It seems like if the compromise were due to a failure on the provider's side, rather than the more common stolen/phished credentials, PagerDuty would be more cl

It seems like if the compromise were due to a failure on the provider's side, rather than the more common stolen/phished credentials, PagerDuty would be more clear about laying fault where it's due. It would help clarify that they didn't directly make an error, and allow them to put the ball in the provider's court to respond. Instead, the post's comment makes a reference to "an administrative panel provided by one of our infrastructure providers". It's not clear if this refers to the provider's internal tool, or the administrative panel they expose to customers for administering their accounts. If the former: I'd prefer they name the provider. If the latter, it might be worth clarifying the wording so it's more clear.