Slashdot Mirror


Squabble With Contractor Delayed Equifax's Response To Data Breach (bloomberg.com)

An anonymous reader quotes Bloomberg's report on the contractor Equifax first hired to investigate their breach: Equifax and Mandiant got into a dispute just as the hackers were gaining a foothold in the company's network... Mandiant warned Equifax that its unpatched systems and misconfigured security policies could indicate major problems, a person familiar with the perspectives of both sides said. For its part, Equifax believed Mandiant had sent an undertrained team without the expertise it expected from a marquee security company...

That rift, which appears to have squelched a broader look at weaknesses in the company's security posture, looks to have given the intruders room to operate freely within the company's network for months. According to an internal analysis of the attack, the hackers had time to customize their tools to more efficiently exploit Equifax's software, and to query and analyze dozens of databases to decide which held the most valuable data. The trove they collected was so large it had to be broken up into smaller pieces to try to avoid tripping alarms as data slipped from the company's grasp through the summer... By the time they were done, the attackers had accessed dozens of sensitive databases and created more than 30 separate entry points into Equifax's computer systems.

"They may not have immediately grasped the value of their discovery, but, as the attack escalated over the following months, that first group -- known as an entry crew -- handed off to a more sophisticated team of hackers," reports Bloomberg, suggesting that the attack may have been sponsored by a nation-state.

1 of 127 comments (clear)

  1. Leadership is top down and bottom up by bernywork · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's two issues here. The CEO didn't insist on security, so either he's naive or mis-informed. Either is bad.

    The CTO didn't insist or wasn't given budget for appropriate security measures. Either is bad.

    The CEO wasn't managing the CTO in regards to requirements, and the CTO wasn't managing up the requirements.

    When you look at BoA where security is king; they'd rather have a production outage, break something and then scream at the vendor to fix it, than lose customer data. A customer facing production outage costs them a lot less than the loss of customer data, where they're concerned the whole company could go to the wall.

    This is a management fuck up, of the highest order. This was business risk 101 and they failed to identify it, quantify it and migitate it.

    Mandiant may not have sent their A team, but from the sounds of things their C team would have been enough to start to deal with their issues. Unpatched systems, c'mon are we still in high school?

    --
    Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown