4 ms·

Sorry this article was quite confusing to understand. Who hired them to do this? What was the goal? I think i'm missing the connection between the firing at the

Sorry this article was quite confusing to understand. Who hired them to do this? What was the goal? I think i'm missing the connection between the firing at the end and the initial need to do this...

tehwebguy 11y ago
Same, here's what I gather: - Author is at Cobaltix, tech consulting company. - Cobaltix has a Client, unnamed. - Client bought 51% of a Studio, unnamed. - Sony wanted to buy the whole Studio for $100M - Original founders of Studio wanted to hold out for more - Client rooted all of Studio's computers and fired CTO and strongarmed CEO into complying It's super weird to me, like, why not just tell them you are voting your 51% shares to sell?
- conception 11y ago
  Perhaps they feared the CEO would lock them out of their assets (the servers and render farm).
- differentView 11y ago
  I assumed the original founders were holding access to the servers hostage. A prolonged litigation could have soured the $100M Sony deal.
- wodenokoto 11y ago
  Because the original founders have taken the passwords as hostage.
  - tehwebguy 11y ago
    Ahhh, this was sort of hard to decipher.
vonklaus 11y ago
+1. I had to re-read it. The founders thought they were in a position to get more money. We smiled, then broke countless laws laying waste to their foreign and domestic systems. We sat down with them on monday smiled, and told them to sign the paperwork. I had to go back to figure out how this wasn't a host of felonies.
- robbiet480 11y ago
  So without asking, Cobaltix just broke in and rooted a bunch of systems to show they were vulnerable? Still sounds like something is missing
  - devicenull 11y ago
    No, Cobaltix was hired by the people who bought 51% of the movie studio
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  It is quite poorly written, but you are wrong to allegen numerous felonies. On Wednesday, we reviewed the articles of incorporation, confirmed the ownership of the company with the CFO, talked to the board, put indemnification and release of liability agreements in place, and agreed on a course of action. They acted with permission of the beneficial owners of the company. The CEO and CTO mentioned at the end were presumably minority shareholders,a nd were leveraging their custody of the security keys to negotiate a better deal in their own interests, and were thus in breach of their fiduciary obligations.
  - vonklaus 11y ago
    Right, I read it quick. I thought they were talking about closing the initial deal to buy the company. It sounded like some off-boarding of the original contract, I realized (on second read) that this was the sale-prep for the second deal.
- protomyth 11y ago
  "We smiled, then broke countless laws laying waste to their foreign and domestic systems." They explain pretty clearly at the front that they verified the ownership of the company and were hired by the group that owned 51%. What they did was the IT equivalent of a repo job. Doing this sort of hacking on your own equipment by yourself or a hired third-party is legal. "On Wednesday, we reviewed the articles of incorporation, confirmed the ownership of the company with the CFO, talked to the board, put indemnification and release of liability agreements in place, and agreed on a course of action."

Sorry this article was quite confusing to understand. Who hired them to do this? What was the goal? I think i'm missing the connection between the firing at the end and the initial need to do this...

tehwebguy 11y ago

Same, here's what I gather: - Author is at Cobaltix, tech consulting company. - Cobaltix has a Client, unnamed. - Client bought 51% of a Studio, unnamed. - Sony wanted to buy the whole Studio for $100M - Original founders of Studio wanted to hold out for more - Client rooted all of Studio's computers and fired CTO and strongarmed CEO into complying It's super weird to me, like, why not just tell them you are voting your 51% shares to sell?

conception 11y ago
Perhaps they feared the CEO would lock them out of their assets (the servers and render farm).
differentView 11y ago
I assumed the original founders were holding access to the servers hostage. A prolonged litigation could have soured the $100M Sony deal.
wodenokoto 11y ago
Because the original founders have taken the passwords as hostage.
- tehwebguy 11y ago
  Ahhh, this was sort of hard to decipher.

vonklaus 11y ago

+1. I had to re-read it. The founders thought they were in a position to get more money. We smiled, then broke countless laws laying waste to their foreign and domestic systems. We sat down with them on monday smiled, and told them to sign the paperwork. I had to go back to figure out how this wasn't a host of felonies.

robbiet480 11y ago
So without asking, Cobaltix just broke in and rooted a bunch of systems to show they were vulnerable? Still sounds like something is missing
- devicenull 11y ago
  No, Cobaltix was hired by the people who bought 51% of the movie studio
anigbrowl 11y ago
It is quite poorly written, but you are wrong to allegen numerous felonies. On Wednesday, we reviewed the articles of incorporation, confirmed the ownership of the company with the CFO, talked to the board, put indemnification and release of liability agreements in place, and agreed on a course of action. They acted with permission of the beneficial owners of the company. The CEO and CTO mentioned at the end were presumably minority shareholders,a nd were leveraging their custody of the security keys to negotiate a better deal in their own interests, and were thus in breach of their fiduciary obligations.
- vonklaus 11y ago
  Right, I read it quick. I thought they were talking about closing the initial deal to buy the company. It sounded like some off-boarding of the original contract, I realized (on second read) that this was the sale-prep for the second deal.
protomyth 11y ago
"We smiled, then broke countless laws laying waste to their foreign and domestic systems." They explain pretty clearly at the front that they verified the ownership of the company and were hired by the group that owned 51%. What they did was the IT equivalent of a repo job. Doing this sort of hacking on your own equipment by yourself or a hired third-party is legal. "On Wednesday, we reviewed the articles of incorporation, confirmed the ownership of the company with the CFO, talked to the board, put indemnification and release of liability agreements in place, and agreed on a course of action."