> I didn't claim they lied. Then why did you say you were "hesitant to take their word at face value"? > Without entering through the front door, any attacker

> I didn't claim they lied. Then why did you say you were "hesitant to take their word at face value"? > Without entering through the front door, any attacker would have had a monumentally more difficult time installing any kind of back door access. Again, read the Bloomberg article for more details...your version doesn't match the facts as reported. > When there are obvious and foolish mistakes being made when the stakes are millions of peoples' personal and irreplaceable identification, then I think negligence is a fair term. What "obvious and foolish mistakes"? A single failure to patch a single vulnerability? Equifax receives a vulnerability report. They do their process to apply the fix. They get the messages back from the project teams that it's done. They run the scan to verify, and it comes back green. Where's the negligence? I know the process didn't work, but that's a hindsight thing...how can you tell something like that is broken unless it breaks? > Re: not telling users they were affected Per the article, they weren't "not telling people" as in, withholding information. The messaging was poor, but they weren't intentionally misleading anyone. > Re: continued negligence in the response Incompetent, maybe. But that article doesn't reference any negligent behavior. > Re: signalling of Equifax's possible intentions through the fallout And idiot opinion piece with no basis in fact. It's clear that none of the B.S. predicted there has come true in the 4 months since it was written.