3 ms·
You said: "I think it's unfair for reuters to make this seem like a bigger deal than it might actually be" The filing says: "the Company faced several succes
by larrys 15y ago
You said:
"I think it's unfair for reuters to make this seem like a bigger deal than it might actually be"
The filing says:
"the Company faced several successful attacks against its corporate network in which access was gained to information on a small portion of our computers and servers"
The headline was:
"Key Internet operator VeriSign hit by hackers"
This wasn't the lead story on the nightly news. It was a Reuters article with a fair headline for what happened. The mere fact that they reported it in their filings but didn't disclose it to company management is a problem right there.
- endersshadow 15y agoThis delightful fear-mongering quote from a former DHSer is in the article: "Oh my God," said Stewart Baker, former assistant secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and before that the top lawyer at the National Security Agency. "That could allow people to imitate almost any company on the Net." The point is that this was a small attack that affected a very small part of the company that they don't believe has any lasting implications to their business. You get an article with quotes like that from such a small attack, and it makes you raise an eyebrow.
- count 15y agoHeh, isn't that what the RSA breach was at first, too?
- lawnchair_larry 15y agoThis doesn't make sense. It is company management who writes the filings, not the network admins. How can it be in the filings but not go through management?