her opinion that federal law grants broad immunity to U.S. gun companies and unquestionably protects them from Mexico's claims. "Mexico alleges that the companies aided and abetted unlawful sales routing guns to Mexican drug cartels. The question presented is whether Mexico's complaint plausibly pleads that conduct. We conclude it does not," Kagan wrote. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 bars lawsuits against any gun manufacturer over the illegal acts of a person using one of a manufacturer's guns. But it does create an exception for claims involving a gun company's alleged knowing violation of rules governing the sale and marketing of firearms. Mexico argues that its lawsuit fell under the exception and was seeking $10 billion in damages and court-mandated safety mechanisms and sales restrictions for U.S.-made guns. MORE: Supreme Court battle spotlights guns trafficked from US into Mexico "Mexico has not met that bar," Kagan wrote for the court. "Its complaint does not plausibly allege the kind of 'conscious . . . and culpable participation in another's wrongdoing' needed to make out an aiding-and-abetting charge." "When a company merely knows that some bad actors are taking advantage of its products for criminal purposes, it does not aid and abet. And that is so even if the company could adopt measures to reduce their users' downstream crimes," Kagan concluded. The decision is the first time the high court has weighed in on the sweeping gunmaker immunity that Congress enacted aimed at protecting the industry. Mexico has only one gun store, but is awash in millions of American-made weapons, most funneled into the country by straw purchasers in the U.S. By one estimate, at least 200,000 guns flow south of the border each year. "Today's decision will end Mexico's lawsuit against the gun industry, but it does not affect our ability and resolve to hold those who break the law accountable," said David Pucino, the legal director and deputy chief counsel at GIFFORDS Law Center. "All survivors, in the United States, in Mexico, and anywhere else, deserve their day in court, and we will continue to support them in their fight for justice." Pablo Arrocha Olabuenaga, the legal adviser for Mexico's Foreign Ministry, said that they are "disappointed" with the Supreme Court's decision. "The Mexican Government will continue to do everything in its power to protect Mexicans and to stop the crime gun pipeline," Olabuenaga said in a statement. Jonathan Lowey, president of Global Action on Gun Violence and backer of the Mexico case, said the decision is "the clearest evidence yet that the gun industry's special interest get-out-court-free card must be revoked." "The Court made clear that the door to accountability for the gun industry is not shut, and we look forward to working with Mexico further to stop the crime gun pipeline that makes Mexicans and Americans less safe," Lowey said in a statement.
