3 ms·
I know you're saying this in jest, but that's the calculus. The outcome here shows that executives made the right call. The $5MM fee was easily paid, less tha
by mywittyname 5y ago
I know you're saying this in jest, but that's the calculus.
The outcome here shows that executives made the right call. The $5MM fee was easily paid, less than the costs of security, and the insurance company will probably cover it anyway. And the government/people were so outraged that the attackers were met with fucking swift justice.
The company will probably get some grants or something to cover the cost of "securing their infrastructure." Never let a good crisis go to waste.
- pixl97 5y agoWhich is why the company needs a significant fine for failing to secure infrastructure.
- rebuilder 5y agoI wasn't really saying it in jest. The ";)" was more of an "oh, the horror" signifier, meaning I don't really think it's great that the cost-benefit analysis here is so short-sighted. Any employee choosing to spend millions to avoid the cost of a heretofore unencountered cyberattack would be making a strategic decision, while probably not being empowered to make decisions at that level. So they do not take action. Bureaucracies do not take visionary action. They stay the course.