It could be very hard to prove after the fact. And it's generally much more likely that human error causes a loss than to be victim to a malicious attack. So ev

It could be very hard to prove after the fact. And it's generally much more likely that human error causes a loss than to be victim to a malicious attack. So even if it has legitimately happened, it's likely to be dismissed as the person was just incompetent and that there just wasn't enough software safeguards to protect people from themselves. This is probably a good lesson in general for intelligent malicious actors. If you have an exploit that works, it's important that you use it rarely enough and against the right marks that the loss doesn't enter the collective consciousness as a malicious attack, but simply as an individual or systemic failure. And for those of us who strive to be constructive and defensive actors, it's an important lesson to remember that sometimes malicious actors disguise their actions as amoral bugs in the system. Regular random auditing of the seemingly mundane is an important tool to uncover these kinds of exploits.