4 ms·
If 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 th
by jonah 13y ago
If 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.