The Clorox vs. Cognizant case uncovers an uncomfortable truth: sophisticated hackers aren’t always necessary to unleash chaos; sometimes, all it takes is a convincing voice and weak procedures.
A multinational corporation, a phone call, and $380 million in losses. This isn’t the script of a movie but the stark reality that has put Clorox’s reputation on the line and triggered one of the most impactful lawsuits of the year in the tech sector. It all started with something as routine as a call to support.
The incident, which occurred in 2023 but still has lingering consequences, exposes a less glamorous but dangerously common aspect of cybersecurity: blind trust in poorly defined procedures and external vendors without adequate oversight. The victim was Clorox, a major player in cleaning products. The defendant, Cognizant, its technical support provider. The mistake? Granting access to an attacker without verifying anything.
An open castle door
According to the lawsuit filed in California, a malicious actor impersonated an employee and called the help desk. The recorded conversation, which is included as evidence, is chilling:
— “I don’t have a password, so I can’t log in.”
— “Okay, okay. Let me give you the password, alright?”
Without authentication, basic checks, or questions—just a new password and direct access to the corporate network. The attacker acquired key credentials, even from security staff, and from there, unleashed a sabotage chain that shut down Clorox’s operations for weeks. The losses? $50 million just in remediation, with hundreds more due to logistical and production disruptions.
Technology without processes, a ticking bomb
Cognizant’s mistake wasn’t technological. There was no malware, advanced phishing, or exploitation techniques. It was trust, negligence, and a lack of control. A perfect storm that reveals an uncomfortable truth: many major cybersecurity issues don’t stem from technical vulnerabilities but from poorly defined or poorly executed human procedures.
Clorox’s internal protocol mandated that for password resets, a secure tool must be used and the requester verified. But this wasn’t followed. The result has been a $380 million lawsuit and reputational damage that will take years to repair.
Where does cybersecurity begin?
Not in firewalls, SIEMs, or SOCs. It begins with something as simple as teaching support operators that a phone call shouldn’t be enough to hand over the keys to the castle.
This case serves as a reminder for the tech industry: cybersecurity isn’t just about technology but about culture. Outsourcing critical services like support without enforcing training, audits, and strict protocols is akin to leaving a copy of the keys under the doormat. Sooner or later, someone will find it.
Final reflection
In an era where artificial intelligence and predictive models dominate headlines, Clorox’s downfall wasn’t caused by a malicious supermachine but by a lack of basic questions. The attacker didn’t need code or exploits—only to sound convincing.
And sadly, that’s still enough to wreak havoc on far too many organizations.
A single call was enough. Are your processes prepared to withstand it?
Source: Cybersecurity News