3 ms·
I see your point and voted you up, but I think you're wrong. If I am running a company or even just working there, and someone attacks my servers, even if Cust
by nchelluri 11y ago
I see your point and voted you up, but I think you're wrong.
If I am running a company or even just working there, and someone attacks my servers, even if Customer ABC's and Customer XYZ's data is what they want, as far as I am concerned, it's my system that is under attack.
Customers ABC and XYZ are under attack as well. We all are.
- minot 11y agoTake the incident at JP Morgan Chase. Chase PR was on the point about keeping the public in the know that at no time was their money under threat. You can't tell me this was anything other than coordinated or even orchestrated. After keeping the breach(es) a secret for at least months, Chase kept strong with its spin on the topic. It is clear that Chase does not consider the breaches too important to its business. As far as Chase was concerned, their perspective is that they dodged a bullet. If there was any indication that account balances were fudged, I doubt Chase could keep nearly as calm. My tired point is that for many companies, they make a distinction between "them" getting breached vs their customers' data getting breached. How can we believe that Adobe does not know the best practices to store passwords?
- GeneralMayhem 11y agoI think it depends on the company. For a tech-focused company where a breach is a slap in the face of their core competencies, sure. For a megacorp that sees IT as a loss center, it's harder to believe.