Latest news with #LexisNexisRiskSolutions
Techday NZ
30-05-2025
- Business
- Techday NZ
Strengthening cyber resilience in superannuation
In early April, cybercriminals infiltrated multiple superannuation providers using stolen credentials to drain half a million dollars, while four Australians saw their retirement savings vanish overnight. Investigators are racing to piece together the scale of the breach, emphasizing the growing cybersecurity risks threatening Australia's AU$4.2 trillion retirement savings pool. With 12.6 million superannuation members exposed in recent attacks, the question is no longer if fraudsters will strike, but how the industry can stay ahead in this battle. Even though the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) praised multifactor authentication (MFA) as "one of the most effective controls an organisation can implement" in 2023, the rapid evolution of cybercrime demands more sophisticated defences. Limits of MFA in a changing threat landscape MFA remains one of the critical security measures, requiring users to verify their identity with two or more credentials, which adds an extra layer of friction to deter attacks in the login process. However, cybercriminals are also adapting, using modern tactics such as phishing, social engineering and AI-powered techniques to bypass these defences. Recent superannuation breaches highlight another vulnerability in the digital landscape: inadequate password practices. Many individuals still reuse passwords across platforms, unintentionally simplifying the task for cybercriminals who exploit stolen credentials. Attackers often conduct these crimes unnoticed, causing considerable financial damage before they are detected. Trade-off between cybersecurity and user experience According to the True Cost of Fraud Study by LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Australian organisations saw a 66% year-on-year increase in fraud, with every dollar lost costing firms AUD$3.68. This trend highlights the urgency for a more adaptive and layered approach to fraud prevention. At the same time, customers today expect both security and convenience. Applying MFA to every interaction could be a more robust approach but excessive friction can lead to abandonment, indirectly discouraging users from monitoring their accounts due to higher friction, making them less likely to notice when they have become victims of an attack. A more nuanced, risk-based approach that applies the right level of security based on the context and risks of each interaction allows organisations to detect and disrupt complex fraud in real time without adding unnecessary friction. By aligning protection with risk, businesses can strengthen security without compromising customer experiences. A comprehensive defence strategy involves multiple layers, and each layer strengthens defence against fraudsters. This ensures that if one security measure fails, others remain in place to detect and mitigate fraudulent activity. Key measures should include identity verification, device intelligence, behavioural intelligence and real-time risk scoring: Risk assessments analyse contextual risk signals, such as device reputation, IP geolocation, network patterns and login behaviours. This allows institutions to assess the risk level of each interaction. AI models analyse these signals in real time to assign a risk score, deciding whether extra authentication is necessary. AI-powered identity verification ensures that the individual behind the digital interaction is genuine. Comparing identity details with public records and data from multiple providers further validates the authenticity of the identity. Fraud assessments assess risk associated with an individual's identity by analysing a combination of digital, physical and behavioural signals. With holistic behavioural intelligence, such as keystroke dynamics, device interactions and mouse movements, this approach builds a dynamic profile of each user over time, and deviations from this may signal potentially bot or fraudulent activities. Adaptive authentication: Apply stronger verification for high-risk scenarios dynamically, while maintaining a smooth experience for legitimate users. Recent cyberattacks targeting superannuation funds highlight the need for a more robust digital defence strategy. APRA's multi-factor authentication guidelines offer a solid foundation, but static approaches alone are not enough to manage dynamic threats. Industry players must take a unified, layered approach to safeguard Australia's financial system.
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
LexisNexis breach: Data broker hack exposed trove of sensitive information, including Social Security numbers
Data analytics firm LexisNexis Risk Solutions said it suffered a data breach that could have affected the names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and contact information of more than 364,000 people. Spicy AI-generated TACO memes are taking over social media because 'Trump always chickens out' Lego's first book nook is an addictively interactive diorama Forget quiet quitting: I'm using 'loud living' to redefine workplace boundaries The company said in a filing with Maine's attorney general that an 'unauthorized third party' stole data from a third-party platform used for software development. A spokesperson told TechCrunch, which earlier reported about the breach, that an unknown hacker accessed its GitHub account. The breach dates back to last Christmas, though the company said it only discovered it on April 1. 'Upon learning of the issue, we promptly launched an investigation with the assistance of leading external cybersecurity experts, notified law enforcement, and took steps to review and further enhance our security controls,' LexisNexis said in a notice that's being sent out to consumers. 'We also initiated an extensive review of the impacted data to identify personal information that may have been affected.' Reached for comment by Fast Company, a spokesperson for LexisNexis Risk Solutions confirmed the third-party breach and emphasized that it did not contain financial or credit card information. 'There was no compromise of our own systems, infrastructure, or products,' the spokesperson said. 'We are notifying approximately 360,000 individuals and appropriate regulators. We have also reported this incident to law enforcement.' LexisNexis is part of a massive industry in which data brokers collect and sell access to personal and financial data for risk and fraud assessment. That information can have wide repercussions for consumers. For example, The New York Times reported last year that LexisNexis had received driving data from automakers, which the firm would then sell to insurance companies, potentially leading to higher premiums. LexisNexis also operates a large database of legal documents and public records. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) said in December that it planned to introduce rules that would limit the ability of data brokers to sell sensitive information on Americans. But the new Trump administration halted those operations, and the CFPB officially scrapped the plans earlier this month. 'The Bureau is withdrawing this NPRM [notice of proposed rulemaking] in light of updates to Bureau policies,' its listing in the Federal Register said. This post originally appeared at to get the Fast Company newsletter: Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Channel 4
29-05-2025
- Politics
- Channel 4
What did Musk achieve and was there anything in it for him?
This is the time of the year that, in centuries gone by, politicians used to get out of town to escape the unpleasant humid conditions. Perhaps unsurprising, then, that Elon Musk, the world's richest man, is escaping the White House. The president has never made a secret of his disdain for the current state of Washington DC and those who dwell there. In his winning election campaign , he pledged to 'dismantle the deep state and reclaim our democracy from Washington corruption, once and for all!' The people he holds responsible for that corruption? Not just political opponents, but federal workers – the 'bureaucrats'. Just days into the presidency, it was a message Mr Musk – clad in a baseball hat and with young son in tow – reiterated in the Oval Office, standing beside a seated president. 'We have this unelected fourth unconstitutional branch of government, which is the bureaucracy. Which has, in a lot of ways, currently, more power than any elected representative. It's just something we gotta, we gotta fix.' It is talk like that which has conservatives like Mike Gonzalez, senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation, excited. For him, letting DOGE loose on federal bureaucracy is a correction nine decades in the making. 'All this noise that Mr Trump is generating… there is something happening under that noise.' Now, rather than elected politicians, he believes, it is unelected bureaucrats who exercise power. 'That's not the way the system set up by the founders was supposed to work. There's a huge democratic deficit that should worry all of us.' Of course, the side-effect of Mr Musk's chainsaw has been to make the many thousands of federal workers who live and work in Washington worried again. Civil servants are facing a reckoning with political power. For Mr Gonzalez, it's overdue: 'I can feel bad for the people who are being, in some cases, unceremoniously fired, who thought they were going to be there for life, who all of a sudden have to find another job. But as an American and a taxpayer and somebody who wants the country to succeed, I can be definitely very happy that we're finally doing something about this.' And Elon Musk has been clear: 'The people voted for major government reform.' If you're wondering why so many Americans voted for Trump's promise to unleash Elon Musk on the federal government, Haywood Talcove has some thoughts. He's a former law enforcement official, now involved in tackling fraud and waste as chief executive officer for the government division of LexisNexis Risk Solutions. Like Mr Gonzalez, he's worried about the US government's massive deficit – well over a trillion dollars. 'When your own government agency, the Government Accounting Office, is saying to you that you have $521 billion in improper payments, you've got a problem and there's an opportunity to get better. Some people argue they don't like his tactics. On the other hand, we are facing a financial issue unlike anything that we've ever seen. Like, you can't continue to borrow a trillion dollars every 100 days.' 'The fraud rate in the private sector in the United States is around 3%. The fraud rate in the public sector in the U.S. is at 20%.' 'What DOGE is trying to do is stop the criminals from stealing, right?' Of course, the Department of Government Efficiency isn't the first attempt at tackling waste and bureaucracy in the federal government. Some in Washington DC noted the irony in developing a department with 'efficiency' in the title when many of the functions DOGE is supposed to be carrying out were already being carried out by other federal workers. Robert Storch was one of those federal workers. Until recently, he was inspector general at the US Department of Defense. 'One of the things we developed following the Watergate scandal and some other corruption scandals in the 1970s were a series of measures to ensure integrity in government,' he explains. Inspectors general were introduced in all government departments and agencies, with powers to inspect and audit. 'I believe the total amount saved by inspectors general exceeds a hundred billion dollars every year. I think the return on investment for the American taxpayer is approximately 26 dollars for every dollar that's spent on IGs.' Mr Storch's counterpart at the Department of the Interior, Mark Greenblatt, a man twice appointed by President Trump, greeted news of Mr Musk's arrival in Washington with some relish. 'When the president first started talking about the Department of Government Efficiency, which we call DOGE here, Elon Musk was being bandied about and there was all this sort of hubbub. I was actually excited.' 'I said, well, these are going to be good allies for us in the fight against waste, fraud and abuse. This is a good thing for us and for America. But their mission has turned out to be very, very different.' Different because, despite saving the taxpayer huge amounts of money, President Trump fired Rob Storch, Mark Greenblatt, and at least 15 of their counterparts at other agencies. 'It seems like for DOGE it's not improving government efficiency,' says Mr Greenblatt in the sunshine outside his old office. 'It's just cutting government, which is a different goal' A number of those fired by Mr Trump, including Mr Storch, are now taking legal action against the government, concerned their removal was illegal. Whether DOGE has improved efficiency or not, the act of cutting government seems to have been hard enough for Elon Musk. His claims about the amount of money that can be saved have changed over time. In October 2024, he told voters at Madison Square Garden that 'we can do at least two trillion'. By February this year, at cabinet, he told the room 'we can actually find a trillion dollars in savings'. By 30th April, with his exit from the White House nearing, he said so far US$160 billion of savings had been identified. Mr Musk has always maintained that DOGE's progress is clear for taxpayers to see. 'All of our actions are maximally transparent,' he said in the Oval Office in April. 'I don't know of a case where an organisation has been as transparent as the DOGE organisation.' Not everyone in Trumpworld agrees. In an interview with Semafor, the former Trump confidant Steve Bannon called for a forensic accounting of the savings: 'We need to know exactly what he found because we went from $2 trillion a year to $1 trillion a year to $150 billion next year with nothing this year. None of this makes sense…' Kedric Payne, of the Washington-based government watchdog group, the Campaign Legal Center, says that with Mr Musk's government role, 'there seems to be a long list of financial conflicts of interest, but no mechanism that is working right now to stop that problem'. 'The legal system that we have in place to govern against conflicts was one of the many ethical reforms that took place in the wake of the Watergate scandal in the 1970s,' explains Don Fox, the former acting head of the US Office of Government Ethics. 'Is the system itself adequate to deal with potential conflicts of interest and prevent them? I think it is. But it takes effort on the part of the government officials involved, and it takes a certain amount of goodwill and norms of behaviour, which the Trump administration, in both its first iteration and in the first 90 plus days of this administration, tends to ignore. So my confidence level that the system is working in the case of Mr Musk and his associates is quite low.' Mike Gonzalez, of the Heritage Foundation, speaking before Mr Musk announced his departure, expressed confidence that the Tesla and SpaceX CEO was acting to mitigate potential conflicts of interest: 'There was a meeting to discuss China. And because Elon Musk does have some manufacturing in China, he did not attend the meeting. And I think that's fine.' But with such privileged access and power, could the world's richest man really disentangle his business interests? Musk's supporters say he's a patriot not a profiteer. After all, despite money-can't-buy advertising from his boss, the performance of his car maker Tesla has its shareholders worried. But for Don Fox, the dual role as government cost-cutter-in-chief and corporate CEO was always deeply problematic: 'If he were honouring both the letter and the spirit of the law, then he would recuse himself from any official activities that in any way could benefit his professional interests, whether it's Starlink, whether it's Tesla, or whether it's SpaceX. So while he's serving, that's a tremendous concern.' One of those concerned is Evan Feinman. Until recently he ran a multi-billion dollar project to provide broadband to some of America's most rural communities, including places where people voted in their droves for the president. The Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment programme, he explains, 'is the largest broadband infrastructure programme ever created by the federal government. It was set up to deliver an affordable, reliable, high-speed internet connection to every single American home and business.' It was mandated by law to 'to get fibre connections to as many homes and businesses as possible'. The Trump administration expressed concern about the speed of the programme's rollout, so Mr Feinman had a plan ready to adapt it to make it more to the liking of his new boss. He was surprised by what happened next. 'After the confirmation of Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lutnick, we received instruction that we were to rewrite the programme rules, which rewrite is still occurring, to increase the amount of satellite usage and decrease the amount of fibreoptic connectivity. 'There isn't enough capacity in satellite networks to connect every American who needs a connection today… You decrease the availability of those satellites for the places that truly rely on satellite, for whom there is no other option. 'A fibre optic network costs more upfront, but then costs very little to operate and delivers extraordinarily high speeds, both download and upload speeds, well in excess of what households need today, but likely able to accommodate what future needs those locations are going to have… satellites by and large offer just above the minimum standards for what is a broadband connection today.' The Trump administration decided to replace Evan Feinman, but his departing email to staff was highly critical of Secretary Lutnick's action. 'The practical outcome of the changes that the new administration has pushed forward will be that more people will get worse connections and more money will be pushed toward Elon Musk's Starlink programme.' 'I will leave it to the government ethics experts to say whether or not something illegal has happened or something officially improper has happened. The standard I've always used in my professional conduct is the appearance of impropriety. And this certainly appears improper.' Channel 4 News approached the US Department of Commerce for comment, but did not receive a response. Democrats have been raising concerns about Musk's team's involvement in another department. The fatal crash of American Airlines Flight 5342 has put the Federal Aviation Administration under pressure like never before and focused attention on the United States' ageing air traffic control infrastructure. DOGE wrongly fired 132 staff despite a shortage of air traffic controllers, and they've recently been forced to reinstate them. But Elon Musk wasn't just interested in personnel. He criticised FAA contracts with the company Verizon to overhaul air traffic control systems. On his X social media platform he espoused his Starlink system as a potential replacement for the existing, elderly system. Kedric Payne, of the Campaign Legal Center, is one of those with concerns: 'It appears that Elon Musk has improperly been involved in the business transactions between the Federal Aviation Administration and his company Starlink,' he alleges. Starlink staff are already testing kit on FAA property, to the alarm of some air traffic controllers and concern of ethics campaigners. Though the FAA told Channel 4 News the tests are at non-safety-critical sites. Mr Payne says: 'Those types of comments followed by the immediate change in the policy with the FAA to use Starlink suggest that he was involved in that decision to profit his own company.' Channel 4 News approached Elon Musk, Starlink and the White House for comment, but did not receive a response. When Tesla's profits slumped 71% in the first three months of the year, it was clear Elon Musk would have to choose between government or business. He promised investors in the electric car firm that the amount of time he would spend with DOGE would 'drop significantly'. And while he dismissed reports he could leave the White House altogether as 'fake news', he now appears to have confirmed them. Elon Musk's feed on X has played down suggestions of a rift with the president. But, when asked by reporters about Mr Musk's criticism of the Republicans' 'big, beautiful' tax and spending Bill on Wednesday 28th March, the president defended the bill and failed to mention Musk by name. America voted for change in Washington. And it's clear there is waste, fraud and abuse waiting to be tackled. Elon Musk is optimistic DOGE will 'strengthen and continue' as 'way of life throughout the government'. But with its figurehead now gone, billions short of his initial savings target, supporters will wonder: if the world's richest man can't fix Washington, who can? Producer: Matthew Cundall Picture Editor: Manos Koutsavakis Cameras: Ben Martin, Dickon Mager What Donald Trump and Elon Musk's alliance is really about Elon Musk v Donald Trump – who has the real power? Team Trump in 'civil war' as Musk falls out with hardline Republican base
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Data broker giant LexisNexis says breach exposed personal information of over 364,000 people
LexisNexis Risk Solutions, a data broker that collects and uses consumers' personal data to help its paying corporate customers detect possible risk and fraud, has disclosed a data breach affecting more than 364,000 people. The company said in a filing with Maine's attorney general that the breach, dating back to December 25, 2024, allowed a hacker to obtain consumers' sensitive personal data from a third-party platform used by the company for software development. Jennifer Richman, a spokesperson for LexisNexis, told TechCrunch that an unknown hacker accessed the company's GitHub account. The stolen data varies, but includes names, dates of birth, phone numbers, postal and email addresses, Social Security numbers and driver's license numbers. It's not immediately clear what circumstances led to the breach. Richman said LexisNexis received a report on April 1, 2025 "from an unknown third party claiming to have accessed certain information." The company would not say if it had received a ransom demand from the hacker. Data brokers like LexisNexis are part of a billion-dollar industry of companies that profit from collecting and selling access to large amounts of Americans' personal and financial data. LexisNexis uses swathes of consumer information to help companies detect potentially fraudulent transactions, as well as to perform risk assessment and due diligence on would-be customers. Last year, The New York Times reported that car manufacturers were among several companies that shared data on vehicle driving habits with LexisNexis without car owners' explicit permission. The data was then sold on to insurance companies, which used the mileage and driving data to determine the drivers' insurance premiums. Law enforcement agencies also use LexisNexis for obtaining personal information on suspects, such as names, home addresses, and call records. Earlier this month, the Trump administration scrapped a plan that would have restricted data brokers from selling Americans' personal and financial information, including Social Security numbers. White House official Russell Vought wrote in a Federal Register notice that the Biden-era rule, which would have required data brokers to follow the same federal privacy rules as credit bureaus and renter-screening companies, was "not necessary or appropriate," despite long-standing calls by privacy advocates to close the loophole. Updated with comment from LexisNexis. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Playback Now Available for Webinar on the Top Auto Insurance Trends
OLDWICK, N.J., May 22, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Video playback is now available for a complimentary webinar, titled ,"The Risks Right Now: Market Shifts Shaping U.S. Auto Insurance," hosted by AM Best and sponsored by LexisNexis Risk Solutions. Access it here. Multiple long-term trends reached inflection points in 2024. Due to major shifts in retention rates, shopping levels and attorney representation, the future of the U.S. auto insurance industry has never felt more fluid. Watch now to better understand the drivers impacting rate shopping, driving violations and premium growth. Don't miss this view of current trends paired with insights from industry experts that identify new and shifting sources of risk. Panelists include: Jeffery Batiste, senior vice president & general manager, U.S. Auto and Home, LexisNexis Risk Solutions; and Tanner Sheehan, vice president & general manager, U.S. Claims, LexisNexis Risk Solutions. Visit our information page to learn more about AM Best's webinars. AM Best is a global credit rating agency, news publisher and data analytics provider specializing in the insurance industry. Headquartered in the United States, the company does business in over 100 countries with regional offices in London, Amsterdam, Dubai, Hong Kong, Singapore and Mexico City. For more information, visit Copyright © 2025 by A.M. Best Company, Inc. and/or its affiliates. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. View source version on Contacts Lee McDonald Senior Vice President, Publication & News Services +1 908 882 2102 Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
