5 ms·

Dude, if you look at Equifaxes and Solarwinds EBITDA/earnings statements following their respective breaches, you will clearly see that there has been no major

• CyberRage 5y ago
  That doesn't mean anything. in such a year their products should have flown off the shelves. Remote monitoring\management? in COVID year? just 3.5% that's horrendous
  • faeyanpiraat 5y ago
    Are you sure about that? The customers who had experience with remote work and already knew that SW products would help them in this situation was a fixed number. The number of companies who had no clue about how to do remote work, and after haphazardly had to switch to it may still have no idea that you need to use products provided by SW. Also do you really need any of that to do remote work? Of course not.
    • CyberRage 5y ago
      I'm sorry but I have pretty good info about SW. I can tell things are rough there. More than anything, it proved that their model is flawed. Just the number of gov agencies that are forced to stop working with them is a major blow.
      • faeyanpiraat 5y ago
        You missed my point. I agree they are not doing well, but I also do not see why they should’ve, even if the breach didn’t happen.
• awsthro00945 5y ago
  >Dude, if you look at Equifaxes and Solarwinds EBITDA/earnings statements following their respective breaches, you will clearly see that there has been no major impact to their bottom line. I'm looking at Equifax's 2018 statements right now. With Operating Revenue of $3.4 billion and profits of $850 million, they had $400 million of expenses related to the breach. "No major impact" my ass.
  • karmelapple 5y ago
    Roughly 10% of revenue is something, but not that big of a deal, especially since their overall revenue is up. Don’t you think stronger consequences than that should happen when a company unintentionally discloses tens of millions of people’s personally identifiable information that has been collected without any particularly explicit permission given by those people? Credit agencies hold a special place in the US economy, and when they messed up this badly, the team threat of some near-going-out-of-business level consequences seem like the only way to truly get other companies to take this seriously. Especially considering that there are other credit agencies in the country - they don’t have a monopoly on this.
    • chillwaves 5y ago
      Their business model is weaponizing this information against consumers. They work for the businesses that do lending, not for the recipients of the loans. And you would think that given their one job is to supposedly safeguard this info, the consequences would be more severe or we would re-think this entire business model of consumer credit, but our society is not capable of that kind of consumer advocacy. Likely due to some powerful interest's bottomline.
  • genmud 5y ago
    If you compare year over year, many of the things they attribute to the breach are actually just IT/overhead costs they were able to shift to a loss. If you look at their EBITDA, everything is essentially static. In the grand scheme of things, it really isn't a huge impact to them. Lets say you are a CEO: If you underspend on technology/security by ~50-100m/year, for 5 or 10 years... then have a bad breach, which costs you 400m, what do you get? A: A Ferrari, because you saved the company 500m dollars and got a cyber insurer to pay for your technology/security program. I'm not even joking you, I have been in meetings with a CEO, CIO and CISO, where they literally joked around that they should have more breaches because they actually made money on the intrusion and that they were able to upgrade a bunch of stuff they were planning on upgrading next year anyways.
• djrogers 5y ago
  > they are up about 3.5% in revenue Revenue != bottom line. Bottom line is profit, ie revenue minus expenses.