3 ms·
Considering that on paper these businesses all have employees serving as CISO, EVP-, SVP-, and many, many Directors of Security, I find it highly unlikely that
by Mtinie 1y ago
Considering that on paper these businesses all have employees serving as CISO, EVP-, SVP-, and many, many Directors of Security, I find it highly unlikely that the accumulated experience of the people and their teams results in decisions like this. It's hard to distinguish incompetence from malice in many situations but calling them "naive" seems to be indirectly excusing customer-hostile behavior.
It doesn't make any sense to me because it's expensive to make sure your company's services are secure, but it's also expensive to not be secure. Perhaps it's less expensive to not worry about it because the loss-of-customers impact on revenue are still under the cost of doing it right. If that's the case it's a sad state for all of us.
- TimTheTinker 1y agoThe example given in TA seems to be a straightforward case of institutional naivety (banks doing stupid stuff that confuses customers and makes them prone to potential identical-appearing phishing attacks) -- for which the only solution is for decision makers to be convinced that something needs to change. I don't know of anything that can convince a group of leaders making money and doing fine to change besides fear. Perhaps the US with its lawsuit-happy culture helped propel such changes more quickly than in Western Europe.