LUSH - Important News - UPDATED

[Deleted User]

yummy.scrummy.mummy wrote: »

i dont watch hackers on TV thanks, but as soon as you create something which you think is secure there is always going be other people who can make that unsecure so new advances need to be made. you can crypt it all you want but there will still be people out there who will be able to do it. to think that you are fully protected from hackers is naive, there are people out there who can get into anything they want whether you are encrypted well or not.

anti viruses are supposed to be secure, but can you trust them? no because there will always be ones which go undetected. you can create as much software and security as you want but it wont be fully secure for aslong as people want to gain access. its pretty stupid to say that it should be impossible for anyone to get into their details, im sure people could hack into the most secure of servers given time. if you have worked in IT for 20 years i would of expected your naivity to be a little bit less. these are people who probably hack for a living and live off what they manage to take off others. i bet most sites wouldnt even recognise if their databases had been accessed and it goes unnoticed a lot of the times

Excuse me, do you even know how data encryption works?

loveglitch

[Deleted User] wrote:

Excuse me, do you even know how data encryption works?

excuse me? do you want to stop being so naive, do you yourself even know how data encryption works, if you are so wise perhaps you would like to inform us all how it works then?
QQ

1984ReturnsForReal_2

loveglitch wrote: »

excuse me? do you want to stop being so naive, do you yourself even know how data encryption works, if you are so wise perhaps you would like to inform us all how it works then?
QQ

I know enough to know that properly encrypted data is near impossible to break.

That is why people get a few years extra on a sentence for not handing over the code to the police & security services.

chrissyxx

Ive been reading all these posts with interest over the past few days. I've been a Lush customer for years, but fortunately always buy instore and dont order online, so I've not been one of the unlucky people who have had their details hacked. I fully intend to go on buying from Lush, and refuse to comment on the rights and wrongs of what happened for now, as I dont feel any of us are in full possession of all the facts at the present time. What I am grateful for, is that this matter of storing card details has now been highlighted. I always check for the 'padlock' verification when shopping online, but have never thought seriously about the consequences of having the company store my card details for next time, ie on Amazon and Play for example. I've always just considered it convenient not to keep putting in the details each time. I have now deleted my card details on Amazon, and I'm sure that maybe a lot of people will be more aware of this than before. I hope those affected manage to get their money back without too much trouble.

[Deleted User]

loveglitch wrote: »

excuse me? do you want to stop being so naive, do you yourself even know how data encryption works, if you are so wise perhaps you would like to inform us all how it works then?
QQ

I think there is a little bit too much venom in your post. Do you even know my intention behind asking that question? I'm sure you've read the post I was replying to, if not, maybe you should? I'm curious about the various claims about data security in the other post - I agree with a previous post that if done properly encrypted data will be difficult at least to decrypt. I don't feel I have to explain myself to you - if you are very curious about the technology behind it, go ahead and use google. I'm sure the resources you find will satisfied your curiosity. If she can give basis to all her claims, I'd be more than happy to read them, this I mean entirely sincerely. What I don't like seeing however is claims made without any basis - speculative thoughts rephrased like truths that cause alarm.

I'm also confused about why asking one simple, straightforward question would make you deduce that I am wise, naive or even arrogant as I detect from your post? Can you answer all these questions? So I think I'll throw your comments into the cesspool for the time being and wish you a good evening

fuzzybear01

Nationwide were very difficult on the phone to my husband. They were saying that he didn't need to cancel his card and when he asked if they would reverse any fraudulent transaction the same day and take full responsibility they said that they wouldn't.

I'm not impressed that they said cancelling the card wouldn't stop any fraudulent transactions! Would they say the same if the card had been physically stolen?

We eventually managed to get them to cancel, but then they had the cheek to say that if he requests 3 cards within 12 months there would be a charge of £10. This is the second new card he has had, but they sent the first new one out without asking him, so I hardly think that it would be fair to penalise him.

This must be costing the banks a lot of time/money to fix!

loveglitch

[Deleted User] wrote:

I think there is a little bit too much venom in your post. Do you even know my intention behind asking that question? I'm sure you've read the post I was replying to, if not, maybe you should? I'm curious about the various claims about data security in the other post - I agree with a previous post that if done properly encrypted data will be difficult at least to decrypt. I don't feel I have to explain myself to you - if you are very curious about the technology behind it, go ahead and use google. I'm sure the resources you find will satisfied your curiosity. If she can give basis to all her claims, I'd be more than happy to read them, this I mean entirely sincerely. What I don't like seeing however is claims made without any basis - speculative thoughts rephrased like truths that cause alarm.

I'm also confused about why asking one simple, straightforward question would make you deduce that I am wise, naive or even arrogant as I detect from your post? Can you answer all these questions? So I think I'll throw your comments into the cesspool for the time being and wish you a good evening

no, no venom at all, just you seem to be very naive , if your suggesting i go look at google then maybe you should do the same for yummyscrummymummys argument, it maybe difficult to decrypt a database but not impossible so i suggest before you start making lucid comments you should go read up yourself, or go back to uk2.

[Deleted User]

loveglitch wrote: »

no, no venom at all, just you seem to be very naive , if your suggesting i go look at google then maybe you should do the same for yummyscrummymummys argument, it maybe difficult to decrypt a database but not impossible so i suggest before you start making lucid comments you should go read up yourself, or go back to uk2.

You didn't answer any of my points and do not understand that I'm asking out of curiosity since her statements have changed several times whilst talking about certain specific issues, but I think you are irritated, so I'm not going to continue on a pointless, and probably venomous cycle.

yummymummy888888

I was targeted on the 4th and 12 January. One for £312.05 from Xango and one for £159.96 from an internet cafe in Birmingham. They did not do any small test transactions, just went straight for the big money. Just posting so people know what to look out for.

shikoku

Don't the fraudsters have serious problems with their delivery addresses?

When my mum paid on-line for an item costing £300 + to be delivered to me (birthday present) both her bank and the retailer telephoned her to check if she had authorised the payment.