4 ms·
There's definitely a "being an ass" component to this, no doubt... but one could argue that presenting two records to a journalist implies a small security hole
by drhayes9 14y ago
There's definitely a "being an ass" component to this, no doubt... but one could argue that presenting two records to a journalist implies a small security hole. 100k of them is a giant security hole.
- gavinlynch 14y agoYah, except for the part where he spends an extra 10 seconds explaining "here are 2 of hundreds of thousands, as an example". The headline would be the same: "X Company exposes N Number of user accounts in discovered security hole". So do you see where that doesn't make any sense? edit: agree with you @drhayes9, just responding to the OP's assertion that the number mattered.
- drhayes9 14y agoI don't think the number of documents mattered in this case, legally. One or one hundred thousand, the crime was the same. I think the numbers helped sensationalize it, sure.
- smsm42 14y agoThat's like saying just showing remote root exploit with "id" command is a small security hole, but copying the whole file server is a big one. Any journalist knowing anything about security knows that access matters, not how much is physically copied. And any that doesn't know it but has a functioning brain can understand it in under 30 seconds. I don't buy it, journalists are more than capable to make big conclusions from small evidence, they don't need much help in that.