4 ms·

So, the scuttlebutt last time was that they disclosed the hack due to a potential Verizon buyout forcing their hand. Seems as though this could be the same thin

by hbosch 10y ago

So, the scuttlebutt last time was that they disclosed the hack due to a potential Verizon buyout forcing their hand. Seems as though this could be the same thing, generally speaking. Can anyone enlighten me as to how Verizon compels Yahoo to disclose this information? Or rather, how does Verizon know about these intrusions, if they do?

rqebmm 10y ago
It's most likely just part of the due-diligence required for the merger. Yahoo brass probably decided that publicizing this information wasn't worth the PR hit, and so they buried it, but Verizon doesn't want to take on the risk of a potential lawsuit, so their lawyers required Yahoo to disclose it if they want the deal to go through.
fencepost 10y ago
I believe in this case Yahoo wasn't previously aware of the hack - they were notified by law enforcement, which presumably found a file of the information somewhere during an investigation. There was enough info to let them ID a time period, but nothing that lets them know the who/how of the breach.
mobilefriendly 10y ago
Some states like CA have a legal requirement to notify in the event of a breach, so hiding this event is illegal.
- manarth 10y ago
  The article is from Yahoo, it's a notification from Yahoo, announced by their head of security. They're not hiding the event.
  - empath75 10y ago
    Seems like they hid it for a few years.