> It is possible that the outages weren't unrelated but also weren't malicious. For example, all three companies use the same vendor who's services failed. Tha

> It is possible that the outages weren't unrelated but also weren't malicious. For example, all three companies use the same vendor who's services failed. That is my operating theory based on some throwaway "insider" in the NYSE thread who claimed (without supporting evidence) that "multiple US citizens in multiple US cities" worked together to fix the internal IT issue involving the NYSE issue. Cisco? Or network provider? Perhaps there was a 0day discovered that affected UAL (or someone else) and the prioritization favored the airline and financial industries first. Hence the secrecy to let them get things in order before the larger market is informed. Or, it could simply be that two industries that rely heavily on public trust around their network security have a standard operating procedure to pull the plug more readily when they get caught off guard with some kind of 0day or mundane attack. There was someone on here the other day talking about how banks never publicize small losses due to attack against them for similar PR reasons. But other systems are too big to fail.