Alert icon Keyboard navigation enabled.
Alert icon TAB or Shift+TAB to navigate across. Down ↓ to open menu. ESC to close menu.
Alert icon Down ↓ to select section. Right → to activate. Up ↑ / Down ↓ / Tab to traverse all. ESC to exit.
BeyondTrust
Skip to content Use space or enter to skip.

What can we help you find today?

Instant Results
  • Website Results
  • Technical Documentation

Filter Options

Focus your search

Filtering by

Your recent searches:

Contact Us Chat with Sales Get Support
  • English
  • Deutsch
  • français
  • español
  • 한국어
  • português
  • Home
  • Resources
  • Blog
  • Dixon’s Carphone Discloses Data Breach 11 Months Later current page
Link copied

Dixon’s Carphone Discloses Data Breach 11 Months Later

Jun 13, 2018
Author:
Morey Haber Headshot 2024
Morey J. Haber
Chief Security Advisor
Blog banner default
Dixon’s Carphone Discloses Data Breach 11 Months Later
Morey Haber Headshot 2024
Morey J. Haber
Chief Security Advisor
Back in July 2017, a hacking attempt started against Dixon’s Carphone in the UK that resulted in 105,000 credit cards without a chip and pin technology being compromised. The initial attempt to compromise 5.8 million cards was identified, but conclusive information regarding whether the cards have been leaked or used in the wild has not been confirmed according to the public disclosure announcement. This would imply that a small percentage of users are actually at risk, so if you have not been notified by Dixon’s, you are probably in the clear from exposure.

GDPR Implications

This Dixon's data breach has a few interesting and noteworthy twists for all organizations that are under GDPR compliance. Since the breach that targeted Currys PC World and Dixon’s Travel stores happened in 2017, before GDPR came into effect, it is technically not covered by the standing legislation. They do not need to follow the new rules. So, this would imply that fines, SLA’s for notification, and forensics are out of scope for the announcement. However, it does serve as precedence for any organization that identified a potential breach before 25 May 2018 looking to perform a public disclosure. Any new breach identification after 25 May must comply with the new regulations. Dixon’s would have failed the new disclosure policies.

It All Boils Down to Detection, Which Brings up an Interesting Question

Anton Chuvakin from Gartner posted an interesting question to Twitter yesterday:

"Are you aware of any organizations that have turned off Threat Detection in order to avoid the GDPR 72 SLA for breach notification?"

What is startling is that nearly 10% of security professionals confirmed in this unofficial survey, that they have heard of organizations turning off threat detection in order to avoid GDPR compliance requirements. Over 30% reported that they have seen much worse. Let that settle in for a moment. While this was unofficial, it should raise some serious concerns. If this was Dixon’s Carphone, the breach in July 2017 may not have been detected for a long time, or never at all, and a user’s personally identifiable information (PII) would potentially be all over the dark web with very little accountability. Disabling security technology, delaying breach notification, and shortcutting security best practices to avoid doing the “right” thing is just NOT acceptable. The sheer fact this breach took 11 months for disclosure and hides behind GDPR dates is almost cowardly in itself. It also raises questions about the effectiveness of GDPR required training, disclosure processes, and whether the mindset of a breach occurring before 25 May is actually not legally bound by GDPR. While the breach notification is stunning due to the linkage to GDPR, it is truly nothing new. Only 105,000 credit cards are reportedly at risk but the questions it raises are far reaching beyond this blog. As a security professional, I would encourage every user, executive, and company to do the right thing. Cybersecurity is the responsibility of everyone, regardless of the regulations and splitting of hairs on GDPR dates, and formulating diversionary tactics is just immoral in our next generation economy. Consider what you would want someone else to do with your information if it was breached before you subvert away from doing the right thing. I think it took much too long for this breach to become public and so should you. To learn more about GDPR compliance, download this guide, or contact us for a strategy session.
Latest Posts
  • Hooked on Identity (Part 2): Abusing OAuth Trust Boundaries in Okta
    Jun 12, 2026 Hooked on Identity (Part 2): Abusing OAuth Trust Boundaries in Okta
    Blog
    7m
  • Hooked on Identity: Abusing SAML Assertion Inline Hooks in Okta
    Jun 9, 2026 Hooked on Identity: Abusing SAML Assertion Inline Hooks in Okta
    Blog
    6m
  • Joining Project Glasswing: Securing the Privilege Backbone of the AI Era
    Jun 8, 2026 Joining Project Glasswing: Securing the Privilege Backbone of the AI Era
    Blog
    5m
  • The Most Common & Most Dangerous Types of Shadow IT
    Jun 5, 2026 The Most Common & Most Dangerous Types of Shadow IT
    Blog
    19m
  • 14 Password Management Best Practices
    May 28, 2026 14 Password Management Best Practices
    Blog
    12m
Related
  • BeyondTrust Remote Support & ServiceNow CSM Integration Boosts Service Desk Productivity through Automation & Streamlined Workflows
    Nov 4, 2020 BeyondTrust Remote Support & ServiceNow CSM Integration Boosts Service Desk Productivity through Automation & Streamlined Workflows
    Blog
    1m
  • Impressions from Gartner IAM 2019
    Dec 16, 2019 Impressions from Gartner IAM 2019
    Blog
    1m
Share this Article
  • Link
Stay up to Date
Get the latest news, ideas, and tactics from BeyondTrust. You may unsubscribe at any time.

Keep up with BeyondTrust

Customer Support Get Started
  • LinkedIn
  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Add BeyondTrust as a preferred source on Google
  • Privacy
  • Security
  • Manage Cookies
  • Do Not Sell My Data
  • WEEE Compliance

Copyright © 2003 — 2026 BeyondTrust Corporation. All rights reserved. Other trademarks identified on this page are owned by their respective owners. BeyondTrust Corporation is not a chartered bank or trust company, or depository institution. It is not authorized to accept deposits or trust accounts and is not licensed or regulated by any state or federal banking authority.

Prefers reduced motion setting detected. Animations will now be reduced as a result.