2022 · Data breach

CDEK

Breached 9 March 2022 · Published 17 March 2022 · cdek.ru

THE HUMAN IMPACT

Behind the exposed accounts

In early 2022, a collective known as IT Army whose stated goal is to "completely de-anonymise most Russian users by leaking hundreds of gigabytes of databases" published over 30GB of data allegedly sourced from Russian courier service CDEK.

Follow the story
A person using a laptop beside a desktop monitor
Logan Jeffrey / Unsplash · Personal research · context photograph, not an affected user
19,218,203Accounts exposed
55/100Serious severity
3Types of data
UnverifiedBy HIBP

On 9 March 2022, CDEK was breached. 19,218,203 accounts were exposed, including email addresses, names, phone numbers. MyRecon rates it 55/100, serious. That is about 71% of the population of Australia.

FOLLOW THE RECORD

How the story unfolded

Open a step to read the detail. Missing dates stay unknown.

  1. 01Reported breach date

    2022-03-09

    Read the HIBP source record

  2. 02Entry point

    The published account does not explain the exact way the data was obtained.

    Read the HIBP source record

  3. 03Discovery and disclosure

    A separate discovery or company-disclosure date is not established by this feed record.

    Read the HIBP source record

  4. 04Added to the breach catalogue

    2022-03-17. This is the catalogue date, not necessarily the disclosure date.

    Read the HIBP source record

  5. 05Reported outcome

    19,218,203 accounts are listed in this breach. This is a count of accounts, not necessarily individual people. The reported exposed data includes Email addresses, Names, Phone numbers.

    Read the HIBP source record

Were you part of this breach?

Only a result for this incident is shown. On submission, your email is sent through MyRecon to XposedOrNot for a breach lookup. MyRecon does not save this check to your history. Provider coverage can be incomplete.

This is one of the few entries in the archive flagged as unverified, and that flag is the reason it is worth reading. The data was published by a hacktivist collective during a war, with the stated aim of de-anonymising Russian internet users at scale, and its authenticity could not be independently established. It is filed as what it is: an allegation with 19 million addresses attached.

Politically motivated dumps fail differently from criminal ones. A seller has a commercial interest in the data being genuine, because buyers who get fabricated files do not come back. A collective publishing to cause harm to a population has an interest in publication itself, accuracy is a secondary concern, and mixing authentic records with assembled ones costs them nothing and is nearly impossible to disprove from outside.

Both readings carry real risk, which is the uncomfortable part. Courier records are home addresses and delivery histories, about as sensitive as consumer data gets; and for people living under a government that may take an interest in who appears in a hostile dump, being listed is its own hazard whether or not the row is real. Treat an unverified appearance as neither proof that you were breached nor evidence that you were not.

The story behind the breach

In early 2022, a collective known as IT Army whose stated goal is to "completely de-anonymise most Russian users by leaking hundreds of gigabytes of databases" published over 30GB of data allegedly sourced from Russian courier service CDEK. The data contained over 19M unique email addresses along with names and phone numbers. The authenticity of the breach could not be independently established and has been flagged as "unverified".

Breach description from Have I Been Pwned, used under a CC BY 4.0 licence.

How did it happen?

The published account does not explain the exact way the data was obtained.

What was the motive?

The published account does not establish the motive. We cannot tell what the attackers intended from the exposed data alone.

Reported demands or attempts to sell data describe what happened, rather than prove every attacker's intention.

What was the outcome?

19,218,203 accounts are listed in this breach. This is a count of accounts, not necessarily individual people.

The reported exposed data includes Email addresses, Names, Phone numbers.

What was exposed, and why it matters

Email addresses

The address becomes a confirmed, active target, expect more phishing, better aimed.

Names

Turns an anonymous address into an identified person, which is what makes targeted phishing possible.

Phone numbers

Enables SIM-swap attacks against SMS two-factor codes, and puts the number on scam-call lists indefinitely.

What to do if you were in it

Your next steps

Tick off the actions you have taken. Progress lasts while this page is open.

0 actions completed

Questions people ask about this breach

Was my email address in the CDEK breach?

Use the email box on this page. The result applies only to this incident. If the provider does not cover this breach, we say so. A missing match does not prove you were unaffected.

What data was leaked in the CDEK breach?

email addresses, names, phone numbers. Each one is explained above, along with what it means for the person it belongs to.

When did it happen, and when did it become public?

The breach is dated 9 March 2022. It was published to Have I Been Pwned on 17 March 2022, a gap of 8 days during which the data was already out.

Is the CDEK breach real?

It is listed as unverified. The data exists and has been indexed, but it has not been confirmed against the named source, so treat the origin as unproven.

How many people were affected?

19,218,203 accounts. That is about 71% of the population of Australia. That is accounts rather than people, one person often has several.

Read next

Also in the archive

Case Files: how the landmark breaches actually happened →

Three kinds of content appear on this page and they are kept apart deliberately. The breach description is quoted from Have I Been Pwned under its licence. The severity score, the field-by-field explanation and the advice are computed from the record itself, every sentence derives from a number or a flag in it, which is what stops the analysis drifting from the evidence. Anything under the "MyRecon's take" byline is editorial: our reading of this breach, presented as opinion rather than as a finding.

← All breaches