2 ms·
It is really clever wording, but it is possible for the statements to be true, while being deliberately misleading. What they initially detected, and what the 3
by jeremyjh 5y ago
It is really clever wording, but it is possible for the statements to be true, while being deliberately misleading. What they initially detected, and what the 3rd-party investigation found, were two different things. Okta initially "detected an unsuccessful attempt" - the successful attempts were not detected initially but the detected event did lead to an investigation.
Now, JUST this week (presumably, in the last 72 hours to explain why disclosures have not already been sent) "we received a report from the forensics firm this week. The report highlighted that there was a five-day window of time between January 16-21, 2022, where an attacker had access to a support engineer’s laptop."
- mimikatz 5y agoThanks, I get it now.
- stevage 5y agoI didn't find this misleading at all. Just a chronology of their evolving understanding.
- nopcode 5y agoThey could just state that there was also a successful login. So far they don't do that.
- lIIIllllIIII 5y agoIt's misleading because grammatically, what one would usually say in this situation is something like "Okta detected what it believed at the time was an unsuccessful attempt", because the statement's narrative is set in the present - and we now know the attack (not "attempt") was successful. Wording it as they did in their statement obfuscates the events that took place, and certainly reads like a deliberate attempt to downplay the severity of the breach.