Clustered 3 filings across 3 jurisdictions · filing window Aug 27, 2025 → Oct 22, 2025. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_9c32e3b4efa54455 · merge_method deterministic · confidence 100%
Discovered → first regulatory filing
Range of discovered_at dates across filings
IN NH VT
Time between earliest and latest filing
Not recorded for this incident
Leak precedence · Materiality delta · SEC filing delay — no leak-site claim in this cluster; no SEC 8-K in this cluster.
all State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Jan 5, 2025
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Mar 12, 2025
Reported by VERMONT AG, NEW HAMPSHIRE AG filings
Shiftster LLC dba ESHYFT reported a data breach to the Indiana Attorney General. The breach occurred on 2025-01-05 and was reported on 2025-08-27. 74 Indiana residents were affected. 3,673 individuals affected in total.
Affected (this filing): 3,673
Shiftster LLC (dba ESHYFT) notified consumers of a March 2025 unauthorized access to an AWS S3 bucket. Data potentially exposed included names, DOBs, addresses, VINs, and certain health information. No SSN was impacted. The incident was discovered via a 'cyber security researcher' notification. No evidence of misuse was found.
Shiftster LLC, owner of the ESHYFT nursing staffing platform, disclosed a data security incident involving an unauthorized AWS S3 bucket access. The incident, first reported by a 'cyber security researcher' on Jan 6, 2025, resulted in the exposure of personal and health information for at least one New Hampshire resident. Affected data included names, DOBs, addresses, VINs, driver's license numbers, and health info. Shiftster secured the bucket and offered credit monitoring.
Affected (this filing): 1
About this clustering
DisclosureLens links filings into incidents through layered matchers: deterministic rules (same source document, multistate filings of one breach, tight-window same-victim pairs), a weighted-similarity scorer for cross-source candidates, and an operator review queue for everything uncertain. Each link records its own method and confidence — shown per filing in the timeline below. The system defaults to NOT merging when uncertain, because a false merge (collapsing two unrelated breaches) is more harmful than a false split (showing related filings separately); uncertain pairs route to human review instead of auto-merging. Filing summaries shown in the timeline are AI-generated extracts — verify each against its linked source.