A sample of 5,000 alleged agents seen by 404 Media includes names, addresses, phone numbers, and details on FBI employees' spouses.

A high profile hacking group claims it has breached multiple FBI-related services and stolen data “on all FBI employees and applicants.” A representative of the group, called ShinyHunters, told 404 Media the data includes FBI agents’ names, home addresses, phone number, and information on their spouse.

The data breach could be massively significant and may have all sorts of national security and counterintelligence implications. Criminals from the same ecosystem as ShinyHunters have previously used hacked data like phone records to track, intimidate, and harass the FBI agents investigating them. The highly sensitive data could also be a boon to foreign intelligence agencies who want to better understand how one of the most important law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the U.S. operates. And if the data fell into the hands of more criminals, FBI agents and their spouses could face serious threats to their safety.

“We hacked the FBI. We hold data on all FBI employees and applicants,” the representative of the group told 404 Media.

The representative provided 404 Media with a sample appearing to contain the personal data of 5,000 FBI employees. That data included an alleged address, phone number, date of birth, and in some cases details on their spouse.

  • w3dd1e@lemmy.zipEnglish
    37·
    6 hours ago

    My favorite part is that the exploit was an Oracle issue. The Ellison family sucks.

  • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.worldEnglish
    3·
    4 hours ago

    I honestly DGAF about the employees, I do care about the internal documents indicating what they’re collecting on innocent parties and sitting on regarding the rich and dirty ones.

  • darthsundhaft@piefed.socialEnglish
    77·
    11 hours ago

    Before they leak it, they should coerce the FBI to leak the Epstein Files and then leak the FBI stuff anyway. Would be hilarious. We be top tier.

    • DanceMomsSavedMe@lemmy.zipEnglish
      25·
      6 hours ago

      That won’t work though because the federal government doesn’t negotiate with terrorists*.

      Instead, they do their negotiating with rich pedophiles.

      • BlackAura@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        3 hours ago

        You appear to have two paragraphs that are accurate… Without a footnote. What was the * for?

        :p

  • 404found@lemmy.zipEnglish
    60·
    13 hours ago

    The government needs to provide all FBI employees with 1 free year of credit monitoring. That free year is the resolution I’ve seen from the corporations that were hacked. Remember when a couple credit bureaus were hack multiple times and they provided this? The FBI should also provide compensation for the hack if employees sign up in time. Usually you get like $20 for the data leak.

  • Vanth@reddthat.comEnglish
    142·
    17 hours ago

    Prove it. List which ones are into beastiality. I want see just how big Kash Patel’s eyes can pop when he has to explain it.

  • thesohoriots@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1093·
    17 hours ago

    It’s a real shame the feds don’t hire the nerds who might’ve prevented this. The tl;dr is hiring freezes, reinstated fitness tests, and drug usage disqualifications put cops behind computers, not IT. Who saw that coming.

    • CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.worldEnglish
      211·
      12 hours ago

      Mods abusing rule 3.

      Edit - pointing out that concern over data security is a moot point after a gaggle of non-security cleared Musk datascrapers at the start of Trump’s term already stole untold data, and have no protocol to secure it like the government does is factual and poignant. “Be excellent to each other” is a flagrant abuse of censorship.

      • GreenKnight23@lemmy.worldEnglish
        148·
        12 hours ago

        in fairness, you called someone “retarded”. some people on here get triggered around the word “retarded”, even if they were not the target of the word, they somehow felt you meant they were “retarded”.

        remember. don’t use “retarded” use “mentally deficient”.

        just want to make sure everyone is aware here. even if you were talking about flame “retardant” material, it’s still not acceptable. the new term is “flammably deficient”.

        • Akasazh@lemmy.worldEnglish
          71·
          11 hours ago

          Technically the word ‘idiot’ was utilised for the highest grade of mental deficiency. Do you feel that word should be banned too?

          Not trolling, I’m genuinely curious.

          • GreenKnight23@lemmy.worldEnglish
            22·
            5 hours ago

            any retard with half a brain can see that an idiot is far less deficient than a retard.

            flammably speaking.

    • Test_Tickles@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      13 hours ago

      So, “Hacked” in this case means asked Grok where they could buy a “Female Body Inspector” tshirt and Grok coughed up the personal details of everything FBI?

  • Sarah Valentine@pawb.socialEnglish
    462·
    16 hours ago

    Meh, these are the same fucks who breached the Canvas backend and held student data for ransom. I don’t care if they target a government agency I don’t like - they’re just another bunch of assholes out to make a profit.

    • DanceMomsSavedMe@lemmy.zipEnglish
      6·
      6 hours ago

      That was fucked up and they are wrong for that but if they keep going after feds I’m all for them.

      Wish they could leak the Epstein files (without pics and vids).

      Their talents were wasted on Canvas if they have this kind of capability.

      Either that or, the FBI’s database just has ultra piss poor security which sounds about right anymore.

      • Sarah Valentine@pawb.socialEnglish
        2·
        5 hours ago

        If they were “going after” the feds, they’d release everything they got instead of bragging about what they got. Either they got nothing or they’re holding it for ransom, but if it’s the latter what are their demands? None of this is passing the smell test.

    • redditStinksSuperBad@lemmy.worldEnglish
      45·
      12 hours ago

      " don’t care if they target a government agency I don’t like" - you should. This opens all of them up to blackmail and worse by foreign govts. Massive problem for both you, me, and everyone else. The first Tom cruise mission impossible movie was about this very same thing except it was the CIA.

      • Sarah Valentine@pawb.socialEnglish
        6·
        10 hours ago

        Don’t take a fragment of a sentence out of context to make me say something I didn’t. What I said was that even if they attack someone I don’t like, I still won’t celebrate it because I know what their motivation is.

        • redditStinksSuperBad@lemmy.worldEnglish
          18·
          10 hours ago

          What you said was “I don’t care if they target a government agency I don’t like - they’re just another bunch of assholes out to make a profit.” not “even if they attack someone I don’t like, I still won’t celebrate it because I know what their motivation is.”.

          In or out of context, "I don’t care if they target a government agency I don’t like"means the exact same thing. It’s a stand alone statement not impacted by your second sentence.

          Your rephrasing makes more sense and the two parts of your sentence can not be separated without changing the meaning.

          • luciferofastora@feddit.orgEnglish
            1·
            3 hours ago

            In or out of context, "I don’t care if they target a government agency I don’t like"means the exact same thing. It’s a stand alone statement not impacted by your second sentence.

            That’s just not true. The fact that it can form a complete sentence on its own doesn’t divorce its meaning from the surrounding context.

            In my favourite example, “I want to make sure the children die with the parent” is a complete sentence, but outside of a programming context, it’s quite fucked up.

            In this case, the sentence you quoted is equivalent to a parenthetical to add nuance to the second half you omitted: “They’re just another bunch of assholes out to make a profit (even if they target a government agency I don’t like).” It’s the opposite of a standalone statement: It’s the subordinate qualification to a different, standalone statement.

            Just because you can quote it outside its context doesn’t mean that it’s independent of context.

          • Sarah Valentine@pawb.socialEnglish
            8·
            9 hours ago

            In or out of context, "I don’t care if they target a government agency I don’t like"means the exact same thing. It’s a stand alone statement not impacted by your second sentence.

            Incorrect on all counts. “Whether they attack someone I hate or not doesn’t matter” is what the complete sentence conveys. Quit playing semantic games to make me say the opposite. Actually just get blocked for being an unserious bad faith poster.