3 ms·
> allow unauthorized people to make spurious changes via their systems and security practices? I don't follow. Who's the unauthorized party that's "allowed" t
by g051051 9y ago
> allow unauthorized people to make spurious changes via their systems and security practices?
I don't follow. Who's the unauthorized party that's "allowed" to make spurious changes via their systems and security practices?
- rhizome 9y agoThose who use the holes in their infrastructure, did you see the story about a database being accessible with default credentials? There is some question of scope for that particular issue, but it bodes duplication in the company's practices elsewhere.
- g051051 9y agoYou mean the web site that didn't have any non-public data, and was actually not in active use for 3 years? I agree that was sloppy, but the site didn't have the level of security requirements that one of the main sites or their internal network had. Do you put a $100 lock on a $5 bike? And how was this "allow[ing] unauthorized people to make spurious changes"? No data was changed in the breach.