2 ms·
That's proof of a security breach, not proof of "a complete disregard for the secure storage and transport of sensitive financial and PII of a large swath of th
by g051051 8y ago
That's proof of a security breach, not proof of "a complete disregard for the secure storage and transport of sensitive financial and PII of a large swath of the American public".
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- AlexCoventry 8y agoISTR the details of the exploit have been reported, and relied on a known vulnerability which they had failed to patch, despite ample opportunity. I could be wrong, though.
- g051051 8y agoThis article from Bloomberg has the best and least clickbait reporting on the breach: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-09-29/the-equifax-hack-has-all-the-hallmarks-of-state-sponsored-pros https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-09-29/the-equif.... While it's true that the breach entry can be attributed to an unpatched vulnerability, it was unpatched due to a process failure, not a "complete disregard for the secure storage and transport of sensitive financial and PII" as the other poster claimed. According to the article, Equifax processed the vulnerability: they got notification and applied the update. But their process was flawed and missed at least one spot, and that was their undoing. Saying "they had failed to patch, despite ample opportunity" implies they knew about the issue and ignored it, which is not the case.