3 ms·
While it's possible that their product might have protected them, that angle is merely self-promotional spin. The real reason that this happened is because Bit9
by jackalope 14y ago
While it's possible that their product might have protected them, that angle is merely self-promotional spin. The real reason that this happened is because Bit9 didn't properly secure their assets in the first place. It shouldn't matter if "a malicious third party was able to illegally gain temporary access." A perimeter defense can be a useful deterrent, but you should still keep your jewels in a safe.
- jessaustin 14y agoLike an HSM? I would have expected that any security company would be using those to store private keys, in which case "we should have used our own software" doesn't make much sense.
- darkspaten 14y agoReminds me of the RSA response to their extreme compromise. Even quite some time after the incident the EVP & Chairman, Art Coviello, only would state how close "on the tail" they were to the perpetrator(s) thanks to their technology & skill. They're still a viable security organization, so apparently the market was easily able to disregard the core issues.