Conde Nast Sent $8 Million To A Scammer After A Single Email
from the financial-controls? dept
Apparently it's not that hard to scam a big company out of millions of dollars these days. You can just send a single email, pretending to be from a vendor of that company. That's apparently what a guy named Andy Surface discovered when he set up a bank account for an operation he called "Quad Graph," likely designed to be similar to Quad/Graphics, the giant printing company that prints many big name magazines. He then sent a single email to magazine giant Conde Nast, leading the magazine company to send that new account $8 million:
In early November, Conde Nast received an "Electronic Payment Authorization” form by email at its offices in ... New York. The form appeared to have been sent by Quad/Graphics. The form requested that Conde Nast direct payments for Quad Graphics to the Quad Graph Account, and provided account information. Conde Nast filled out the form and returned it by facsimile from its offices in ... New York to the facsimile number provided in the form. Following Conde Nast's receipt of the "Electronic Payment Authorization" form, Conde Nast started making payments for Quad/Graphics bills by ACH transfer from a Conde Nast account with JPMorgan Chase Bank in New York to the Quad Graph Account.The whole thing was discovered when the actual printer noticed that it was no longer getting paid and asked Conde Nast what was up. Conde Nast went to the feds, who arrested the guy and amazingly discovered that all $8 million was still sitting in the bank account.






Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Also if he didn't spend any of it maybe it won't be SO bad for him... Still real bad though.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait...
If so... This just became x10 funnier if computer nerds got duped by a scammer...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cond%C3%A9_Nast_Publications
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait...
Although they obviously should.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait...
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/04/condenast-hooked-by-spear-phisher/?utm_source=feedburner& amp;utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%2 9
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wait...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
This "Electronic Payment Authorization Form"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Perfect opportunity missed
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Irony?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Irony?
Which of course brings up the question of what exactly are you seeing in your ads? Have you been to bad places on the 'net? Maybe they just go you pegged. :)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Irony?
I always ask myself what ads? what buttons? where?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Irony?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Irony?
That said, I'd have no need for adblock if the people that ran the ads would take the time to make sure they are good. Even with all the profiling and such on the web, I'd still say less than 1% of ads appeal to me; having them load is a complete waste of time over 99% of the time.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Irony?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Irony?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Irony?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Irony?
Back to topic, it is of my opinion that this is one example of why companies should not outsource spam filtering. There is just no 3rd party out there that can guarantee that every legit email is sent, and every non-legit email is filtered.
Granted, mistakes can happen in house, but at our company, we are running, at most, a rate of 1-2 spam per month that actually make it to the end users inbox, and emails like this one would be caught, questioned, and actual phone calls made before any paperwork is filled out.
Sometimes, there is just no substitute for "hey...wtf is THAT?!?!"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Irony?
There are ads on the Internet?
What is this? 1998?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Irony?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Irony?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Irony?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Irony?
Typical copyright supporter. We need to get rid of these people.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Irony?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Too much
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment