4 ms·

Why not?

by pc2g4d 9y ago

Why not?

rawrmaan 9y ago
It's kind of a ridiculous statement. A counting error is nowhere near is shocking as the initial breach, especially considering it happened after the breach.
- GuB-42 9y ago
  It is bad because not only they let someone in but they don't know what he did despite having recorded everything (or so they said). It means that maybe more is to come.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    Forensics is hard for even companies that are well versed and adept with tech. Evidence suggests that Equifax is not among that group of companies. The number being revised doesn't surprise me. I'd have been surprised if it hadn't been revised. I'd expect additional revision, as the investigation continues and the breach more fully understood. For the record, that doesn't show I support them, nor am I making excuses for them. It's just the opposite. I believe them to be very, very inept - to the point of being incompetent, illsuited, and inexcusable. I expect additional revision, not because that is justified but because they simply suck that bad. I can't think of a breach handled quite this poorly, and that includes my biases from the OPM breach. I'd say the OPM breach was far worse but handled marginally better. Equifax had to work hard to take the crown, but they have managed to edge them out by a narrow margin.
vintageseltzer 9y ago
It's purposefully alarmist. "[Equifax] casually misplace[d] 2.5 million lives" sounds much more dramatic than "Equifax revised their estimate of the number of affected customers by +1.7%."
- kevinh 9y ago
  Or maybe the latter is purposefully anodyne? 2.5 million people is rightfully alarming. 1.7% minimizes the sheer amount of people affected that weren't revealed earlier.
  - paulddraper 9y ago
    I want to be a fly on that wall. "Ah, s--- we got hacked." "How many users?" "145,534,902" "Ouch, that's a lot. Let's say it was 143,000,000." "He he he, nice." --- I've misplaced more bytes in a megabyte.
    - khedoros1 9y ago
      You've misplaced 2.5 million bytes in a megabyte?
      - paulddraper 9y ago
        I've misplaced > 1.7%. E.g. I say one million but it turns out to be 1.05 million.
takeda 9y ago
To me if they make mistake like that is that they most likely try to estimate and don't really know who was affected. If they knew they could simply just exact number of affected people. This explain why their site seem to return randomly who was affected.

Why not?

by pc2g4d 9y ago

Why not?

It's kind of a ridiculous statement. A counting error is nowhere near is shocking as the initial breach, especially considering it happened after the breach.

GuB-42 9y ago
It is bad because not only they let someone in but they don't know what he did despite having recorded everything (or so they said). It means that maybe more is to come.
- KGIII 9y ago
  Forensics is hard for even companies that are well versed and adept with tech. Evidence suggests that Equifax is not among that group of companies. The number being revised doesn't surprise me. I'd have been surprised if it hadn't been revised. I'd expect additional revision, as the investigation continues and the breach more fully understood. For the record, that doesn't show I support them, nor am I making excuses for them. It's just the opposite. I believe them to be very, very inept - to the point of being incompetent, illsuited, and inexcusable. I expect additional revision, not because that is justified but because they simply suck that bad. I can't think of a breach handled quite this poorly, and that includes my biases from the OPM breach. I'd say the OPM breach was far worse but handled marginally better. Equifax had to work hard to take the crown, but they have managed to edge them out by a narrow margin.

vintageseltzer 9y ago

It's purposefully alarmist. "[Equifax] casually misplace[d] 2.5 million lives" sounds much more dramatic than "Equifax revised their estimate of the number of affected customers by +1.7%."

kevinh 9y ago
Or maybe the latter is purposefully anodyne? 2.5 million people is rightfully alarming. 1.7% minimizes the sheer amount of people affected that weren't revealed earlier.
- paulddraper 9y ago
  I want to be a fly on that wall. "Ah, s--- we got hacked." "How many users?" "145,534,902" "Ouch, that's a lot. Let's say it was 143,000,000." "He he he, nice." --- I've misplaced more bytes in a megabyte.
  - khedoros1 9y ago
    You've misplaced 2.5 million bytes in a megabyte?
    - paulddraper 9y ago
      I've misplaced > 1.7%. E.g. I say one million but it turns out to be 1.05 million.

takeda 9y ago

To me if they make mistake like that is that they most likely try to estimate and don't really know who was affected. If they knew they could simply just exact number of affected people. This explain why their site seem to return randomly who was affected.