4 ms·
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.
by 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 agoIt 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 agoForensics 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.