[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"$fzcnvl1cn294t":3},{"success":4,"breach":5},true,{"_id":6,"name":7,"title":8,"slug":9,"domain":10,"breachDate":11,"addedDate":12,"modifiedDate":12,"contentUpdatedAt":13,"source":14,"sourceUrl":15,"sourceUrls":16,"pwnCount":20,"affectedCount":20,"affectedCountStatus":21,"affectedCountLowerBound":22,"affectedCountUnit":23,"hasEnglishDescription":4,"severity":24,"dataClasses":25,"description":29,"seoTitle":30,"seoTitleEn":31,"seoDescription":30,"seoDescriptionEn":32,"logoUrl":33,"isVerified":4,"isSensitive":4,"isSpamList":34,"isMalware":34,"company":35},"68e3266eda11adda48825279","LinkedIn","LinkedIn Data Breach","linkedin","linkedin.com","2012-05-05T00:00:00.000Z","2016-05-21T21:35:40.000Z","2026-07-18T23:53:20.694Z","Verified breach record","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.linkedin.com\u002Fhelp\u002Flinkedin\u002Fanswer\u002Fa1338522\u002Fnotice-of-data-breach-may-2016?lang=en",[15,17,18,19],"https:\u002F\u002Fwww.troyhunt.com\u002Fobservations-and-thoughts-on-the-linkedin-data-breach\u002F","https:\u002F\u002Fkrebsonsecurity.com\u002F2016\u002F05\u002Fas-scope-of-2012-breach-expands-linkedin-to-again-reset-passwords-for-some-users\u002F","https:\u002F\u002Ftechcrunch.com\u002F2016\u002F05\u002F18\u002F117-million-linkedin-emails-and-passwords-from-a-2012-hack-just-got-posted-online\u002F",164611595,"known",null,"unknown","Critical",[26,27,28],"Email addresses","Passwords","Member IDs","\u003Cp>The LinkedIn data breach is a major professional network security incident confirmed when account data stolen in 2012 circulated widely in May 2016. The confirmed scope is 164,611,595 accounts. The exposed core areas are email addresses and password hashes; the official notice stated that LinkedIn member identities were also included in the 2012 data. Since passwords were stored as unsalted SHA-1 hashes, weak passwords became very quickly guessable. Therefore, the main risk of the incident is the use of professional identity and old password information on different accounts.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>LinkedIn announced this incident not as a new system breach, but as the transfer of old data from 2012 to an online environment in 2016. A password invalidation process was initiated for the old accounts at risk, and users were recommended to reset their passwords. Nevertheless, if the old LinkedIn password was reused on other services, the impact would not be limited to the LinkedIn account alone. If work email, corporate tools, social networks, cloud storage, and shopping accounts are protected with the same password, attackers could use this information for chained login attempts.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2>Leaking Data Types and Risks\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>Verified data types should be treated as email addresses, unsalted SHA-1 hashes of passwords, and LinkedIn member IDs. An email address may be directly linked to a person's professional identity and can be used in targeted messages. A member ID is an internal identifier used to relate to an account profile. A password hash is not the readable form of the password; however, unsalted SHA-1 is now considered a weak storage method and especially increases the risk of cracking for short or common passwords.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>The most critical risk comes from password reuse. If the same old LinkedIn password has also been used for email, work accounts, social networks, forums, payment-linked accounts, or cloud services, attackers may try the same email and password combination on other login screens. Since it is a professional network account, phishing messages may appear more convincing: themes such as fake job offers, connection requests, HR messages, file sharing, or account security alerts may be used. In this incident, payment card or private message content is not a verified data class.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2>Verified Scope and Boundaries\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>The date of the breach is recorded as 2012; the data became widely visible in the May 2016 period. The number of verified accounts is maintained as 164,611,595. In some news reports, different numbers such as 117 million, 164 million, or 167 million may appear; this is due to different data segments, early verification periods, and rounded news statements. The verified number taken as a basis for user inquiries is 164,611,595 accounts.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>The scope boundary is clear. Verified fields are email address, password hash, and member ID appearing in official notifications. It should not be assumed that all work history visible on the profile, connection lists, private messages, payment information, phone numbers, physical addresses, or official identification documents were leaked in this incident. The incident should be evaluated based on account login information and internal identifiers rather than the entirety of professional profile information.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2>User Groups at Risk\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>The highest risk group consists of people who had a LinkedIn account before 2012 and repeatedly used the password they used at that time for other accounts as well. The risk is more pronounced for those who use LinkedIn with their work email; because the same email address can be targeted on corporate login screens or work-focused messages. Executives, sales, human resources, finance, legal, technical teams, and people with publicly available professional profiles may encounter more targeted social engineering messages.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Users who have changed their password after 2012 may carry a lower risk on LinkedIn; however, the threat persists if the same old password is still active elsewhere. If an old password was used in personal email accounts, company internal tools, or social networks, an attacker may have the chance to progress to multiple accounts from a single set of data. Even if the LinkedIn account is no longer active, the same email address and old password can cause security issues on other services.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2>Urgent Measures to Be Taken\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>The first step is to ensure that the password used for LinkedIn in 2012 is not active on any account. If the same or similar password exists on other services, a unique, long, and strong password should be assigned for each account. Two-factor authentication should be enabled on the LinkedIn account, and active sessions and connected applications should be reviewed. For accounts registered with a work email, corporate and personal passwords must be strictly separated.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Caution should be taken against LinkedIn-themed fake messages. Fake connection invitations, job offer files, human resources forms, password reset alerts, and account verification messages may appear more convincing following such incidents. Instead of clicking on the link, one should go directly to the service, and the sender address and login history should be checked. Password changes should also be completed for email, social networks, cloud storage, and work tools where the same old password was used.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2>Long-Term Security Strategies\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>In the long term, unique passwords, two-step verification, and regular session audits are fundamental security steps for professional network accounts. Using a password manager makes it easier to find where an old LinkedIn password has been reused. Password separation between work email and personal accounts should be maintained, recovery emails should be kept up to date, and security notifications should be enabled. Unnecessary third-party connections should be removed, and old device sessions should be terminated.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>From a corporate perspective, the LinkedIn incident shows that employees' professional network accounts can be directly related to company security. Policies that prevent password reuse, two-factor authentication, suspicious login alerts, and phishing awareness for employees should be addressed together. If an old external account password is the same as the company email or work tool, a single data breach can turn into a corporate risk. Therefore, a separation between personal and professional identities in terms of passwords should be consistently maintained.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2>Record Control and User Action\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>If you see a match result, your email address may have been among the 164,611,595 accounts associated with the LinkedIn data breach. This result does not mean that all the information on your profile or your private messages have been leaked. The verified data fields are email address, password hash, and member ID. The initial check is to understand whether the password used for LinkedIn in the 2012 period remained on other accounts.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>If your LinkedIn account is active, make the password unique, enable two-factor authentication, and review active sessions. If the same old password has been used on other services, make changes on those accounts as well. If you use a work email, also check the passwords of corporate accounts and follow suspicious login alerts. The correct approach for this incident is not to amplify unverified claims about profile data, but to reduce the long-lasting account security risk arising from email and old password combinations.\u003C\u002Fp>","","LinkedIn Data Breach (164.6 Million Reported Records)","LinkedIn Data Breach. 164.6 Million reported records were reported. Reported data: Email addresses, Passwords, Member ids. Review the scope, risks, and…","\u002Fuploads\u002Flogo\u002Flinkedin_com.webp",false,{"name":7,"sector":36,"country":37,"website":10,"websiteArchiveUrl":30,"websiteStatus":30,"websiteCheckedAt":22},"Professional networking","United States"]