4 ms·
I struggle to understand why the sudden influx of new users would affect these security problems in any way. OK, more people are affected, but the problems are
by tobr 7y ago
I struggle to understand why the sudden influx of new users would affect these security problems in any way. OK, more people are affected, but the problems are surely the same regardless of how many users they have.
To me it just comes across as an attempt to deliberately confuse the issue.
- organsnyder 7y agoThey address this specifically in the article: > Dedicated journalists and security researchers have also helped to identify pre-existing ones. Sure, you could translate that as "more eyeballs have uncovered our sloppy security" if you'd like, but it doesn't strike me as dishonest.
- jtdev 7y agoThis is cunning PR diversionary bullshit.
- edoceo 7y agoNot cunning; it's a low effort hand wave. The rest is true.
- EForEndeavour 7y agoIf a team of career PR folks meticulously iterating on the precise wording of this message to frame the narrative in their favour doesn't count as "cunning" to you, I don't know what would.
- NateEag 7y agoI believe "cunning" is not about intent, but the action's effectiveness. As an attempt to mislead or imply that there are no problems here, this is pretty much a failure, and thus not at all cunning.
- EForEndeavour 7y agoThat feels backwards. One can certainly intend to be cunning!
- NateEag 7y agoIf you can intend and fail to be cunning, then the word's meaning must not be defined by the subject's intent.
- dang 7y agoMaybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN. Especially not ones that are just denunciatory. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- msla 7y agoIt reminds me of a common troll: "If Linux had as many users as Windows 95, it would be just as buggy!" Never thought I'd see it flipped around like this.
- mbesto 7y agoThis is what was said: > For the past several weeks, supporting this influx of users has been a tremendous undertaking and our sole focus. We have strived to provide you with uninterrupted service and the same user-friendly experience that has made Zoom the video-conferencing platform of choice for enterprises around the world, while also ensuring platform safety, privacy, and security. However, we recognize that we have fallen short of the community’s – and our own – privacy and security expectations. Now, putting this into context as a software development team. Let's say your security/privacy team says "we really need to patch this CVE we found" and your infrastructure team says "we really need to re-architect this one area so we can handle more users". Given that Zoom has likely just doubled its user base (which means more revenue), where do you think management is going to spend its time? This is coupled with the fact that a company with a ridiculous influx of users is going to be a higher value target. Security/privacy isn't going to move the needle in terms of revenue, but infrastructure is. It's a matter of contention of focus.
- jospoortvliet 7y agoAll reasonable if the company wasn't 8 years old, had 2500 employees and a turn-over of 600 million. They invested clearly near nothing in security over the last years. The extra scrutiny showed that, but it didn't CAUSE it.