3 ms·
I was referring to the comment above which was microsoft's description, saying there was no evidence of any data being stolen - because there couldn't be any be
by jonplackett 7y ago
I was referring to the comment above which was microsoft's description, saying there was no evidence of any data being stolen - because there couldn't be any because there was no logging. So I was saying microsoft's claim was not the whole truth, the truth is that they just don't know, not that there was no evidence, because there could not be any evidence.
- netsharc 7y agoI wouldn't be so definite about "there was no logging". I was just speculating. If they do have logging, then maybe they are sure that no one illegally got their data (but if that was the case, I would expect a sentence with more confidence). There's been a lot of news along the lines of "We found an unsecured database of voters, and we don't even know who owns it", now those idiots I'd be more sure that they didn't turn on logging. With Microsoft, I'd believe them a bit more, because they'd be afraid of getting busted for using weasel sentences.
- ryanlol 7y agoHow do you know there was no logging? Linux distros log by default, as does elasticsearch. Most networking setups also keep some sort of BW usage logs. Unless you have some insider knowledge it sounds like you’re full of shit. If you’re going to claim that they’ve deliberately turned off all logging, you’ll need to show some evidence. (Or at the very least claim that you have some!)
- jonplackett 7y agoSeems like i've misinterpreted the previous comment, and then had my misinterpretation misinterpreted for good measure. Ah well.