Summary Troy Hunt: Hackers, Scrapers & Fakers: What's Really Inside the Latest LinkedIn Dataset www.troyhunt.com
2,127 words - html page - View html page
One Line
The flagged LinkedIn dataset consisted of public profiles and fake email addresses, but blaming LinkedIn is not the appropriate response.
Slides
Slide Presentation (8 slides)
Key Points
- The dataset titled "Linkedin Database 2023 2.5 Millions" is a combination of publicly available LinkedIn profile data and fabricated email addresses.
- The dataset contains over 5.8 million email addresses, most of which are constructed from a combination of first and last names.
- The data appears to be a mix of legitimate information sourced from public LinkedIn profiles, fabricated email addresses, and potentially other sources.
- The fabricated email addresses follow a pattern of using the alias "[first name].[last name]@" on unrelated domains.
- Despite the presence of fabricated email addresses, there is a significant component of legitimate data in the dataset, including real people, companies, and domains.
Summaries
19 word summary
LinkedIn dataset flagged as potential breach contained publicly available profiles and fake email addresses, but blaming LinkedIn is misguided.
70 word summary
The latest LinkedIn dataset flagged as a potential data breach contained a mix of publicly available profile data and fake email addresses. Investigation showed a pattern of fabricated email addresses with the same alias on unrelated domains. The dataset was included in Have I Been Pwned to inform individuals, but the fabricated email addresses were flagged as spam. Blaming LinkedIn is misguided; evidence-based analysis is crucial to avoid spreading disinformation.
146 word summary
The latest LinkedIn dataset flagged as a potential data breach was found to contain a mix of publicly available profile data and fake email addresses. Investigation revealed that the dataset included a pattern of email addresses with the same alias on unrelated domains, indicating that much of the data was fabricated. The dataset included information from public LinkedIn profiles, fabricated email addresses, and potentially other sources. It was loaded into Have I Been Pwned (HIBP), but the fabricated email addresses were flagged as spam to protect paid subscriptions. The decision to include the dataset in HIBP was made to inform individuals about potential breaches. The investigation concluded that while there is legitimate data in the dataset, there are also a significant number of fabricated email addresses. Blaming LinkedIn for the incident is misguided. It's important to approach data breaches with evidence-based analysis and avoid spreading disinformation.
410 word summary
The latest LinkedIn dataset that many people flagged as a potential data breach turned out to be a combination of publicly available LinkedIn profile data and fabricated email addresses. While LinkedIn has been breached in the past and had data scraped, this dataset seemed suspicious. Upon investigation, it was discovered that the dataset contained a pattern of email addresses with the same alias on unrelated domains, indicating that much of the data was fake.
The dataset contained information sourced from public LinkedIn profiles, fabricated email addresses, and potentially other sources. The email addresses were constructed by taking the domain of a company where the individual worked and creating an alias from their name. The companies and domains are legitimate, and the email addresses themselves are often real. The dataset was loaded into Have I Been Pwned (HIBP), but the fabricated email addresses were flagged as a spam list to prevent them from impacting paid subscriptions.
The decision to include the dataset in HIBP was made because people want to know about potential breaches and make their own decisions about what actions to take. Even if an email address on a domain doesn't actually exist, it's important for individuals to know that their personal data has been dumped in this corpus. Disinformation and misinformation should be avoided, as they can lead to false accusations and blame being placed on the wrong entities.
Overall, the investigation concluded that there is a significant component of legitimate data in the dataset. However, there are also a significant number of fabricated email addresses. The inclusion of the dataset in HIBP allows individuals to be aware of potential risks while taking into account the presence of fabricated data. It's important to note that blaming LinkedIn for this incident is misguided, as the evidence points to a different conclusion.
The author's dedication to uncovering the truth and combating disinformation led to this investigation. The goal was to provide accurate information and prevent false statements from circulating. It's crucial to approach data breaches with evidence-based analysis and avoid jumping to conclusions based on inaccurate information.
In conclusion, the latest LinkedIn dataset turned out to be a combination of publicly available data, fabricated email addresses, and potentially data from other sources. The presence of legitimate data in the dataset warranted its inclusion in HIBP, with the fabricated email addresses being flagged as a spam list. It's important to approach data breaches with caution, verify information, and avoid spreading disinformation.