3 ms·
>> they represent salient, clear examples of the cost of poor information security. I'm seriously flabbergasted that they continue to let this happen. The last
by at-fates-hands 10y ago
>> they represent salient, clear examples of the cost of poor information security.
I'm seriously flabbergasted that they continue to let this happen. The last time you would've thought head would roll, they would batten down the hatches, notify users and be completely proactive in defending against another attack.
To me, it looks like they just said, "Well, fuck it, it won't happen again, why invest the time and money to protect our users?" I'd also point out the breech they're referencing was from 2013 so any data that was pilfered has already been running wild on the underground and been passed around a few thousand times. Another reason it just shows they don't care at all.
After this, no investor should touch this company with a ten foot pole.
- luhn 10y agoAs you mentioned, this breach is from 2013, so no matter how much they've stepped up their infosec game since the last breach the damage was already done. The delay in them discovering the breach isn't that alarming either. If you didn't have systems in place to detect an intrusion, how do you retroactively find one? Companies usually don't find out until law enforcement contacts them or they accidentally stumble across the backdoor. So, does Yahoo still have poor infosec? I'd guess so. But this newest breach isn't evidence of that, it only shows how bad their security was in 2013.