4 ms·
Retired Red Hatter here. I wouldn’t be quick to blame IBM. Red Hat and IBM both take security very seriously, and regard it as central to the mission. IBM al
by RickJWagner 1y ago
Retired Red Hatter here.
I wouldn’t be quick to blame IBM. Red Hat and IBM both take security very seriously, and regard it as central to the mission. IBM also has deep enough pockets to devote serious resources to whatever they put their mind to.
Security is just hard. Procedures can be written, but people make mistakes, forget rules, etc. The procedures also have to be constantly updated to keep up with new and innovative attacks. It’s a never ending battle.
Sorry to see this happen to Red Hat. I am confident that right now all hands are on deck working on remediation.
- loudmax 1y agoSecurity is hard, but running a large organization is also hard. The danger is that the entire organization becomes overrun by managers whose guiding principle is CYA, and then things slowly grind to a halt. Eventually you wind up with security mandates that have no relation to what's actually deployed because the people nominally responsible for security are evaluating metrics that are years out of date.
- 1oooqooq 1y agoi doubt old red hat wouldn't have warned clients right away.