Chqbook

Summary

Chqbook.com was listed among eight new alleged data breaches in a hacker forum post where a broker offered stolen user records from 26 companies. The broker claimed to possess 1 million records from the financial services platform, pricing the dataset at $1,800. Chqbook denied any breach occurred, asserting no customer data was compromised and emphasizing regular security audits. BleepingComputer attempted to verify the legitimacy of the data by contacting users listed in provided samples, though confirmation outcomes were not disclosed in the available information. The incident highlighted discrepancies between external breach claims and internal security assessments.

Motives

Detailed motive labels are available to members.

TTPs

Detailed technique labels are available to members.

Description

In late December 2020, a data breach broker advertised the sale of 368.8 million user records allegedly stolen from 26 companies on a hacker forum, with Chqbook.com listed among eight newly disclosed breaches. The broker specifically priced Chqbook's dataset at $1,800, claiming it contained 1 million user records. This incident formed part of a larger operation where threat actors collaborated with brokers to monetize stolen data through dark web marketplaces. BleepingComputer identified Chqbook as a previously unreported breach based on the broker's forum post, which included a table detailing the affected companies, record volumes, and breach disclosure status. At the time of reporting, only Teespring and Sitepoint among the eight new entries had prior public breach disclosures, while Chqbook and five others represented fresh allegations.

BleepingComputer contacted Chqbook for verification, receiving a denial that any breach had occurred or customer data was compromised. The company emphasized data security as a priority and referenced periodic security audits in their response. Despite this assertion, BleepingComputer initiated validation efforts by emailing users listed in sample Chqbook data obtained from the broker. The article noted historical patterns where similarly marketed breaches often proved legitimate, with companies eventually confirming incidents after public exposure. No technical details regarding Chqbook's alleged breach methodology, intrusion timeline, or data exfiltration vectors were disclosed in available sources. Impact verification remained pending at publication, with no corroborated reports of malicious use targeting Chqbook users, unlike Teespring where phishing campaigns had already emerged. Other newly listed companies like MyON confirmed breaches while disputing exposure of sensitive information, creating mixed evidence regarding the broker's claims.

Sources

Sources available to members: 1 source.