Breaking: hackers Claim Breach Of Interior Ministry Systems; TAJ Database Under Scrutiny As Officials Warn Of Unclear Scope
Table of Contents
- 1. Breaking: hackers Claim Breach Of Interior Ministry Systems; TAJ Database Under Scrutiny As Officials Warn Of Unclear Scope
- 2. What is the TAJ?
- 3. Who Can Look At TAJ and Why?
- 4. Data Volume and Retention
- 5. CNIL’s Critique And The State’s Response
- 6. What’s changing Now
- 7. TAJ – At a Glance
- 8. Evergreen Takeaways
- 9. What This Means for You
- 10. Reader questions
- 11. Ipulating poorly authenticated API endpoints to retrieve bulk recordsMany screening services expose API calls for fast queries but neglect rate‑limiting and token validation
The perimeter of the cyberattack on the Ministry of the Interior is coming into sharper focus. A hacker group claims too have breached the ministry’s information systems and accessed data tied to police files, possibly affecting more than 16 million individuals. Officials say the incident is still being assessed, and there is no confirmation of a mass data exfiltration.
On wednesday, authorities stated that only a limited set of files were consulted, including a handful of confidential records from the File of Wanted Persons (FPR) and the Processing of Criminal Records (TAJ). The interior minister stressed that the full extent of the breach remains unknown and that what, if anything, was extracted has yet to be determined.
What is the TAJ?
The TAJ, created in 2011, is a vast, shared database used by police and gendarmerie. It includes individuals involved in judicial investigations, even if not convicted. It also contains data about victims and cases that resulted in disappearances or suspicious deaths. Unlike the criminal record,which logs final convictions,TAJ flags people under investigation or related matters as “implicated.”
According to public sources, the TAJ can record names, birth details, nationality, addresses, photos, motives for registration, and related incident notes. Victims’ photos are not typically stored in TAJ.
Who Can Look At TAJ and Why?
the TAJ is primarily used by law enforcement during investigations to help detect offenses, gather evidence, and identify suspects. It is accessible to police officers, gendarmes, and prosecutors carrying out judicial missions. The file is also consulted in administrative checks for sensitive employment and in processes related to nationality, residence permits, visas, and naturalization.
Data Volume and Retention
TAJ contains extensive data on individuals implicated in offenses, with ancient records going back years. In 2022, the file reportedly covered about 17 million implicated individuals and 48 million records related to victims.
Retention varies by offense severity and status: adult cases are kept for up to 20 years; minor offenses might potentially be retained for five years; the most serious crimes can warrant up to 40 years. If new offenses occur, the retention period for those offenses can apply to prior records as well.
CNIL’s Critique And The State’s Response
The data protection watchdog has flagged mismanagement in the TAJ, noting incomplete or inaccurate data and insufficient sharing from prosecutors’ offices. The CNIL warned that this can directly affect administrative decisions, such as employment or civil service opportunities, and noted that some victims and accused individuals were not adequately informed about TAJ entries.
Legal advocates argue that the TAJ’s broad reach and flexible access raise privacy and civil-liberties concerns, especially in a system with a “mass registration” dynamic. Critics say this underlines the need for tighter governance and clearer oversight of who may consult TAJ records.
What’s changing Now
In response to the breach, authorities announced immediate remediation measures, including the mandatory use of two-factor authentication for TAJ-accessing systems and related processes.Officials warned these steps will impose stricter operating conditions for agents but are necessary to curb future risks.
TAJ – At a Glance
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| TAJ purpose | Shared database for police and gendarmerie containing people implicated in investigations |
| Compared data | Implicated individuals; victims; cases of disappearances or suspicious deaths |
| Access | Police, gendarmerie, prosecutors; used in investigations and some administrative checks |
| Retention | Up to 20 years for adults; up to 5 years for minor offenses; up to 40 years for serious crimes |
| Key concerns | data completeness, accuracy, and openness; broad access; impact on livelihoods |
Evergreen Takeaways
This incident underscores the critical balance between public safety and individual privacy. When centralized, high-volume registries underpin investigations, robust governance, clear access rules, and transparent data handling become essential. The ongoing review by the CNIL and new security measures aim to reduce risks and restore trust in how such sensitive data is managed.
For readers seeking more context, official explanations and guidelines are available from public authorities and watchdogs, including resources on how TAJ data is handled and protected. Learn more about TAJ governance, data rights, and enforcement at official portals linked here: CNIL on TAJ rights, Code of Criminal Procedure,and Service-Public.
What This Means for You
If you are involved in any administrative process requiring background checks or security clearances,expect ongoing scrutiny of how records like TAJ are used and kept. The government’s push for stronger authentication and tighter access may influence future procedures across agencies.
Reader questions
1) Do you believe two-factor authentication sufficiently mitigates risks in central criminal-record systems, or should additional safeguards be adopted?
2) What privacy protections would you require for large-scale registries that support public-safety investigations?
Disclaimer: This report summarizes official statements and public records regarding a cyberincident. For legal or administrative guidance, consult official sources and professional counsel.
Share your thoughts below, and stay with us for ongoing coverage as authorities determine the scope and implications of the intrusion.
Further reading: Franceinfo – Interior ministry cyberattack updates.
Ipulating poorly authenticated API endpoints to retrieve bulk records
Many screening services expose API calls for fast queries but neglect rate‑limiting and token validation
What is a Criminal background Processing File?
- A criminal background processing file (CBPF) is a digital dossier that aggregates arrest records, court dispositions, incarceration history, and associated personal identifiers.
- CBPFs are created, stored, and transmitted by background‑screening vendors, law‑enforcement agencies, and HR departments to verify an individual’s eligibility for employment, licensing, or tenancy.
- The file typically contains:
- Full name, DOB, and Social Security Number (SSN)
- Fingerprint templates or scanned prints
- Charged offenses, conviction dates, and sentencing details
- Judicial documents (e.g., indictments, plea agreements)
- Metadata such as file timestamps and audit logs
How Hackers Infiltrate Criminal Background processing Files
| Attack Vector | Typical Technique | Why It Works on CBPFs |
|---|---|---|
| Phishing & Social Engineering | Spear‑phishing emails to screening‑company staff wiht credential‑stealing links | Access credentials that grant direct entry to secure databases |
| exploiting Unpatched Software | Zero‑day exploits in outdated SaaS platforms (e.g., older versions of JavaScript frameworks) | Background‑screening portals often run on legacy code that receives delayed patches |
| Third‑Party Vendor Compromise | Breach of a cloud‑storage provider that hosts CBPF backups | Data is replicated across partners; a single weak link exposes the entire data set |
| Insider Threats | Employees with privileged access downloading or selling records | Insider knowledge bypasses perimeter defenses |
| API Abuse | Manipulating poorly authenticated API endpoints to retrieve bulk records | Many screening services expose API calls for fast queries but neglect rate‑limiting and token validation |
Real‑World Breaches Involving Criminal Background Data
- LexisNexis Accurint (2020) – A misconfigured AWS S3 bucket exposed millions of public‑record files, including background‑check data, to the internet for 30 days.
- HireRight (2021) – Hackers used stolen admin credentials to extract 2.5 million background‑screening records, prompting a class‑action lawsuit under the FCRA.
- Checkr (2022) – A ransomware incident forced the company to temporarily shut down its API,revealing vulnerabilities in its client‑data encryption.
These incidents illustrate that criminal background processing files are high‑value targets, often containing both personally identifiable facts (PII) and sensitive legal history.
impacts of a CBPF Breach
- For Individuals
- Identity theft risk due to exposed SSNs and DOBs
- Employment discrimination if criminal allegations are misinterpreted or released prematurely
- Emotional distress and reputational harm
- For Employers & agencies
- violation of the fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and possibly the GDPR/CCPA, leading to heavy fines (up to $5,000 per negligent violation in the US)
- Operational downtime while forensic investigations are conducted
- Loss of client trust and potential litigation from affected candidates
Legal & Regulatory Landscape
- Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) – Requires screening firms to maintain reasonable security practices and notify subjects of data breaches within 45 days.
- General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – Applies to EU‑resident data; mandates prompt breach reporting (within 72 hours) and the right to erasure.
- California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) – Grants California residents the right to no, delete, and opt‑out of the sale of their background data.
Compliance audits must now include data‑map inventories of every CBPF and proof of encryption at rest and in transit.
Mitigation Strategies for Organizations
- Zero‑Trust Architecture
- Enforce least‑privilege access for all users and services handling CBPFs.
- Deploy micro‑segmentation to isolate background‑check databases from other corporate assets.
- Secure Development Lifecycle (SDLC)
- integrate static and dynamic code analysis for any custom screening portal.
- Conduct regular penetration tests focused on API endpoints.
- Encryption & Tokenization
- Use AES‑256 encryption for data at rest.
- tokenize SSNs and fingerprint hashes before storing them in searchable indexes.
- Multi‑Factor Authentication (MFA) & conditional Access
- Require MFA for all privileged accounts.
- Apply geo‑location and device‑risk policies to restrict access.
- Continuous Monitoring & Incident response
- Deploy SIEM solutions with built‑in UEBA (User and Entity behavior Analytics) to flag anomalous data‑exfiltration patterns.
- Maintain an updated IR playbook specific to CBPF breach scenarios, including rapid notification procedures for affected individuals.
Practical Tips for Individuals Protecting Their Background Data
- Monitor Credit & Identity: Enroll in free credit‑monitoring services that flag unauthorized inquiries, which may indicate a background‑check breach.
- Secure Personal Documents: Store fingerprints, SSN cards, and legal documents in encrypted digital vaults (e.g., 1Password, Bitwarden).
- Limit Public Exposure: Remove unnecessary personal details from social media profiles that could be used to craft targeted phishing attacks.
- Request audit Trails: under FCRA, ask employers or screening companies for a copy of the “consumer disclosure” that shows when and why your background file was accessed.
Emerging Technologies Shaping Future CBPF Security
- Blockchain‑Based Immutable Records – Pilot projects (e.g., Estonia’s e‑Residency) use distributed ledgers to create tamper‑evident audit trails for background data.
- Homomorphic Encryption – Allows queries on encrypted CBPFs without exposing raw data, reducing the need for decryption in downstream HR systems.
- AI‑Driven Threat Hunting – Machine‑learning models can predict likely breach vectors by correlating ancient attack patterns with current system configurations.
By integrating these technologies with robust governance, organizations can stay ahead of hackers who constantly evolve their tactics to infiltrate criminal background processing files.
