3 ms·

Wouldn't it be more reasonable that government agencies treat their accounts as high risk and implement proper security measures themselves? Why should X use th

Wouldn't it be more reasonable that government agencies treat their accounts as high risk and implement proper security measures themselves? Why should X use their manpower for special treatment to SOME of their users? If anything they should educate ALL users to use proper security, but the blame is entirely on the SEC. Don't be ridiculous. The article also mentions that: > The SEC also said that, six months prior to the attack, staff had removed an added layer of protection, known as multi-factor authentication (MFA), and did not restore it until after the Jan. 9 attack. So they removed MFA for some reason. How should X handle a situation like that?

dehrmann 3y ago
> Why should X use their manpower for special treatment to SOME of their users? Because X wants to continue to be a trusted platform. The more account takeovers there are, the more people start to doubt what authoritative sources say on X, and the less they use X. > How should X handle a situation like that? Flag high-risk accounts to go through extra verification because the cost of not doing it is high.
- worksonmine 3y ago
  Did you miss the part of the article where the SEC themselves removed the MFA? The SEC being complete idiots doesn't rub off on X. X isn't a source to trust that's not how it works, X is a platform. You trust the source behind the account, and that varies based on who the account belongs to, not how many computer illiterate users got hacked. Any journalist worth their name will contact the source through official channels to confirm statements made on X.