3 ms·
Why keep calling the principle criminal entity a "threat actor", when in fact there is no 'act' here. They are openly selling stolen data, and it's been verifi
by rhgamble 3y ago
Why keep calling the principle criminal entity a "threat actor", when in fact there is no 'act' here. They are openly selling stolen data, and it's been verified as stolen. Not deflecting the stupidity and criminality of 23andme...how stupid can a corporation working with peoples biological data be...oh wait...yes, repeatedly...its embedded in the business model apparently...operate for N+1 years, then provide a breach. Wish I could wake up from this recurring nightmare of groups with more money than they know what to do with, pretending to move humanity forward, making stupid mistakes. Nonetheless, please stop naming it a "threat actor". They are not 'acting' in any sense of the word.
- calgarymicro 3y ago> Not deflecting the stupidity and criminality of 23andme...how stupid can a corporation working with this sensitive type of data be Really? If the article is accurate, 23andMe did not have a security breach; credentials leaked in other breaches were used to compromise accounts that reused those credentials on 23andMe. Now certainly 2FA would have been advisable, but I think it's a bit much to suggest this rises to the level of criminality.
- rhgamble 3y agoAppreciate the note, and agree 'criminality' is a bit strong. But this is our biological data at stake. 2FA is a minimum now given the integrated credentials sharing across platforms today.