| Risiko / Label | Veröffentlichung | |
|---|---|---|
| Risiko 5 / 10 CVE-2026-55591 | vor 1 Stunde(n) | |
| ### Summary
signalk-server versions up to and including 2.27.0 contain a Server-Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability in three administrative endpoints used for remote Signal K server connection management. The `makeRemoteRequest()` function accepts attacker-controlled `host`, `port`, `useTLS`, and `selfsignedcert` parameters without any validation, allowing an attacker to force the server to make arbitrary HTTP/HTTPS requests to internal network resources, cloud metadata services, and other unintended destinations.
When security is not configured (the default state), these endpoints require **no authentication**.
### Details
#### Vulnerable Function
The core vulnerability is in `makeRemoteRequest()` at `src/serverroutes.ts:2483-2524`:
```typescript
function makeRemoteRequest(
host: string,
port: number,
useTLS: boolean,
selfsignedcert: boolean,
path: string,
method?: string,
headers?: Record |
||
| Risiko 5 / 10 GHSA-5739-39v2-5754 | vor 1 Stunde(n) | |
| ### Impact `RSACrypt::decryptWithRSA15()` (used by the `RSA1_5` key-encryption algorithm) implements RSAES-PKCS1-v1_5 decryption by inspecting the padding after RSADP and throwing `InvalidArgumentException` as soon as the padding is malformed. It does **not** implement the implicit-rejection countermeasure required by RFC 3447 §7.2.2 / RFC 8017 §7.1.2 (return a deterministic pseudo-random value of the expected length on padding failure and let the downstream step fail uniformly). From a JWE caller this yields a Bleichenbacher/Marvin padding oracle: an attacker submitting adaptively crafted `encrypted_key` values can distinguish (a) padding rejected, (b) padding valid but wrong CEK length, and (c) padding valid and full AEAD executed — even though `JWEDecrypter` returns the same `false` in all cases — because each path performs a measurably different amount of work, amplifiable by enlarging the ciphertext (CWE-208 timing side channel). Enough adaptive queries can recover the wrapped CEK. ### Affected configurations Applications that register `RSA1_5` in their decryption `AlgorithmManager` and hold an RSA private key. ### Patches PKCS#1 v1.5 decryption now performs implicit rejection: on invalid padding (or unexpected recovered length) it returns a random CEK of the expected size selected in constant time, so the full content-decryption (AEAD) step always runs and fails uniformly, removing the observable difference between padding-valid and padding-invalid ciphertexts. Users are still strongly encouraged to migrate to `RSA-OAEP`. ### Workarounds Prefer `RSA-OAEP`/`RSA-OAEP-256`; do not enable `RSA1_5` for untrusted tokens. ### References - RFC 3447 §7.2.2 / RFC 8017 §7.1.2 - Bleichenbacher (1998); Marvin attack - CWE-208: Observable Timing Discrepancy ## Résolution Un correctif a été préparé sur une branche dédiée basée sur `3.4.x`, avec des tests anti-régression dédiés (fork privé temporaire de cette advisory, PR #1). **RSA1_5** — déchiffrement PKCS#1 v1.5 avec *implicit rejection* en temps constant (RFC 3447 §7.2.2) : un padding invalide n'est plus distinguable d'un padding valide, neutralisant l'oracle Bleichenbacher. **Validation :** `php -l` OK, PHPUnit vert, aucune nouvelle erreur PHPStan introduite (différentiel nul vs `3.4.x`), aucun commentaire ajouté dans le code source. Après merge, cascade prévue `3.4.x → 4.0.x → 4.1.x`. | ||
| Risiko 7.5 / 10 GHSA-jc38-x7x8-2xc8 | vor 1 Stunde(n) | |
| ## Summary `JWSVerifier::getAlgorithm()` in `src/Library/Signature/JWSVerifier.php` (line 144) merges protected and unprotected headers using PHP's spread operator: ```php $completeHeader = [...$signature->getProtectedHeader(), ...$signature->getHeader()]; ``` In PHP, when spreading arrays with duplicate string keys, the **last array's values take precedence**. Since the unprotected header (`getHeader()`) is spread second, an attacker can override the integrity-protected `alg` parameter by placing a different value in the unprotected header. This creates a Time-of-Check/Time-of-Use (TOCTOU) vulnerability: 1. `HeaderCheckerManager` validates `alg` from the **protected** header 2. `JWSVerifier` uses `alg` from the **unprotected** header for actual verification The same issue exists in `JWEDecrypter.php` (lines 120-124) where `array_merge()` exhibits the same last-wins behavior for `alg` and `enc`. ## Affected Code **JWSVerifier.php line 144** — Spread operator merge order allows unprotected header to override `alg`: ```php $completeHeader = [...$signature->getProtectedHeader(), ...$signature->getHeader()]; ``` **JWEDecrypter.php lines 120-124** — `array_merge()` with same last-wins behavior: ```php $completeHeader = array_merge( $jwe->getSharedProtectedHeader(), $jwe->getSharedHeader(), $recipient->getHeader() ); ``` ## Attack Vectors ### Vector A — Mixed key sets (HIGH probability) If the application uses a JWKSet containing keys of different types (common in multi-tenant or federation scenarios), the JWSVerifier iterates all keys (line 86). An attacker can force a different algorithm that matches a different key in the set. ### Vector B — alg ONLY in unprotected header (HIGH probability) If `alg` is placed EXCLUSIVELY in the unprotected header (not in the protected header at all), `HeaderCheckerManager::checkDuplicatedHeaderParameters()` does NOT trigger. The JSON Flattened/General serializers allow tokens with no protected header or a protected header without `alg`. RFC 7515 Section 4.1.1 states `alg` MUST be integrity-protected, but the library does not enforce this. ### Vector C — Direct JWSVerifier usage (HIGH probability) `JWSLoader` takes `?HeaderCheckerManager` (nullable). If developers use `JWSVerifier` directly or create `JWSLoader` without a `HeaderCheckerManager`, the duplicate header check never runs. ## Contrast with JWSBuilder (safe) `JWSBuilder::findSignatureAlgorithm()` (line 196) uses `[...$header, ...$protectedHeader]` where protected wins. It also has `checkDuplicatedHeaderParameters()` (line 218). The JWSVerifier has **neither** safeguard. ## Proof of Concept ```php "RS256", "typ" => "JWT"]; $unprotected = ["alg" => "HS256"]; $merged = [...$protected, ...$unprotected]; // $merged["alg"] === "HS256" — unprotected wins! // JSON Flattened JWS with algorithm override: $maliciousJws = json_encode([ 'payload' => base64url_encode($payload), 'protected' => base64url_encode('{"alg":"RS256"}'), 'header' => ['alg' => 'HS256'], // OVERRIDE 'signature' => base64url_encode($sig), ]); // HeaderCheckerManager validates RS256 from protected header -> PASS // JWSVerifier uses HS256 from unprotected header -> attacker's algorithm choice ``` A full working PoC demonstrating HS512-to-HS256 downgrade with mixed keysets is available upon request. ## Suggested Fix In `JWSVerifier::getAlgorithm()`, read `alg` exclusively from the protected header: ```php private function getAlgorithm(Signature $signature): Algorithm { $protectedHeader = $signature->getProtectedHeader(); if (! isset($protectedHeader['alg'])) { throw new InvalidArgumentException('The "alg" parameter must be in the protected header.'); } return $this->signatureAlgorithmManager->get($protectedHeader['alg']); } ``` For `JWEDecrypter`, reverse the merge order so protected header wins, or extract `alg`/`enc` exclusively from the protected header. ## Résolution Un correctif a été préparé sur une branche dédiée basée sur `3.4.x`, avec des tests anti-régression dédiés (fork privé temporaire de cette advisory, PR #1). **JWS algorithm confusion** — `JWSVerifier` lit le paramètre `alg` exclusivement dans le header protégé en intégrité (RFC 7515 §4.1.1) ; un `alg` placé dans le header non protégé ne peut plus surcharger l'algorithme signé. **Validation :** `php -l` OK, PHPUnit vert, aucune nouvelle erreur PHPStan introduite (différentiel nul vs `3.4.x`), aucun commentaire ajouté dans le code source. Après merge, cascade prévue `3.4.x → 4.0.x → 4.1.x`. | ||
| Risiko 7.5 / 10 GHSA-3prj-6hqw-cm82 | vor 1 Stunde(n) | |
| ### Impact When a JWE uses a password-based key-encryption algorithm (`PBES2-HS256+A128KW`, `PBES2-HS384+A192KW`, `PBES2-HS512+A256KW`), `PBES2AESKW::unwrapKey()` reads the `p2c` (PBKDF2 iteration count) parameter directly from the attacker-controlled JOSE header and passes it to `hash_pbkdf2()` with **no upper bound**. The only validation performed (`checkHeaderAdditionalParameters()`) was `is_int($p2c) && $p2c > 0`. An unauthenticated attacker can craft a single JWE whose protected header sets a very large `p2c` (e.g. `100_000_000` ≈ 87 s of CPU, or `PHP_INT_MAX`), forcing a worker to spend an arbitrary amount of CPU inside PBKDF2 **before** the key unwrap can even fail. The decrypter swallows the eventual exception, so the attacker pays almost nothing while the server burns CPU. JSON General serialization (multiple recipients) and multi-key JWKSets multiply the cost. This is a classic uncontrolled-resource-consumption (CWE-400) denial of service. ### Affected configurations Applications that register any `PBES2-HS*+A*KW` algorithm in their decryption `AlgorithmManager`. ### Patches `PBES2AESKW` now enforces a configurable maximum iteration count (`DEFAULT_MAX_COUNT = 1_000_000`, well above realistic legitimate values which are a few thousand) in `checkHeaderAdditionalParameters()`, before any PBKDF2 computation. The bound is exposed as a constructor argument so operators can tune it. ### Workarounds Before upgrading: validate/limit the `p2c` header with a custom header checker, or do not enable PBES2 algorithms for untrusted tokens. ### References - RFC 7518 §4.8 (PBES2) - CWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption ## Résolution Un correctif a été préparé sur une branche dédiée basée sur `3.4.x`, avec des tests anti-régression dédiés (fork privé temporaire de cette advisory, PR #1). **PBES2** — `PBES2AESKW::unwrapKey()` borne désormais le paramètre `p2c` (constante `DEFAULT_MAX_COUNT = 1_000_000`, configurable via le constructeur) avant tout appel à `hash_pbkdf2()`, empêchant l'amplification CPU (DoS). **Validation :** `php -l` OK, PHPUnit vert, aucune nouvelle erreur PHPStan introduite (différentiel nul vs `3.4.x`), aucun commentaire ajouté dans le code source. Après merge, cascade prévue `3.4.x → 4.0.x → 4.1.x`. | ||
| Risiko 5 / 10 GHSA-6vvh-pxr4-25r7 | vor 1 Stunde(n) | |
| ### Impact The experimental `Chacha20Poly1305` key-encryption algorithm generates the 16-byte Poly1305 authentication tag during `encryptKey()` but **discards it**: the tag is never written to the header and therefore never reaches the wire. On the receiving side, `decryptKey()` calls `openssl_decrypt('chacha20-poly1305', ...)` **without the tag argument**, which makes OpenSSL skip authentication entirely. As a result the AEAD construction is silently degraded to unauthenticated ChaCha20: a tampered encrypted CEK is accepted, and because ChaCha20 is a stream cipher, a single-byte change in the ciphertext propagates as a single-byte change in the recovered CEK with no integrity check (CWE-353 / CWE-347). An attacker on the token path can manipulate the wrapped key without detection. ### Affected configurations Applications that register `Jose\Experimental\KeyEncryption\Chacha20Poly1305` (package `web-token/jwt-experimental`) as a JWE `alg`. ### Patches `encryptKey()` now publishes the Poly1305 tag as the base64url `tag` header parameter (and asserts it is 16 bytes). `decryptKey()` requires the `tag` header, validates its length, and passes it to `openssl_decrypt()` so the tag is actually verified, in line with RFC 7539 / RFC 8439. Tampering now results in a decryption failure. > Note: this changes the wire format of tokens produced with this experimental algorithm (a `tag` header is now emitted and required). ### Workarounds Do not use the experimental `Chacha20Poly1305` key-encryption algorithm for untrusted input until upgraded. ### References - RFC 7539 / RFC 8439 (ChaCha20-Poly1305 AEAD) - CWE-353: Missing Support for Integrity Check ## Résolution Un correctif a été préparé sur une branche dédiée basée sur `3.4.x`, avec des tests anti-régression dédiés (fork privé temporaire de cette advisory, PR #1). **ChaCha20-Poly1305** — le tag d'authentification Poly1305 est désormais publié dans le header au chiffrement et vérifié au déchiffrement (RFC 7539), rétablissant l'intégrité AEAD. **Validation :** `php -l` OK, PHPUnit vert, aucune nouvelle erreur PHPStan introduite (différentiel nul vs `3.4.x`), aucun commentaire ajouté dans le code source. Après merge, cascade prévue `3.4.x → 4.0.x → 4.1.x`. | ||
| Risiko 5 / 10 GHSA-2jx3-65f3-xr8r | vor 1 Stunde(n) | |
| ## Summary `OTPHP\Factory::loadFromProvisioningUri()` parses an attacker-supplied `otpauth://` URI and forwards **every** query key to `OTP::setParameter($key, $value)`. `setParameter()` resolves the name with `property_exists($this, $parameter)` and performs a dynamic write `$this->{$parameter} = $value` (`src/OTP.php:196-197`). Because the query keys are entirely controlled by whoever produced the URI, a URI can target the internal properties of the OTP object that are not meant to be set from a URI: `parameters`, `issuer`, `label`, `issuer_included_as_parameter`, and (on TOTP) the readonly `clock`. This is an instance of object property mass-assignment (CWE-915). ## Impact The `Factory` is documented as the entry point for third-party provisioning URIs (e.g. QR codes from Microsoft 365 / Google Authenticator). An application that loads such a URI is exposed to: - **State corruption.** A URI such as `otpauth://totp/Alice?secret=JBSWY3DPEHPK3PXP¶meters[foo]=bar` overwrites the whole internal `$parameters` array that `createFromSecret()` primed (`period`, `algorithm`, `digits`, `epoch`). The resulting object is silently unusable: `getProvisioningUri()`, `getDigits()`, `at()`, `verify()` then throw `ParameterNotFoundException`. - **Uncaught TypeError escaping the documented exception type.** A URI such as `otpauth://totp/Alice?secret=JBSWY3DPEHPK3PXP&issuer_included_as_parameter=notabool` assigns a string to a typed `bool` property and raises a `TypeError`. The `try/catch` in `loadFromProvisioningUri()` only wraps `Url::fromString()`; `createOTP()` and `populateOTP()` run outside it, so the `TypeError` (and `Error` on the readonly `clock`) escapes past the documented `InvalidProvisioningUriException`, breaking callers that catch only the documented type. - **Label/issuer validation bypass.** `parameters[label]=hijacked` stores a label into the parameters array without running the `label` validation callback (keyed on `label`, not `parameters`). `getLabel()` and `getParameter('label')` then disagree — a confused-deputy risk. ## Affected component - `src/OTP.php:187-201` — `setParameter()` dynamic property write - `src/Factory.php:50-55` — `populateParameters()` forwarding all query keys ## Proof of concept ```php use OTPHP\Factory; // State corruption $otp = Factory::loadFromProvisioningUri( 'otpauth://totp/Alice?secret=JBSWY3DPEHPK3PXP¶meters[foo]=bar', $clock ); $otp->getProvisioningUri(); // ParameterNotFoundException: Parameter "period" does not exist // Uncaught TypeError Factory::loadFromProvisioningUri( 'otpauth://totp/Alice?secret=JBSWY3DPEHPK3PXP&issuer_included_as_parameter=notabool', $clock ); // TypeError escapes InvalidProvisioningUriException ``` ## Remediation Restrict the keys accepted from a provisioning URI to a known allow-list of public OTP parameters, and never let a URI key resolve to an internal object property via `property_exists`. Route all URI-sourced values through the validated parameter map only. | ||
| 15.06.2026 - June 2026 Stealer Logs | 56.278.397 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Email addresses, Passwords In June 2026, a collection of accumulated stealer logs from various sources was added to HIBP. The corpus comprised 56M unique email addresses across hundreds of millions of stealer log records. The data also contained 124M unique passwords, which have been added to Pwned Passwords and are now searchable. Individuals can view any records captured against their email address in the stealer logs section of their dashboard. Organisations can see logs affecting their domain via the stealer logs API. |
||
| 09.06.2026 - University of Nottingham | 454.635 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Academic records, Citizenship statuses, Dates of birth, Disabilities, Email addresses, Ethnicities, Genders, IP addresses, Names, Passport numbers, Phone numbers, Physical addresses, Purchases, Salutations, Usernames In June 2026, the University of Nottingham was the target of a cyber attack, later linked to a ShinyHunters "pay or leak" extortion campaign. Tens of gigabytes of data were subsequently published online and included 455k unique email addresses along with extensive personal information including names, addresses, phone numbers, ethnicities, disabilities, passport numbers and information relating to academic enrolments and fee payments. In a post about the incident, the university advised that the breach affected both "current students, and alumni". |
||
| 30.05.2026 - Atlas Menu | 63.926 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Email addresses, IP addresses, Passwords, Support tickets, Usernames In May 2026, the GTA V and CS2 cheat service Atlas Menu suffered a data breach. An attacker claimed to have gained access to all Atlas systems and published the service's database to a public GitHub repository. The incident exposed 64k unique email addresses along with usernames, IP addresses, support tickets and passwords stored as bcrypt hashes. |
||
| 29.05.2026 - BCD Travel | 396.313 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Email addresses, Employers, Job titles, Names, Phone numbers, Physical addresses, Support tickets In May 2026, the corporate travel management company BCD Travel was claimed as a victim of the ShinyHunters "pay or leak" extortion campaign. Data allegedly obtained from BCD was subsequently published publicly in early June and contained 396k unique email addresses. Other exposed data included names, addresses, phone numbers, job titles and employer names, spanning a variety of different data sets including leads, internal staff and support tickets. |
||
| 23.05.2026 - Baker Distributing | 102.935 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Email addresses, Names, Phone numbers, Physical addresses, Support tickets In May 2026, the HVAC/R wholesale distributor Baker Distributing Company was added to the ShinyHunters data extortion group's "pay or leak" site. In early June, the group publicly published data they claimed had been obtained from Baker's SharePoint and Salesforce infrastructure including 103k unique email addresses along with names, physical addresses, phone numbers and tickets relating to the company's HVAC contractor customer base. The exposed data was largely corporate contact and support information with limited sensitivity. |
||
| 23.05.2026 - Charter | 4.851.517 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Email addresses, Job titles, Names, Phone numbers, Physical addresses In May 2026, the telecommunications company Charter Communications (the parent company behind the consumer broadband and cable brand Spectrum) was named by the ShinyHunters group in a "pay or leak" extortion campaign. The group later published the data, which exposed 4.9M unique email addresses along with names, phone numbers and physical addresses. A subset of approximately 85k records originating from an internal employee directory also included job titles. Charter confirmed the incident, but stated that no sensitive personal information or customer proprietary network information (CPNI) was exfiltrated. |
||
| 23.05.2026 - DentaQuest | 2.553.599 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Dates of birth, Email addresses, Genders, Government issued IDs, Health insurance information, Names, Phone numbers, Physical addresses In May 2026, the dental benefits administrator DentaQuest was the target of a ShinyHunters "pay or leak" extortion campaign that resulted in the group publicly publishing hundreds of gigabytes of data allegedly obtained from the company. The data included 2.6M unique email addresses along with names, addresses and phone numbers. Much of the data appeared in healthcare enrollment files (ASC X12 transaction sets) with some containing Medicaid IDs, while additional data appeared in member records and related files. DentaQuest acknowledged "a cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access to a limited portion of our network", and advised they had contained the attack and mitigated the threat. |
||
| 05.05.2026 - Cushman & Wakefield | 310.431 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Email addresses, Job titles, Names, Phone numbers, Physical addresses, Salutations In May 2026, the real estate services firm Cushman & Wakefield was the target of a "pay or leak" extortion campaign by the ShinyHunters group. Following the threat, the group publicly published data they alleged had been obtained from the firm, consisting mostly of C&W email addresses along with tens of thousands of external email addresses and corporate contact records. The exposed data was primarily business information, including names, job titles, company addresses and phone numbers. |
||
| 30.04.2026 - Reborn Gaming | 126 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Email addresses, IP addresses In April 2026, the gaming community Reborn Gaming suffered a data breach due to a vulnerability in cPanel and WebHost Manager (WHM). The breach exposed 126 unique email addresses along with IP addresses and Steam IDs. Reborn Gaming self-submitted the data to Have I Been Pwned. |
||
| 28.04.2026 - Vimeo | 119.167 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Email addresses, Names In April 2026, the ShinyHunters extortion group listed Vimeo on their extortion portal as part of their "pay or leak" campaign. They subsequently published hundreds of gigabytes of data, predominantly consisting of video titles, technical data and metadata. The data also included 119k unique email addresses, sometimes accompanied by names. Vimeo attributed the exposure to a breach of Anodot, a third-party analytics vendor, and advised the incident does not include "Vimeo video content, valid user login credentials, or payment card information". |
||
| 26.04.2026 - CTT | 468.124 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Email addresses, Names, Phone numbers In April 2026, data allegedly obtained from CTT, Portugal's national postal service, was posted to a public hacking forum. The data included 468k unique email addresses along with names, phone numbers and parcel tracking numbers which can be used to retrieve the tracking history of the parcel. |
||
| 24.04.2026 - Udemy | 1.401.259 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Email addresses, Employers, Job titles, Names, Payment methods, Phone numbers, Physical addresses In April 2026, online training company Udemy was the victim of a “pay or leak” extortion attempt perpetrated by the ShinyHunters group. The data was subsequently leaked publicly and contained 1.4M unique email addresses belonging to customers and instructors. The data also included names, physical addresses, phone numbers, employer information and instructor payout methods including PayPal, cheque and bank transfer. |
||
| 20.04.2026 - ADT | 5.488.888 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Dates of birth, Email addresses, Names, Partial government issued IDs, Phone numbers, Physical addresses In April 2026, home security firm ADT confirmed a data breach by ShinyHunters, which listed the company on its website as part of a "pay or leak" extortion attempt. The breach impacted 5.5M unique email addresses along with names, phone numbers and physical addresses. ADT also advised that "in a small percentage of cases, dates of birth and the last four digits of Social Security numbers or Tax IDs were included" and that it had contacted all affected people. |
||
| 20.04.2026 - Aman | 215.563 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Dates of birth, Email addresses, Genders, Language preferences, Names, Nationalities, Phone numbers, Physical addresses, Spouses names, VIP statuses In April 2026, the ultra-luxury hotel brand Aman was named by ShinyHunters as the target of a "pay or leak" extortion campaign, with the data allegedly obtained from their Salesforce CRM. The data was subsequently leaked publicly and contained over 200k unique email addresses. Whilst not present on all records, the data also included genders, physical addresses, phone numbers, nationalities, dates of birth, spouse names and VIP status codes. |
||
| 20.04.2026 - Canada Life | 237.810 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Email addresses, Job titles, Names, Phone numbers, Physical addresses, Salutations, Support tickets In April 2026, Canada Life was the victim of a "pay or leak" extortion campaign by the ShinyHunters group. The group subsequently published the data which contained over 200k unique email addresses along with names, phone numbers, physical addresses and, in some cases, customer support tickets. In their disclosure notice, Canada Life advised that "it is a small proportion of our customers who may have been impacted". In the wake of the incident, Canada Life also published an alert cautioning customers to be wary of phishing attacks, a pattern often seen after the public release of breached data. |
||
| 20.04.2026 - Pitney Bowes | 8.243.989 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Email addresses, Job titles, Names, Phone numbers, Physical addresses In April 2026, the hacking collective ShinyHunters claimed to have obtained data from Pitney Bowes as part of a broader extortion campaign that also named several other organisations. After negotiations allegedly failed, the group publicly released the data which included 8.2M unique email addresses, along with names, phone numbers and physical addresses. A subset of the data also included Pitney Bowes employee records with job titles. |
||
| 18.04.2026 - Carnival | 7.531.359 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Dates of birth, Email addresses, Genders, Geographic locations, Loyalty program details, Names, Salutations In April 2026, the notorious hacking collective ShinyHunters claimed they had obtained a substantial volume of data belonging to the Carnival cruise operator and attempted to extort the organisation to prevent the data from being leaked. The following week, the group published the data publicly, which contained 8.7M records with 7.5M unique email addresses. The data contained fields indicating it related to the Mariner Society loyalty program run by Holland America, a cruise line brand under Carnival, and included names, dates of birth, genders and data relating to status within the loyalty program. Carnival acknowledged a phishing incident involving a single user account and advised they were working to better understand the scope of the unauthorised activity. |
||
| 15.04.2026 - Kemper | 269.299 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Email addresses, Names, Partial credit card data, Phone numbers, Physical addresses, Purchases In April 2026, the American insurance holding company Kemper Corporation was named by the ShinyHunters ransomware group in a "pay or leak" extortion campaign. The attackers allegedly accessed Kemper's Salesforce environment via social engineering as part of a broader campaign targeting hundreds of organisations using the same method. The group later published tens of gigabytes of data they claimed included internal directory data, Salesforce records and Stripe payment logs. Among the 269k unique email addresses were names, phone numbers, physical addresses and partial payment card data including the last 4 digits, expiry dates and card brands. Kemper confirmed the incident and stated they had engaged third-party cybersecurity experts and notified law enforcement. |
||
| 15.04.2026 - Zara | 197.376 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Email addresses, Geographic locations, Purchases, Support tickets In April 2026, the fashion brand Zara was among a number of organisations targeted by the ShinyHunters extortion group as part of their "pay or leak" campaign. The group claimed the breach was related to a compromise of the Anodot analytics platform and subsequently published a terabyte of data allegedly including 95M support ticket records. The data contained 197k unique email addresses alongside product SKUs, order IDs and the market the support ticket originated in. Zara's parent company Inditex advised that the incident didn't affect passwords or payment information. |
||
| 14.04.2026 - Abrigo | 711.099 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Email addresses, Employers, Job titles, Names, Phone numbers, Physical addresses In April 2026, the fintech software company Abrigo was targeted in a "pay or leak" extortion attempt by the ShinyHunters group. Shortly after, data allegedly taken from the company's Salesforce instance was published publicly and contained over 700k unique email addresses belonging to both Abrigo staff and external contacts. Whilst separate from Abrigo's Salesforce compromise via the Drift application connector the previous year, the data fields described in that incident are consistent with the ShinyHunters data, namely that it was "business contact information" including "institution name, employee name, email addresses, and phone numbers". |
||
| 12.04.2026 - Marcus & Millichap | 1.837.078 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Email addresses, Employers, Job titles, Names, Phone numbers, Physical addresses In April 2026, the commercial real estate brokerage firm Marcus & Millichap was named as one of multiple alleged victims of the ShinyHunters hacking and extortion group. Data alleged to have been obtained from the company was subsequently released publicly and included 1.8M unique email addresses, along with names, phone numbers and employment-related information including employer, job title and physical company address. In their disclosure notice, Marcus & Millichap advised that data which may have been accessed appeared limited to "company forms, templates, marketing materials, and general contact information". |
||
| 12.04.2026 - Mytheresa | 84.108 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Email addresses, Names, Partial credit card data, Phone numbers, Physical addresses, Purchases, Salutations In April 2026, the luxury fashion e-commerce platform Mytheresa was listed as a victim of the ShinyHunters "pay or leak" extortion group. After the ransom deadline passed, the group publicly released the data which contained 84k unique email addresses. The exposed data also included names, phone numbers, physical addresses, purchases and partial credit card data including card type, last 4 digits and expiry date. |
||
| 10.04.2026 - McGraw Hill | 13.500.136 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Email addresses, Names, Phone numbers, Physical addresses In April 2026, education company McGraw Hill confirmed a data breach following an extortion attempt. Attributed to a Salesforce misconfiguration, the company stated the incident exposed "a limited set of data from a webpage hosted by Salesforce on its platform". More than 100GB of data was later publicly distributed, containing 13.5M unique email addresses across multiple files, with additional fields such as name, physical address and phone number appearing inconsistently across some records. |
||
| 08.04.2026 - 7-Eleven | 185.256 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Dates of birth, Email addresses, Names, Phone numbers, Physical addresses In April 2026, 7-Eleven was the victim of a "pay or leak" extortion campaign by ShinyHunters, with the data later published that month. The incident exposed 185k unique email addresses, along with names, physical addresses, dates of birth and phone numbers. A small number of records also contained additional exposed data fields. The company later advised the breach was limited to "certain 7-Eleven systems used to store franchisee documents", a statement consistent with the exposed data. |
||
| 07.04.2026 - My Lovely AI | 106.271 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Email addresses, Social media profiles In April 2026, the NSFW AI girlfriend platform My Lovely AI suffered a data breach that exposed over 100k users. The data included user-created prompts and links to the resulting AI-generated images, along with a small number of Discord and X usernames. |
||
| 06.04.2026 - LegionProxy | 10.144 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Email addresses, Names, Passwords, Purchases In April 2026, the commercial residential and ISP proxy network LegionProxy suffered a data breach. The incident exposed 10k email addresses, bcrypt password hashes, names and purchases. |
||
| 03.04.2026 - Amtrak | 2.147.679 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Email addresses, Names, Physical addresses, Support tickets In April 2026, the hacking group ShinyHunters claimed they had breached Amtrak. The group typically compromises organisations' Salesforce instances before demanding a ransom and later, if not paid, dumping the data publicly. They subsequently published the alleged data which contained over 2M unique email addresses along with names, physical addresses and customer support records. |
||
| 02.04.2026 - SongTrivia2 | 291.739 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Auth tokens, Avatars, Email addresses, Names, Passwords, Usernames In April 2026, the music trivia platform SongTrivia2 suffered a data breach that was subsequently published to a public hacking forum. The data contained a total of 291k unique email addresses sourced from either Google OAuth logins or accounts created on the site, the latter also containing bcrypt password hashes. The data also included names, usernames and avatars. |
||
| 31.03.2026 - Hallmark | 1.736.520 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Email addresses, Names, Phone numbers, Physical addresses, Support tickets In March 2026, Hallmark suffered an alleged breach and subsequent extortion after attackers gained access to data stored within Salesforce. The data was later published after the extortion deadline passed, exposing 1.7M unique email addresses across both Hallmark and the Hallmark+ streaming service, along with names, phone numbers, physical addresses and support tickets. |
||
| 27.03.2026 - ZenBusiness | 5.118.184 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Email addresses, Names, Phone numbers In March 2026, the hacker and extortion group "ShinyHunters" claimed to have obtained a substantial corpus of data from ZenBusiness, a business formation and compliance platform. The group claimed the data had been exfiltrated from platforms including Snowflake, Mixpanel and Salesforce, and threatened to publish it if a ransom was not paid. The following month, after claiming payment had not been made, ShinyHunters publicly released the data. The collection amounted to many terabytes across thousands of files that appeared to originate from multiple systems and business functions, including leads, support records and other CRM-related data. The data contained approximately 5M unique email addresses, often accompanied by name and phone number depending on the source file. |
||
| 26.03.2026 - BreachForums Version 5 | 339.778 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Email addresses, Passwords, Usernames In March 2026, a breach of one of the many iterations of the BreachForums hacking forum known as "Version 5" was publicly disclosed. The incident exposed 340k unique email addresses along with usernames and argon2 password hashes. |
||
| 25.03.2026 - Addi | 34.532.941 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Age groups, Credit scores, Device information, Email addresses, Government issued IDs, Income levels, IP addresses, Latitude and longitude pairs, Names, Phone numbers, Physical addresses, Purchases, Socioeconomic levels In March 2026, the Colombian fintech company Addi identified unauthorised activity on its platform and advised customers that "it is possible that your personal information may have been compromised". The "pay or leak" extortion group ShinyHunters subsequently claimed responsibility and published a large trove of personal data allegedly obtained from Addi. The data included 34M unique email addresses from credit scoring requests, credit bureau records, customer identity records and email validation logs. It also contained government issued IDs (Cédula de Ciudadanía), estimated income, socioeconomic levels, purchases and other credit-related data points. |
||
| 25.03.2026 - Sound Radix | 292.993 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Email addresses, Names, Passwords In March 2026, the audio production tools company Sound Radix disclosed a data breach that they subsequently self-submitted to HIBP. The incident impacted 293k unique email addresses and names. Sound Radix advised that it is possible that additional data including hashed passwords may have been exposed, and that no financial or credit card information was impacted. |
||
| 19.03.2026 - Berkadia | 305.216 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Email addresses, Employers, Names, Phone numbers, Physical addresses In March 2026, the commercial real estate finance company Berkadia was the target of a ShinyHunters "pay or leak" extortion campaign. The group subsequently published data they alleged was taken from Berkadia's Salesforce instance, including over 300k unique email addresses as well as names, physical addresses and phone numbers, among other data. |
||
| 18.03.2026 - Infinite Campus | 137.123 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Email addresses, Employers, Job titles, Names, Phone numbers, Physical addresses, Support tickets, Usernames In March 2026, the student information system Infinite Campus was targeted in a ShinyHunters "pay or leak" extortion campaign. The group subsequently published data they alleged was taken from Infinite Campus, containing 137k unique email addresses along with names, phone numbers, physical addresses and support tickets. Infinite Campus subsequently sent notifications, advising that the exposed data largely consisted of "names and contact information for school staff" and that "the majority is directory information commonly found on school websites". |
||
| 13.03.2026 - Divine Skins | 105.814 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Email addresses, Purchases, Usernames In March 2026, the League of Legends custom skins service Divine Skins suffered a data breach. The incident was disclosed via the service's Discord server, where Divine Skins stated that an unauthorised third party accessed part of its systems, deleted all skins from the database and exposed email addresses and usernames. The data also contained a history of purchases made by users. |
||
| 12.03.2026 - Crunchyroll | 1.195.684 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Email addresses In March 2026, the anime streaming service Crunchyroll suffered a data breach alleged to have impacted 6.8M users. The exposed data is reported to have originated from the company's Zendesk support system where "name, login name, email address, IP address, general geographic location and the contents of the support tickets" were exposed. A subset of 1.2M email addresses from an alleged 2M record dataset being sold was later provided to HIBP. |
||
| 08.03.2026 - Baydöner | 1.266.822 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Dates of birth, Email addresses, Genders, Geographic locations, Government issued IDs, Names, Passwords, Phone numbers, Purchases In March 2026, the Turkish restaurant chain Baydöner suffered a data breach which was subsequently published to a public hacking forum. The incident exposed over 1.2M unique email addresses along with names, phone numbers, cities of residence and plaintext passwords. A small number of records also included Turkish national ID number and date of birth. In their disclosure notice, Baydöner stated that payment and financial data was not affected. |
||
| 06.03.2026 - Aura | 903.080 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Customer service comments, Email addresses, IP addresses, Names, Phone numbers, Physical addresses In March 2026, the online safety service Aura disclosed a data breach that exposed 900k unique email addresses. The data was primarily associated with a marketing tool from a previously acquired company, with fewer than 20k active Aura customers affected. Exposed data included names, phone numbers, physical and IP addresses, and customer service notes. Aura advised that no Social Security numbers, passwords or financial information were compromised. |
||
| 04.03.2026 - SUCCESS | 253.510 Datensätze geleaked | |
| Device information, Email addresses, IP addresses, Names, Passwords, Phone numbers, Physical addresses, Purchases In March 2026, the personal development and achievement media brand SUCCESS suffered a data breach. The incident exposed 250k unique email addresses along with names, IP addresses, phone numbers and, for a limited number of staff members, bcrypt password hashes. The data also included orders containing physical addresses and the payment method used. In SUCCESS' disclosure notice, they advised their system had also been abused to send offensive newsletters with quotes falsely attributed to contributors. |
||