111–120 of 186 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I missing something, or is it 1/8 of Google's search traffic, according to your numbers, not 1%?
Grandparent was using "for" as in "per". The 1% is irrelevant. It could be any unit of search. "That's a 17-fold difference in the price per 1% share" "That's a 17-fold difference in the price per 8% share" "That's a 17-fold difference in the price per search"
One benefit of these incidents at Yahoo! is that they represent salient, clear examples of the cost of poor information security. CIOs and security directors will be able to point to this deal as evidence that poor security can have material impact on the business and destroy massive shareholder value, even years after the fact. A 6.5% intra-day dip sends a clear message. Even a CFO can now see that information secur…
>> they represent salient, clear examples of the cost of poor information security. I'm seriously flabbergasted that they continue to let this happen. The last time you would've thought head would roll, they would batten down the hatches, notify users and be completely proactive in defending against another attack. To me, it looks like they just said, "Well, fuck it, it won't happen again, why invest the time and mon…
The delay in them discovering the breach isn't that alarming either. If you didn't have systems in place to detect an intrusion, how do you retroactively find one? Companies usually don't find out until law enforcement contacts them or they accidentally stumble across the backdoor.
So, does Yahoo still have poor infosec? I'd guess so. But this newest breach isn't evidence of that, it only shows how bad their security was in 2013.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's like saying Apple is worth $600 billion, Motorola is worth "only $12 billion", but has 1/10 of Apple's market share, so therefore it must be a great deal to buy Motorola. Wait, actually that's exactly what Google thought - and they quickly saw the error in that sort of thinking after they purchased it. Do you see how that argument is flawed? Leaders in a market tend to be worth much more and have much higher p…
This isn't a good comparison. Google specifically bought Motorolla to use their patent portfolio as a cudgel to keep all the other Android OEMs in line.
Not just Android OEMs but other tech giants - remember this was not long after the Nortel/Rockstar episode. The patent cold war was heating up with proxy battles and occasional direct skirmishes; Google found itself with a 'patent-gap'. Fortunately things are much saner now after a change of management at several belligerents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Grandparent was using "for" as in "per". The 1% is irrelevant. It could be any unit of search. "That's a 17-fold difference in the price per 1% share" "That's a 17-fold difference in the price per 8% share" "That's a 17-fold difference in the price per search"
Ok, I read it as paying N for X share of search traffic, not shares of stock.
Let's also not downplay the "Yahoo" brand name. It does not have much high impact negative publicity associated to it (yet). The name "Yahoo!" goes as far back as the Internet for modern day users i.e. 30+ yrs age group. If Verizon can put a nice spin to it and through micro-filtration of the brand whatever filtrate is left, as long as it is somewhat appealing it would sell, let it be a search engine or whatever new…
> It does not have much high impact negative publicity associated to it (yet). A billion compromised accounts seems like it could fill that role. Many people may not understand their online information's privacy/security, but that's an ear-grabbing number.
My mother (and her news) heard this loud and clear. Thats a problem, and VZ has every right to renegotiate -- this has passed the point of "we're yahoo so we're big and an unlucky target". This is, in my mother's words, "what the hell is wrong with those people, I'm done, how do i get everything to go to gmail".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure thing! Imagine if I had two friends, Google and Yahoo. Both are asking me if they can borrow a dollar. Over the last few years when Google borrows a dollar it gives back an extra 3.5 cents the next year as a thank you. On the opposite side, when Yahoo has borrowed a dollar they've lost 13 cents within the next year. Left to their own devices, Yahoo will implode and be out of money in under 7 years, likely much s…
Halve staff?
MD5 hashed passwords. In 2013. Apparently Yahoo never made it out of the 90s.
One benefit of these incidents at Yahoo! is that they represent salient, clear examples of the cost of poor information security. CIOs and security directors will be able to point to this deal as evidence that poor security can have material impact on the business and destroy massive shareholder value, even years after the fact. A 6.5% intra-day dip sends a clear message. Even a CFO can now see that information secur…
Having been in the role of advocating investing in security the typical questions are;
* "Will the product run faster?",
* "Will the customers get better service?",
* "Will someone choose us over a competitor
because of this?"
But if you can say, "When you try to sell this company to another company, the strong security policies and technology this funding will provide insurance against having a security breach like Yahoo! and tanking the sales price."
Now that resonates because they probably have a lot to win or lose over the sales price of the company in a merger/acquisition strategy.
"Its a few million now, but without it, it could cost you billions of personal wealth down the road. Now who's in?"
One benefit of these incidents at Yahoo! is that they represent salient, clear examples of the cost of poor information security. CIOs and security directors will be able to point to this deal as evidence that poor security can have material impact on the business and destroy massive shareholder value, even years after the fact. A 6.5% intra-day dip sends a clear message. Even a CFO can now see that information secur…
The yahoo dip is even larger, considering yahoo's stock is primarily Alibaba. If it were split into two companies the dip would likely be >20%.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-12-15/yahoo-s...
One benefit of these incidents at Yahoo! is that they represent salient, clear examples of the cost of poor information security. CIOs and security directors will be able to point to this deal as evidence that poor security can have material impact on the business and destroy massive shareholder value, even years after the fact. A 6.5% intra-day dip sends a clear message. Even a CFO can now see that information secur…