4 ms·
>No, they are mentioned because they are the criminals who intruded and vandalized the system! "They" are not relevant in any way! "They" are tabloid meat for
by parfe 16y ago
>No, they are mentioned because they are the criminals who intruded and vandalized the system!
"They" are not relevant in any way! "They" are tabloid meat for an internet drama. "They" are a distraction from the fact that a hosting company had piss poor security surrounding the core product. The entire story could be told without mentioning the hackers by name, or providing any biographical information. The only reason to include them is to distract from the real issue.
Replace "16 year old" with Russian, Chinese etc. Yes, vandals are bad. That's not exactly in question. In question is the sheer gall of PHPFog to shift blame to some kids to try and cover their embarrassment.
I think the blog post should be rewritten. Instead any mentions of the hackers should be completely neutral. Then it will be PHPFog getting out there and taking responsibility for their mistakes.
No distraction. No hand waving. And no tabloid drama.
- intended 16y agoAgree - creating a tangible identity to the villain is pulling heat off of PHPFrog. Lets put it this way - a 16 year old kid who got lucky broke their site. If it was anyone with intent, we would not know. This is a case study in how to handle a situation like this. Its brilliantly done, inclusive of the comment where he says "the community is standing by us". Its actually a brilliant brilliant PR piece.