Sad reality: It's cheaper to get hacked than build strong IT defenses

Re:Sad reality: It's cheaper to get hacked than build strong... by meowface on Friday September 23, 2016 @08:13PM (#12568809)

This analogy fails when you consider the complexities in securing a sprawling IT architecture for a massive corporation compared to putting a lock on a door.

Companies like Yahoo did try to secure themselves. They were just really bad at it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sad reality: It's cheaper to get hacked than build strong... by M_Grey on Friday September 23, 2016 @08:26PM (#12568865)

The point of the analogy is that casual negligence of even the most basic security procedures should have built-in consequences... for the negligent party.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sad reality: It's cheaper to get hacked than build strong... by meowface on Saturday September 24, 2016 @12:38AM (#12569477)

Consequences, yes. But the parent poster was suggesting the culpability should fall on the victim, not the attacker, which is just ridiculous.

They should be fined for negligence, but that doesn't mean the attacker is somehow morally right in any way.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sad reality: It's cheaper to get hacked than build strong... by M_Grey on Saturday September 24, 2016 @09:05AM (#12570778)

Culpability can be shared, in the real world.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Sad reality: It's cheaper to get hacked than build strong... by meowface on Sunday September 25, 2016 @12:05AM (#12573903)

Sure, but when it comes to blame the bulk should still belong to the intruder.

[ Parent | on HN ]