3 ms·
There could be whistleblower protections for hackers. Consider the previous attitude was hackers are causing millions of dollars of damage and need to be thrown
by AJ007 7y ago
There could be whistleblower protections for hackers. Consider the previous attitude was hackers are causing millions of dollars of damage and need to be thrown in prison. With the proliferation of state sponsored and counter intelligence hacking over the past 15 years, no one believes you can make anything secure just by throwing enough teenage script kiddies in federal prison.
The reverse now is companies are taking the blame and legal liability for being negligent in their security practices.
That said, no organization public or private is impervious. Heartbleed and meltdown should have driven that home to anyone who thinks otherwise. Determining where the line of negligence lays will be a harder one to draw, though for civil liability it may not even matter (which is great for Google, Apple, and death for small businesses.)
- bigtunacan 7y agoWhile nothing is impervious that really has nothing to do with Equifax. Equifax is a case of gross negligence and malfeasance. There were no less than three security audits of Equifax going back as early as 2014. Every audit indicated major security vulnerabilities and Smith disregarded these audits each time.
- dmix 7y agoWho was paying for the security reviews if they were just going to be ignored? Some management or regulatory process?
- bigtunacan 7y agoA little bit of both. Equifax (and other credit reporting agencies) are subject to an annual audit from the SEC. There were issues being raised from the SEC with Equifax's processes going back to at least 2012. Ernst & Young also had a responsibility of oversight for Equifax's security practices due to acting as Equifax's primary independent auditor with regards to shareholder reporting. Additionally, Equifax then paid on three separate occasions for external security audits at the direction of upper management (one specifically directed by Smith where the auditors were specifically directed to report the results only to Smith). I haven't seen enough information to give a positive answer, but only to make conjecture that the external audits were driven by outside pressures; likely coming from the SEC. So the audits were performed, but this was essentially just a formality and management largely disregarded the audit findings.
- jfengel 7y agoAre they actually worse than other companies? Or were they just the ones who got caught at it?