"It then replaced every compromised computer and set up new defenses in hopes of keeping hackers out." I hope that's just poor reporting, or does the Times' IT

"It then replaced every compromised computer and set up new defenses in hopes of keeping hackers out." I hope that's just poor reporting, or does the Times' IT department really have that poor an understanding of how computers work? The audience of NYT understands "We replaced the compromised computers." Whereas the audience won't understand "We rebuilt each compromised computer, taking care to ensure they weren't exposed to the internet (and, additionally, were isolated from our internal network) until we were certain we'd patched every security flaw the attackers had previously exploited. We've also made policy changes to minimize the attack surface of our new infrastructure." Therefore, those are wasted words. In fact, those words are an unnecessary risk. It's a risk because it's a strategic mistake for a newspaper to publish confusing articles.