[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"$f2j9lxo7kr3qww":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":17,"affectedCount":17,"affectedCountStatus":18,"affectedCountLowerBound":19,"affectedCountUnit":20,"hasEnglishDescription":4,"severity":21,"dataClasses":22,"description":32,"seoTitle":33,"seoTitleEn":34,"seoDescription":33,"seoDescriptionEn":35,"logoUrl":36,"isVerified":4,"isSensitive":37,"isSpamList":37,"isMalware":37,"company":38},"68e3266eda11adda48825345","BlueSnapRegpack","Regpack Data Breach","regpack","bluesnap.com","2016-05-20T00:00:00.000Z","2016-09-13T04:35:05.000Z","2026-07-18T23:57:06.191Z","Verified breach record","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.troyhunt.com\u002Fsomeone-just-lost-324k-payment-records-complete-with-cvvs\u002F",[15],104977,"known",null,"unknown","High",[23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31],"Browser user agent details","Credit card CVV","Email addresses","IP addresses","Names","Partial credit card data","Phone numbers","Physical addresses","Purchases","\u003Cp>The Regpack data breach is a financial data security incident associated with the exposure of data used in payment and registration processes in 2016. According to verified information, the incident is dated May 20, 2016, and 104,977 unique email addresses were affected. The data set contained transaction information at the level of 324,000 payment records, and within the transaction rows were fields including full name, home address, phone number, email address, IP address, browser user-agent information, purchase information, partial card number, expiration date, and CVV. Therefore, the Regpack data breach is a serious incident in terms of payment security and phishing risk, even if there was no password leak.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>At the initial stage, the incident was associated with the payment provider's name, but it was later determined that due to human error on Regpack's side, which handles registration and payment processes, the transaction data remained on a publicly accessible server. This distinction is important; because while the title field contains Regpack, the domain field comes with the payment provider's domain name. The Regpack result is not duplicate and should not be confused with another Regpack incident. From the user's perspective, the main risk is that the payment transaction, contact information, and browser access logs are all present in the same data set.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2>Leaked Data Types and Risks\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>The verified data types are browser user-agent information, credit card CVV field, email addresses, IP addresses, full name information, partial credit card data, phone numbers, physical addresses, and purchase information. Email addresses and phone numbers provide a direct point of contact for targeted fraud messages. Physical addresses and full name information make it easier to personalize messages. IP addresses and browser information can generate inferences about access habits, device type, and approximate location.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>The partial card number, expiration date, and CVV field are at the center of financial risk. Even though the full card number is not explicitly included among the verified fields, the partial card data and CVV that come with transaction records increase the likelihood of misuse. Purchase information can also show which service the user paid for, the time of payment, or the context of the transaction. Even if this data alone seems limited, when used together, it can generate convincing payment alerts, fake invoice messages, and account update requests.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2>Verified Scope and Boundaries\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>Source comparison confirms the date of May 20, 2016, the addition time of September 13, 2016, and 104,977 unique email addresses in the Regpack incident. It is stated that the dataset contained transaction rows at the level of 324 thousand payment records; however, the number of users should be tracked as 104,977 based on email uniqueness. Verified data fields include browser user-agent information, CVV, email addresses, IP addresses, names, partial card data, phone numbers, physical addresses, and purchase information.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>In this incident, password, username, private message, official identity document, date of birth, or photo leak are not among the verified fields. Adding these fields gives the user an incorrect risk picture. Even though the record was previously marked as sensitive, the verified classification does not show a sensitive flag. Nevertheless, due to payment data and the CVV field, user action is high priority. The impact of financial data requires careful monitoring even if there is no sensitive class label.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2>User Groups at Risk\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>The highest risk applies to individuals who have made a payment, event registration, membership, or similar transaction through Regpack. These individuals may become vulnerable to targeted fraud messages due to the combination of payment history, contact information, and address data. Users with an address and phone number can be tricked with fake delivery, fake invoice, payment verification, or card renewal messages. When the transaction context is known, it becomes easier for the attacker to make the message appear legitimate.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>People who make payments with their corporate email address are also at risk. If the email domain shows the company name, attackers can generate messages related to accounting, subscription renewal, or payment tracking. Browser and IP information alone may not seem very strong from a technical standpoint; however, when combined with address, phone, and payment information, the user profile becomes more convincing. Therefore, the incident should be considered not only a card security issue but also a risk for social engineering and invoice fraud.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2>Urgent Measures to Be Taken\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>The user should be cautious about card update, payment verification, refund, invoice, or subscription renewal messages coming under the name of Regpack or the payment provider. Card information should not be entered through the links in the message, and the payment provider account or bank account should be checked directly through the official channel. If the card used during the affected period is still active, bank transactions should be reviewed retrospectively, and if there is any unusual activity, it should be reported to the card provider.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Due to the CVV field and partial card information, payment card security is a priority. Card renewal, virtual card limits, transaction notifications, and suspicious transaction alerts should be activated. Multi-factor authentication should be used on the email account, and special care should be taken against messages containing phone numbers and physical addresses. The user should not respond to threat messages containing address or phone information; when a payment request or verification request is received, it should be checked through a separate official channel.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2>Long-Term Security Strategies\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>For long-term payment transactions, virtual cards, low-limit cards, or single-use payment methods should be preferred. Transaction notifications should be kept on for every payment service, and the cards registered in the account should be reviewed at regular intervals. When the email address and phone number remain the same for financial transactions for a long time, fraud attempts coming from old leaks can still be effective even years later. Therefore, contact information and payment notifications should be regularly monitored.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>Since permanent data such as address and phone number cannot be changed, user behavior becomes important. Even if fake invoice, payment refund, and card renewal messages look realistic, the session should not be accessed through the link. For past breaches involving financial data, bank alerts, credit card limits, and purchase notifications should be kept active. Corporate users should inform accounting and records teams about social engineering messages prepared with old payment data.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Ch2>Record Control and User Action\u003C\u002Fh2>\n\u003Cp>Users seeing the Regpack result on LeakData should take into account the payment data incident dated May 20, 2016. The verified fields are browser user-agent information, CVV, email addresses, IP addresses, names, partial card details, phone numbers, physical addresses, and purchase information. The user's priority should be to monitor bank and card transactions, enable payment notifications, avoid responding to suspicious messages via links, and strengthen their email account.\u003C\u002Fp>\n\u003Cp>In this incident, since the password, username, private message, official ID, date of birth, and photo fields were not verified, the action plan should not be based on this data. On the other hand, payment data, CVV, contact information, and physical address fields pose real risks. The user should communicate with the card provider through official channels, keep suspicious transaction alerts active, and carefully examine messages using the name Regpack or the payment provider.\u003C\u002Fp>","","Regpack Data Breach (105 Thousand Reported Records)","Regpack Data Breach. 105 Thousand reported records were reported. Reported data: Browser user agent details, Credit card cvv, Email addresses. Review the…","\u002Fuploads\u002Flogo\u002Fbluesnap_com.webp",false,{"name":39,"sector":40,"country":41,"website":42,"websiteArchiveUrl":33,"websiteStatus":33,"websiteCheckedAt":19},"Regpack","Registration and payment software","United States","regpacks.com"]