[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"$f1aentrzwqyuip":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":26,"seoTitle":27,"seoTitleEn":28,"seoDescription":27,"seoDescriptionEn":29,"logoUrl":30,"isVerified":4,"isSensitive":31,"isSpamList":31,"isMalware":31,"company":32},"68e3266eda11adda488253c5","Tianya","Tianya 2011 Data Breach","tianya","tianya.cn","2011-12-26T00:00:00.000Z","2016-06-30T03:39:05.000Z","2026-07-21T17:31:28.247Z","Verified breach record","http:\u002F\u002Fthehackernews.com\u002F2011\u002F12\u002Ftianya-chinas-biggest-online-forum-40.html",[15],29020808,"known",null,"unknown","Critical",[23,24,25],"Email addresses","Names","Usernames","\u003Cp>\u003Cstrong>The Tianya data breach\u003C\u002Fstrong> is associated with an unauthorized-access incident affecting the Chinese online forum Tianya on December 26, 2011. The verified scope contains 29,020,808 user records. It lists a limited set of data classes: email addresses, names, and usernames. The size of the event deserves attention, but a match alone does not show that an account remains active today, that every profile detail was seen, or that the same person was affected at another service.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Forum membership often combines a screen name, a personal email address, and visibility within a community. For that reason, even three limited fields can make targeted contact more convincing when placed beside other public details. The record does not list passwords, payment-card information, phone numbers, or physical addresses. That boundary matters when assessing risk: care is appropriate, but unverified data types must not be treated as present.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>Exposed Data Types and Risks\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>The verified data types are email addresses, names, and usernames. An email address can be an account contact point, while a name and username can make it easier to connect a person across forums, social networks, or older memberships. An attacker may use those details to imitate a password-reset notice, a forum-administrator message, or a community announcement.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Having these fields in the same record does not mean that every profile detail was obtained for every person. Some members may have registered only a username, while others supplied a name or email address. Field coverage needs to be assessed at row level. A username is particularly useful for correlation when the same identifier appears unchanged at other services, where it can help connect public profiles or old comments.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Passwords are not among the verified classes. A match in this event therefore does not prove that a current password was exposed. Even so, an email address and username can be combined with details from older events to make login alerts, support requests, or account-verification messages look more credible. The main risk is the personal context that limited fields can create together.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>Verified Scope and Limits\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>The canonical figure on this page is 29,020,808 records, and the associated date is December 26, 2011. Contemporary reporting referred to tens of millions of members, but that does not mean every source used an identical measure. The record count represents a verified email scope; it is not a complete census of the forum's membership at that time, its active-user count, or the population of internet users in China.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Tianya was an online forum, and this event is associated with that one forum service. This page does not merge separate incidents under the same name. An email address or username may appear in another event, but that does not expand the scope of this one. A person's presence in the record is not proof that a specific post, comment, or profile page was also obtained.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>The verified fields do not establish an attack technique, password-hash format, private-message content, or financial information. Those details should not be stated as facts without reliable evidence. The date identifies the period associated with the event; by itself, it does not show when an account was last used or when the data first appeared online. Risk should be interpreted within those limits.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>Users at Elevated Risk\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>People who have used the same username at multiple services for years may be easier to identify. When a forum alias also appears on a social network, game account, or professional community profile, the link between an email address and a name can be easier to make. This does not prove an account compromise, but it can increase the credibility of personalized phishing and impersonation attempts.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Older email addresses that are no longer used actively should not be ignored. A person may have forgotten an old forum membership while the same mailbox still serves as a recovery address for newer accounts. People with access to such a mailbox should review security notices, recovery settings, and unfamiliar sessions with particular care.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Members who shared a real name or location inside a community may have left more context than people using only an alias. However, the verified classes do not include physical addresses or phone numbers. It is therefore not accurate to claim direct physical targeting or detailed identity information for every member. Each match needs to be considered in its own limited data context.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>Immediate Protective Actions\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>People who still use the same email address should first review the mailbox password and multi-factor authentication settings. Because this event has no password class, changing every password solely due to a match is not an automatic conclusion. The email account remains a recovery point for other services, though, so a unique password and current recovery details deserve immediate attention.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Be cautious with unexpected messages presented as Tianya, a forum administrator, or an old-membership notice. Before opening a link, check the sender domain, the action requested, and the actual sign-in address separately. To confirm an unfamiliar alert, go directly to the known official address of the service instead of using the link supplied in the message.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>When the same username or email address is used elsewhere, confirm that passwords differ between those accounts. Remove access when account settings show an unfamiliar session, forwarding rule, recovery address, or connected device. When a suspicious action appears, contact the relevant service through its official support channel and retain the security notice.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>Long-Term Security Practices\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>Using a long, unique password for every online service limits the later impact of old forum breaches. A password manager can reduce reuse and help keep strong credentials. Where multi-factor authentication is available, an authenticator application or hardware key is preferable; text-message codes add protection but do not remove every deception risk.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Username privacy is also part of a lasting defense. Choosing separate aliases for different communities instead of using the same screen name everywhere makes automatic correlation across public profiles harder. Review visible names, profile biographies, and public contact details in old forum profiles. Removing unneeded details leaves less context for later targeting attempts.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>Continue reviewing email-account security at regular intervals. Recovery phone numbers, secondary email addresses, connected sessions, and forwarding rules need to stay current. Keep account alerts enabled where practical and investigate unfamiliar sign-in attempts promptly. These habits are useful not only for a Tianya match, but for every old or current online membership.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Ch2>Record Check and User Action\u003C\u002Fh2>\u003Cp>Use the record check on this page to see whether your email address matches the Tianya event. A match means that the address appears in the verified scope; it does not prove that a password was seen, that every field was present in your row, or that a current account was compromised. Treat the result as a personal risk signal for account security and unexpected contact.\u003C\u002Fp>\u003Cp>If there is no match, it can still be useful to recall older mailboxes, differently written usernames, and memberships that are no longer in use. No match is not a guarantee that no personal information exists elsewhere online. Strong passwords, multi-factor authentication, routine account review, and independent confirmation of suspicious messages remain the most reliable approach.\u003C\u002Fp>","","Tianya 2011 Data Breach (29 Million Reported Records)","Tianya 2011 Data Breach. 29 Million reported records were reported. Reported data: Email addresses, Names, Usernames. Review the scope, risks, and protective…","\u002Fuploads\u002Flogo\u002Ftianya_cn.webp",false,{"name":7,"sector":33,"country":34,"website":10,"websiteArchiveUrl":27,"websiteStatus":27,"websiteCheckedAt":19},"Social Media","China"]