g051051

40 ms·

361.
by g051051 7y ago
This is the best, least biased write-up of the breach that I've seen. It's still fairly damning, but the upshot is that it took a very serious second attack team to actually capitalize on the flaws that were present: https:&#x2F
362.
by g051051 7y ago
If that's true, then you aren't interacting with companies that participate in CRA information exchange and this doesn't affect you. All a CRA would have is public information that's already freely available.
363.
by g051051 7y ago
I don't say they shouldn't share the blame. But simply telling a bank that you pay your bills on time isn't related to establishing identity. "Does mikeash pay his bills on time?" "Yes, mikeash pays his bill
364.
by g051051 7y ago
Nice strawman you're knocking over there. I don't think any level of identity theft is acceptable. I think it should be easier for people who are victims of such crimes to have better tools for resolving it. I think we need a b
365.
by g051051 7y ago
You need to put the blame where it lies. CRAs simply aggregate data. They aren't the ones that grant credit. If someone opens a CC in your name, it wasn't the CRA that did it. So blame the bank or CC company for not sufficient
366.
by g051051 7y ago
Because that's what they do? What do you think they do, if not that?
367.
by g051051 7y ago
> That's like saying strychnine is harmless unless you swallow it. Well, yeah... of course. > The CRAs profit from the profligate dissemination of sensitive data, Everyone profits. The CRAs who are the aggregators, the companies
368.
by g051051 7y ago
Your "cut" is continued access to cheap credit.
369.
by g051051 7y ago
> since Equifax made it publicly accessible It was stolen, not made "publicly accessible". You or I could never have accessed it, it took a sophisticated team months to do it. Don't forget the Yahoo! and Marriott breaches
370.
by g051051 7y ago
> That is precisely the data that rightfully belongs to individuals. That is precisely what it's not . Your existence isn't a secret. Things like your address, phone number, and legal information are freely available from a
371.
by g051051 7y ago
It's not "data which rightfully belongs to individuals". It's data that belongs to the institutions reporting to the CRAs. CRAs are data aggregators. Everything they have on you was either gathered from public records
372.
by g051051 7y ago
Hah! I was in the Navy and never knew that. P.S.: Supply Corps, so never needed to know it.
373.
by g051051 7y ago
In 30 years of software development, I've never seen a dev fired because of a buggy release. You get fired for 3 reasons: long, ongoing performance problems; violating company practices like stealing or sexual harassment; or when the
374.
by g051051 8y ago
A lot of what I wanted to watch got removed from Netflix streaming, and now the streaming ecosystem is so fragmented that I just gave up on it. It's turning into the same "bundling" nonsense that's been making cable so
375.
by g051051 8y ago
I've been in pools that I'm 100% certain no one had peed in, and still got red eyes. I'm certain because I was the only one who swam in it (a backyard pool) and I know I never did.
376.
by g051051 8y ago
I don't need to apply to OMSCS...I was just saying it offers 100% online, including proctored tests. No need to go to get a proctor or go to a testing center, which is inconvenient for me. They used to use ProctorU, but switched to P
377.
by g051051 8y ago
I'm very interested in this. I wanted to get an online degree with 100% online delivery (like OMSCS), but every school I checked required in-person proctoring (as opposed to something like ProctorTrack or ProctorU). So is there anyth
378.
by g051051 8y ago
The headline made me think of this: https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2012/04/13
379.
by g051051 8y ago
> It takes out the entire creativity process of cooking, and for people who actually like cooking on a higher level also the process of selecting the right ingredients. Did you ever try one of these services? Because that's the opp
380.
by g051051 8y ago
> Appealing to people who "want to cook", but doing so by turning yourself into a production-line assembler. Like saying your want to learn carpentry, by buying some Ikea flat-pack. That's not a great analogy. It was far
381.
by g051051 8y ago
> The lawmakers and regulators have decided that the externality will have no significant consequences. No, they just haven't finished yet. There's already been some new regulation, and I believe more to come, for the credit i
382.
by g051051 8y ago
> I'm not asking you whether the House Republicans would call the expired certs negligent, or the security underprioritized. I'm asking you, as the reader of a technical forum. No, that's not negligent. Nor was security &
383.
by g051051 8y ago
My response was to > Why not be honest and direct?"
384.
by g051051 8y ago
Because it doesn't always work. I had someone try to get me fired because she came into my office and said "do you have a minute?" and I said (because I was legitimately busy with something important) "No". She was
385.
by g051051 8y ago
> Would you dispute my characterization of those expired certs as "negligence"? I would. Does the report indicate that the cert was expired due to budget issues? Does it show that cybersecurity was low priority? Again, the r
386.
by g051051 8y ago
> its fairly deliberate negligence of the public interest, or for its massively distributed tort If anything, the report says the opposite of that. > It's to wipe out the stockholders of any company this negligent, and reposses
387.
by g051051 8y ago
Reading through the timeline, it shows that at every step Equifax was trying to do the right thing...internally publishing vulnerabilities, applying patches, scanning for vulnerabilities, etc. The policies and procedures were good. One dif
388.
by g051051 8y ago
Most likely they had a web front end that talks to the legacy system. Very common in big companies. It was probably developed very quickly, possibly outsourced, and just stuck in front of the older system with minimal re-engineering. Many
389.
by g051051 8y ago
It didn't "lose" anything, nor is "protecting users' data" it's only job, nor is that data their only asset. It certainly lost credibility, but the name isn't toxic. Again, Bear Stearns was insolvent
390.
by g051051 8y ago
Bear Stearns failed because it was overextended on subprime mortgages and lost the ability to conduct business when the cash dried up. Enron was convicted of massive, deliberate accounting fraud. The company wasn't viable without the

More ›