4 ms·
Doesn't NASDAQ have some responsibility for this hack? Doesn't NASDAQ have serious security reputation issues now?
by AsymetricCom 13y ago
Doesn't NASDAQ have some responsibility for this hack? Doesn't NASDAQ have serious security reputation issues now?
- driverdan 13y agoBlaming the victim? Nice.
- jonah 13y agoIf indeed it was a basic SQLi attack and NASDAQ failed to prevent it, then to some degree, yes, they're responsible. As a high-value target it's incumbent on them to secure their systems. Here on HN we often say "security through obscurity is no security." Relying on the fact that it is "illegal" for someone to hack your system to prevent them from doing so is similarly flawed logic.
- alexhawdon 13y agoYep. And depending on where the attackers are from, it might only be illegal in US jurisdiction anyway. So it's just plain negligence not to do your best. That said, it is a huge attack surface and it sounds like they had a lot of time and resources; they can afford to just wait to get lucky. NASDAQ had to be lucky ALL the time. /devils advocate - obviously someone f'd-up.
- NegativeK 13y agoThe victim isn't NASDAQ. The victims are the people who trusted NASDAQ. Parent is asking whether NASDAQ was negligent. That path has dangers all around (though, financial regulations try somewhat, don't they?) but it's a different discussion than victim blaming.
- apalmer 13y agoThis isnt a mugging or an assault. This is a company charged with processing financial information that apparently didnt sufficiently protect the data.
- AsymetricCom 13y agoI can see it now. NASDAQ brass participating in it's own "slut walk" for "sloppy-seconds" developers and IT managers. "Just because I cut contracts for the lowest bidder doesn't mean I deserve to be penetrated!"
- guiomie 13y agoReputation ? The same company who's one of its chairman ran the biggest known ponzi scheme in recent financial times.