[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"$f1fovl7fm1pi4r":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":18,"affectedCount":18,"affectedCountStatus":19,"affectedCountLowerBound":20,"affectedCountUnit":21,"hasEnglishDescription":4,"severity":22,"dataClasses":23,"description":28,"seoTitle":29,"seoTitleEn":30,"seoDescription":29,"seoDescriptionEn":31,"logoUrl":32,"isVerified":4,"isSensitive":33,"isSpamList":33,"isMalware":33,"company":34},"68e3266eda11adda48825333","QIP","QIP 2011 Data Breach","qip","qip.ru","2011-06-01T00:00:00.000Z","2017-01-08T22:23:19.000Z","2026-07-21T19:59:57.497Z","Verified breach record","https:\u002F\u002Fsecurityaffairs.com\u002F51118\u002Fdata-breach\u002Fqip-data-breach.html",[15,17],"https:\u002F\u002Fqip.ru\u002F",26183992,"known",null,"unknown","Critical",[24,25,26,27],"Email addresses","Passwords","Usernames","Website activity","\u003Cp>The QIP 2011 data breach concerns information associated with QIP (Quiet Internet Pager), a Russian instant-messaging service, that was exposed around June 2011. The verified scope lists 26,183,992 unique accounts. The exposed classes are email addresses, passwords, usernames, and information classified as website activity. An archive associated with the incident circulated publicly years later. Its age does not establish that a current QIP account is compromised, but an old password or username can still create present-day risk when it was reused elsewhere.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2>Exposed Data Types and Risks\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>The combination of an email address, password, and username gives malicious actors context for account matching, targeted phishing, and credential-reuse attempts. A contemporaneous security report said that passwords in the archive appeared in plaintext. A plaintext password is not a one-way protected value; where the same secret was reused intact on another service, it can be tried directly against that account. The website-activity class exists in the verified data, but its specific meaning was not defined. It should not be expanded into claims about visits, messages, contact lists, profile preferences, payments, IP addresses, or other personal information.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2>Verified Scope and Limits\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>The breach date is listed as June 2011. A report published in 2016 described a separate archive containing 33,383,392 raw rows that had become public, while the verified incident count remains 26,183,992 unique accounts. Those values measure different things and should neither be added together nor exchanged. The difference may reflect duplicate rows, multiple data views, or different counting methods, but available evidence does not establish the exact cause. Confirmed facts cover the link to the QIP service, the time period, the account count, and four exposed data classes. The entry path, affected systems, notification timing, and corrective actions were not established.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2>Users at Elevated Risk\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>People who held a QIP account around June 2011 are the primary affected group. Risk is higher for anyone who reused the same password for an email account, social network, gaming service, or work tool. A visible username can also make it easier to track the same alias across unrelated sites or connect accounts that may belong to one person. Email addresses and usernames together can make fraudulent sign-in notices and account-recovery messages appear more convincing. The age of the archive does not prove that any current account has been accessed, yet long-lived password reuse means historical credentials should not be treated as irrelevant to current account security.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2>Immediate Protective Actions\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>If a QIP password was reused on another service, replace it there with a long, unique password first. The email account deserves particular attention because password-reset messages commonly arrive there. End active sessions on accounts that shared the same credentials, review recovery email addresses and phone numbers, and enable multi-factor authentication wherever the service supports it. When an unexpected breach notice or sign-in link arrives, open the service through its known address rather than following the message link. Even when a historic QIP account can no longer be accessed, the associated email address and password reuse elsewhere still deserve review.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2>Long-Term Security Practices\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>Using a different password for every online service greatly reduces the chance that one old archive can lead to access attempts against other accounts. A password manager makes long, random passwords practical, while passkeys or multi-factor authentication add protection where available. Avoiding the exact same old username across every service can limit profile matching based on an exposed alias. Reviewing active sessions, recovery options, and connected-app permissions at regular intervals also reduces the impact of forgotten accounts. For unused legacy accounts, consider closing the account after retaining any information that is genuinely needed; that can reduce future exposure.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2>Record Check and User Action\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>The email-address check on this page can help establish whether an address under your control appears in the QIP incident. Enter only your own email address; never provide a password, identity number, or other sensitive information. A match means that the stated data types were associated with the historic incident. It does not, on its own, prove current access to an account or show that every field was present for every affected person. When a match appears, remove password reuse, strengthen the email account, and be more cautious with unexpected messages. No match does not eliminate risks from other sources, so sound account-protection habits remain important.\u003C\u002Fp>","","QIP 2011 Data Breach (26.2 Million Reported Records)","QIP 2011 Data Breach. 26.2 Million reported records were reported. Reported data: Email addresses, Passwords, Usernames. Review the scope, risks, and…","\u002Fuploads\u002Flogo\u002Fqip_ru.webp",false,{"name":7,"sector":35,"country":36,"website":10,"websiteArchiveUrl":29,"websiteStatus":29,"websiteCheckedAt":20},"Technology","Russia"]