Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Equifax Suffered a Hack Almost Five Months Earlier Than the Date It Disclosed

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 80 posts

Re: Equifax Suffered a Hack Almost Five Months Earlier Than the Date It Disclosed

#41

Post by rhizome »

ringaroundthetx wrote: post #14
rgbrenner wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A company that size will always have material non public information. If you're in that position, then wouldn't you make sales regularly on scheduled dates? (say quarterly) Otherwise theyre asking to get prosecuted, if not for this sale then the next.

Right, and these execs did that as well. I mentioned that in the "routinely liquidate" part, but I guess it wasn't clear, they do liquidate shares on a schedule. Sure, doing anything out of that schedule is always a risk, and doing things on that schedule doesn't mean there isn't insider trading still happening. A successful prosecution under these equities-specific market sanctions will rely on more than that.

I'm under the impression that these were not 10b5-1 sales.

Re: Equifax Suffered a Hack Almost Five Months Earlier Than the Date It Disclosed

#42

Post by travmatt »

orf wrote: post #19

> One possible explanation, according to several veteran security experts consulted by Bloomberg, is that the investigation didn’t uncover evidence that data was accessed. Most data breach disclosure laws kick in only once there’s evidence that sensitive personal identifying information like social security numbers and birth dates have been taken. There was one company (very well known) I know of that was breached, b…

Assuming this service held some type of protected information (i.e., credit card data) I'd assume that such conduct would constitute a negligence of some variety.

Re: Equifax Suffered a Hack Almost Five Months Earlier Than the Date It Disclosed

#43

Post by travmatt »

ams6110 wrote: post #36
qaq wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure about origins, but the name they disclosed in their PR is of a very capable outfit.

If that's the case, we must assume then that any recommendations they made were summarily ignored, given the subsequent breach in July?

You also have to look at the scope of the work performed too, wouldn't you?

Re: Equifax Suffered a Hack Almost Five Months Earlier Than the Date It Disclosed

#44

Post by chiph »

otakucode wrote: post #33
ringaroundthetx wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pros for not prosecuting: The size of the sells were truly negligible for all executives involved, in proportion to how many shares they have and routinely liquidate. The same argument that there were any sells at all would been made regardless of the number of shares. A company that size will always have material non public information. Equifax's OPSEC was horrible all along and a gigantic leak was bound to happen…

If I were a shareholder in Equifax, I would probably be looking very closely at what those executives are paid. They adamantly insist that they had no idea about the most significant thing to happen at their company in years. Clearly, they're not just lazy, they have to be aggressively, emphatically incompetent.

They're acting like they're not a technology company. Despite rooms full of servers and storage devices that hold their only product.

Re: Equifax Suffered a Hack Almost Five Months Earlier Than the Date It Disclosed

#45

Post by BoorishBears »

jameskegel wrote: post #25
beager wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To red team that line of reasoning: hold on to the hacked data but don't use it, wait till public forgets about it, don't give business/lawmakers a reason to neuter the data, then strike a few years down the line.

Username related; please don't.

Coincidentally this is the second time today I've seen a profile description that took a real hard line against people not using their real names.

I never realized "real name elitism" existed on HN

Re: Equifax Suffered a Hack Almost Five Months Earlier Than the Date It Disclosed

#46

Post by TheCondor »

orf wrote: post #19

> One possible explanation, according to several veteran security experts consulted by Bloomberg, is that the investigation didn’t uncover evidence that data was accessed. Most data breach disclosure laws kick in only once there’s evidence that sensitive personal identifying information like social security numbers and birth dates have been taken. There was one company (very well known) I know of that was breached, b…

Sadly, I don't think this is that uncommon. The use of client attorney privilege to protect these secrets also isn't that uncommon.

Re: Equifax Suffered a Hack Almost Five Months Earlier Than the Date It Disclosed

#48

Post by qaq »

ams6110 wrote: post #36
qaq wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure about origins, but the name they disclosed in their PR is of a very capable outfit.

If that's the case, we must assume then that any recommendations they made were summarily ignored, given the subsequent breach in July?

They did not disclose details of the engagement so hard to speculate on anything. It somewhat unusual for the name to be disclosed though.

Re: Equifax Suffered a Hack Almost Five Months Earlier Than the Date It Disclosed

#49

Post by daveguy »

BoorishBears wrote: post #45
jameskegel wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Username related; please don't.

Coincidentally this is the second time today I've seen a profile description that took a real hard line against people not using their real names. I never realized "real name elitism" existed on HN

Fortunately, I think it's rare.

Re: Equifax Suffered a Hack Almost Five Months Earlier Than the Date It Disclosed

#50

Post by pavel_lishin »

BoorishBears wrote: post #45
jameskegel wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Username related; please don't.

Coincidentally this is the second time today I've seen a profile description that took a real hard line against people not using their real names. I never realized "real name elitism" existed on HN

I wonder what constitutes a "novelty" username. Does patio11 count? What about dang? What about _why?
Post reply on HN