In the digital age, applications and platforms are now heavily tied to personal and financial security.

The nightmare of cyber theft could be a reality on days we least expect it.

For one unsuspecting pensioner, this nightmare became a harrowing ordeal.

A 74-year-old Queensland woman, who remained anonymous, faced the devastating prospect of losing nearly all her life savings due to a series of unauthorised withdrawals.

Scammers drained a staggering $406,000 from her AustralianSuper account.

These transactions occurred days before a massive hack affected some of Australia's most significant superannuation funds.

The coordinated cyber attack targeted industry giants, including AustralianSuper, REST, Australian Retirement Trust, Hostplus, and MLC Expand.

A woman, who refused to identify herself, lost majority of her savings in a separate cyberattack. Image Credit: Pexels/Kaboompics.com

Over a week, which started on 20 March, six withdrawals were made from the pensioner's account.

The alarm bells only rang when she received letters from AustralianSuper, which confirmed two substantial withdrawals.

When AustralianSuper contacted her on 28 March, 90 per cent of her savings had already vanished.

While AustralianSuper froze her account, the damage had been done.

The woman's distressing situation highlighted the vulnerability of personal and financial information and the importance of protecting it.

AustralianSuper, which has confirmed member losses after the recent cyberattack, has assured the pensioner that her account would go back to its original state.

AustralianSuper's Chief Member Officer, Rose Kerlin, personally reached out to the victim and expressed regret over the distress caused by the criminal attack.

'And we have spoken to her again on Monday to confirm her account is back to the position it would have been had the fraudulent activity not occurred,' Ms Kerlin said in an interview.

'AustralianSuper's policy on these issues is decided 'on a case-by-case basis. We have now thoroughly investigated the incidents in which money was transacted out of a member's account, and all of those are being remediated.'

'AustralianSuper is deeply sorry about the distress caused by this criminal attack, and we are working with affected members to help protect their accounts,' Ms Kerlin added.

However, the senior lady's experience was not an isolated case.

AustralianSuper member Samantha Burns reported a similar experience and alerted the fund about suspicious activities in her account as early as late February.

Despite assurances that the issue was being addressed, concerns still arose about security measures placed by super funds.

The fund took action upon noticing a spike in suspicious activity and has reported the incident to various authorities, including the police and the Australian Cyber Security Centre.

Other funds affected by the cyber heist also secured their members' accounts.

REST recently shut down its member access portal.

Meanwhile, MLC Expand urged their customers to reset their passwords.

In a previous article, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese acknowledged the cyber attack on super funds and cited its frequency in Australia.

Here are some steps you can take now to protect your finances, especially your superannuation:

• Regularly change your passwords and ensure they are strong and unique.
• Monitor your accounts frequently for any unauthorised transactions.
• Set up multi-factor authentication where available for an added layer of security.
• Be wary of phishing emails or suspicious messages that ask for personal information.
• Keep your software and antivirus protection up to date.
• Contact your super fund immediately if you notice anything amiss.

While the government is preparing for a response to prevent these attacks, this incident should be a reminder that seniors' financial well-being could be compromised in the blink of an eye.

Key Takeaways

• A pensioner nearly lost her life savings when $406,000 was fraudulently withdrawn from her AustralianSuper account days before a massive cyber hack.
• The coordinated cyber attack targeted several significant superannuation funds.
• AustralianSuper confirmed that the affected members' accounts would be remediated.
• Superfunds have since then taken measures to protect member accounts and respond to suspicious activities in light of the cyberattack.

Have you checked your super fund lately? If you have experienced similar issues recently or have tips on protecting your finances, please share your insights in the comments below.

 

[Zemo]

The lead-in line said she lost it before the attack; head here says she lost it after.
Also, the story says she hasn't lost any money after all after the head serang contacted her.
Pardon?
Bloody proofreaders!

 

[RealityCheck]

Some of the funds mentioned do not have 2 factor identification available. I have it with my Super company, & though it takes a bit longer to receive & enter the extra numbers, I think it's worth it.

And has anyone else noticed a spike in facebook messenger requests from "friends" saying "Hey, what's your number?" Don't fall for that! Then they can clone your phone account & receive the SMS code number for the 2 factor ID.

 

[Veggiepatch]

Hackers and scammers will always be one step ahead of cybersecurity, regardless of what measures are taken.

Close one vulnerability and they will find another.

It's like banging your head against a brick wall!

 

[Catherines]

The lead-in line said she lost it before the attack; head here says she lost it after.
Also, the story says she hasn't lost any money after all after the head serang contacted her.
Pardon?
Bloody proofreaders!

No need to criticise anyone with abusive words.

 

[Catherines]

My husband checks our super & bank balances EVERY day. That way we can keep on top of any sudden withdrawals. Anything unusual we will be informing bank or superfund as soon as noticed so there is no delay in them finding out - like days or weeks later. And with super we are paid a certain amount every month (under the system we are with in super we cannot make any extra withdrawals during the month) so there should be no unusual deductions.

 

[Zemo]

No need to criticise anyone with abusive words.

I used to be a bloody proofreader (for around 45 years), so I know a bit of what I'm talking about. That was what was always said when a blue slipped through.
But I doubt very much whether SDC uses proofies, so I guess I'm pretty safe in repeating the old saying. These days, they probably depend on the ubiquitous spellchecker, as I'm sure most "news"papers and the cretiniser "news" staff would do.

 

[Catherines]

Have a look at my comments further on.

 

[Catherines]

I used to be a bloody proofreader (for around 45 years), so I know a bit of what I'm talking about. That was what was always said when a blue slipped through.
But I doubt very much whether SDC uses proofies, so I guess I'm pretty safe in repeating the old saying. These days, they probably depend on the ubiquitous spellchecker, as I'm sure most "news"papers and the cretiniser "news" staff would do.

There are always mistakes made in every situation (including the US ‘spell-checker’s version of English spelling! and everything we do on our computers), but EX-proof reader or not there is no reason for you to be offensive in your words.

I’m now going to pull you up on your 45 years of proof-reading EXPERTISE and knowledge!! As a proof-reader (or rather an EX proof-reader) have a look at your above comment. A new paragraph always has a blank line between the first and next paragraph and you missed that!!

Just remember there is no need for abuse by or to anyone on this site. Opinions yes, but not in an abusive manner.

 

[Zemo]

There are always mistakes made in every situation (including the US ‘spell-checker’s version of English spelling! and everything we do on our computers), but EX-proof reader or not there is no reason for you to be offensive in your words.

I’m now going to pull you up on your 45 years of proof-reading EXPERTISE and knowledge!! As a proof-reader (or rather an EX proof-reader) have a look at your above comment. A new paragraph always has a blank line between the first and next paragraph and you missed that!!

Just remember there is no need for abuse by or to anyone on this site. Opinions yes, but not in an abusive manner.

Please tell me why a blank line is de rigueur between pars? It could be a style usage for the publication you're working for. Some do, some don't.
I'm sorry, but didn't the lead-in line say before and didn't the text following say after? Any proofreader worth his/her/its salt would have picked that up immediately.
I could be wrong there, but what's abusive or offensive about that? Pointing out mistakes shows that mistakes have been made and that somebody noticed them. A lot of people wouldn't have seen them, but that's their worry, not mine. Why shouldn't they be brought to notice?
If SDC uses proofies, I apologise profusely -- except I will say that, if they do, they're not doing a very good job.
Please tell me if you reckon they are.
If it doesn't use them, where's the offensive/abusive angle? Who's going to get their nose out of joint?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but does SDC use proofies?

 

[Catherines]

Please tell me why a blank line is de rigueur between pars? It could be a style usage for the publication you're working for. Some do, some don't.
I'm sorry, but didn't the lead-in line say before and didn't the text following say after? Any proofreader worth his/her/its salt would have picked that up immediately.
I could be wrong there, but what's abusive or offensive about that? Pointing out mistakes shows that mistakes have been made and that somebody noticed them. A lot of people wouldn't have seen them, but that's their worry, not mine. Why shouldn't they be brought to notice?
If SDC uses proofies, I apologise profusely -- except I will say that, if they do, they're not doing a very good job.
Please tell me if you reckon they are.
If it doesn't use them, where's the offensive/abusive angle? Who's going to get their nose out of joint?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but does SDC use proofies?

You are trying to confuse with the words ‘de rigueur’ but I do know you mean ‘strictly’ (or in this case the strict usage of space between paragraphs). The abuse I referred to were the words ‘bloody proofreaders’ and now you want to apologise to SDC because you have been brought to task.

We are being asked for our thoughts on articles on this site but we are not asked for offensive language. Surely we can be more civil and if something rubs us up the wrong way we should share those thoughts with our partners, family or friends in the privacy of our own homes. I don’t wish to say anything more here but to thank you for apologising to SDC and it’s proof readers. Things do get missed or overlooked sometimes BY EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US, including me, as no one is perfect but . . . let’s be civil.

 

[Cheezil]

Some of the funds mentioned do not have 2 factor identification available. I have it with my Super company, & though it takes a bit longer to receive & enter the extra numbers, I think it's worth it.

And has anyone else noticed a spike in facebook messenger requests from "friends" saying "Hey, what's your number?" Don't fall for that! Then they can clone your phone account & receive the SMS code number for the 2 factor ID.

Thanks for the heads up! Cunning bstds

 

[Cheezil]

Leaves little faith in !
Glad this person's balance was restored at least & rightly so!

 

[Radiant]

Terribly worrying and just hope that I’m taking all security I can to guard against such an upsetting event. I think we are all aware of the possibility and hope we remain protected

 

[Zemo]

You are trying to confuse with the words ‘de rigueur’ but I do know you mean ‘strictly’ (or in this case the strict usage of space between paragraphs). The abuse I referred to were the words ‘bloody proofreaders’ and now you want to apologise to SDC because you have been brought to task.

We are being asked for our thoughts on articles on this site but we are not asked for offensive language. Surely we can be more civil and if something rubs us up the wrong way we should share those thoughts with our partners, family or friends in the privacy of our own homes. I don’t wish to say anything more here but to thank you for apologising to SDC and it’s proof readers. Things do get missed or overlooked sometimes BY EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US, including me, as no one is perfect but . . . let’s be civil.

Wow! If you take offence at the phrase "bloody proofreaders", then I can only say you have a much more delicate outlook on life than I have.
You must admit that some utterances that appear in these pages contain far worse words than the ones I used, both in meaning and sentiment.
Perhaps you missed the point that when "bloody proofreaders" was heard, it was universally used by people in the game I was in when a mistake was seen. The "game" I refer to was newspapers and the phrase was par for the course when a literal inadvertently appeared in the pages.
If anybody is confused at "de rigueur", then that's why the goddess made dictionaries.
As far as being brought to task apologising to SDC and "'it's" (your spelling) proofreaders are concerned, why should I? I'll say it again: anybody worth his/her/its salt who called himself/herself/itself a proofreader would have picked it up instantly and the obvious mistakes would not have passed. The fact that they did leads me to the conclusion that the SDC doesn't employ proofies, but that's OK, that's their choice, although it does deny somebody filling a much-needed job these days.
Here's another old saying in the newspaper racket: "if I had proofreaders who let something like that through, I wouldn't feed the b*****ds", meaning that it would be inexcusable for somebody who called himself/herself/itself a proofreader to use those words in that sense.
I hope the appearance of asterisks there didn't upset you too much. I'n sure you can work out what the word is. If not, get someone to translate it for you.
I used the word "its" there deliberately: in these gender-inclusive days somebody might take offence because their gender was being called into question and their sensibilities might get upset.
Another point that you mentioned: when I'm writing, I don't use spaces between pars for the very good reason that I don't have to. If somebody's house style demands it, then that's their prerogative, not mine. If I happened to be getting paid to proofread it, I would adhere to the style. If I'wasn't, I'd ignore it. They can insert all the line spacing and par spacing they want, if that's their style. It ain't no epidermis off my proboscis.
Another: some house styles demand that a space of some kind is used before the starting point in a sentence in a new par. That doesn't worry me, either.

 

[Catherines]

Wow! If you take offence at the phrase "bloody proofreaders", then I can only say you have a much more delicate outlook on life than I have.
You must admit that some utterances that appear in these pages contain far worse words than the ones I used, both in meaning and sentiment.
Perhaps you missed the point that when "bloody proofreaders" was heard, it was universally used by people in the game I was in when a mistake was seen. The "game" I refer to was newspapers and the phrase was par for the course when a literal inadvertently appeared in the pages.
If anybody is confused at "de rigueur", then that's why the goddess made dictionaries.
As far as being brought to task apologising to SDC and "'it's" (your spelling) proofreaders are concerned, why should I? I'll say it again: anybody worth his/her/its salt who called himself/herself/itself a proofreader would have picked it up instantly and the obvious mistakes would not have passed. The fact that they did leads me to the conclusion that the SDC doesn't employ proofies, but that's OK, that's their choice, although it does deny somebody filling a much-needed job these days.
Here's another old saying in the newspaper racket: "if I had proofreaders who let something like that through, I wouldn't feed the b*****ds", meaning that it would be inexcusable for somebody who called himself/herself/itself a proofreader to use those words in that sense.
I hope the appearance of asterisks there didn't upset you too much. I'n sure you can work out what the word is. If not, get someone to translate it for you.
I used the word "its" there deliberately: in these gender-inclusive days somebody might take offence because their gender was being called into question and their sensibilities might get upset.
Another point that you mentioned: when I'm writing, I don't use spaces between pars for the very good reason that I don't have to. If somebody's house style demands it, then that's their prerogative, not mine. If I happened to be getting paid to proofread it, I would adhere to the style. If I'wasn't, I'd ignore it. They can insert all the line spacing and par spacing they want, if that's their style. It ain't no epidermis off my proboscis.
Another: some house styles demand that a space of some kind is used before the starting point in a sentence in a new par. That doesn't worry me, either.

Great!!!