4 ms·
Allowed. They left the back door open for two months. If "good written procedures" weren't followed, what good is that? When carelessness is systemic, where doe
by jkestner 9y ago
Allowed. They left the back door open for two months. If "good written procedures" weren't followed, what good is that? When carelessness is systemic, where does the buck stop? https://www.wired.com/story/equifax-breach-no-excuse/ https://www.wired.com/story/equifax-breach-no-excuse/
I agree that a federal agency barreling into this space is likely to be ineffective, but I'd rather nudge them to build policy with security experts than continue allowing every freaking company to police itself. The latter has proven to be ineffective.
- g051051 9y ago> They left the back door open for two months. There's a difference between "left the back door open for two months" and "the back door was open for two months because the person assigned to verify it was closed told everyone it was". > If "good written procedures" weren't followed, what good is that? How do you know they aren't being followed? How many layers are enough? If a process breaks down, what's your first signal? > allowing every freaking company to police itself. CRAs don't police themselves, they're audited and regulated already.