On the PSN Relaunch Announcement
Shamus thinks Sony responded the best they could.
Read Full Article
Shamus thinks Sony responded the best they could.
Read Full Article
Not so much a meme but simple truth. It's also true that networks can usually be secured just enough for the requirements of the use-case.Around the three minute mark he did point out the hackers are always hacking things, like they do, but he didn't repeat the meme I've been hearing lately that "no network can ever be secure".
Debatable.Good solution to the PSN password problem.
This. This should never have happened. It's a n00b mistake to store plaintext passwords; any half-witted security engineer will tell you not to do it. That Sony has someone done it is unforgivable, in terms of trusting their security solutions.One group of people had (or might have) the password for everyone else.
They can't. They never could. You can sign up to PSN without any meaningful proof of who you are, so that hasn't actually changed much.From their standpoint, how could you ever be sure of anyone's credentials ever again?
indeed.I'm not a security expert, ...
It isn't, though.... but I think their solution to the password problem is a good one.
You think. Sony wants. It's a password-based authentication system, and the authenticity of the person trying to change the password is "proven" based on their old password.You have to change your password when you log in again. You can only do so from the machine you've been using.
And that is not the problem. The problem is that most people re-use the same password (or almost the same password) over and over again. I doubt the PSN hackers cared about hacking PSN; I'm fairly sure they cared about obtaining email addresses, user names and passwords. Now they can use that to pay with your paypal account, read your email, harvest more information from your facebook account, etc. That's where the value of having stolen passwords lies.This means a hacker with the full list of passwords can't log in and pretend to be any of those people, even though he's got their login.
How can that seriously be spun as a positive? They waited ages to tell people who had bought their hardware that there was a real problem, and have (as of yet) not told the people who actually bought into the company anything... And we should be proud of them for that?9. They are talking directly to the customer, and only the customer. They didn't work in any language for the benefit of shareholders. They weren't trying to speak to both groups with the same message. There's nothing here about protecting value or building brands or securing assets. You can walk away from this with the impression that Sony doesn't give a damn about what happens to them, as long as you're okay.
Or you would know it was happening to 360's too and is not a PS3 fail but an LA noire fail. That is you would know that if you bothered to look it up on say THIS website where they ran this story!Vapus said:Im curious as to the failure rate with PS3 consoles and LA noire . Im hearing a lot about it lately . Another big fail for Sony ??
WTF, how is it hubris to high outside firms to help you when you are in over your head. It would b hubris to NOT hire them and think they could fix it themselves. Do you understand that word?sunami88 said:Snip
They hired three companies? One wasn't good enough? Is the network so complex that one firm simply could not secure the whole thing?bombadilillo said:WTF, how is it hubris to high outside firms to help you when you are in over your head. It would b hubris to NOT hire them and think they could fix it themselves. Do you understand that word?
What?sunami88 said:I found it to be the height of hubris that after the breach they hired not one, not two, but THREE external security firms to comb through their network.
So, you think it's exaggerated self-confidence to say "Okay, we're in over our heads here. We need lots of help from experts to make sure our network is far more secure than it was previously"? Could you explain that one to me please, because I'm not understanding your thought process here at all.http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hubris
exaggerated pride or self-confidence
Oh, I see. You're just making random assumptions about things you have absolutely no knowledge about (in this case, the size and complexity of PSN). My bad, I was taking what you had to say seriously.sunami88 said:They hired three companies? One wasn't good enough? Is the network so complex that one firm simply could not secure the whole thing?
How arrogant of them to spend ridiculous amounts of money to fix the problem as fast as they could....the hubris...sunami88 said:They hired three companies? One wasn't good enough? Is the network so complex that one firm simply could not secure the whole thing?bombadilillo said:WTF, how is it hubris to high outside firms to help you when you are in over your head. It would b hubris to NOT hire them and think they could fix it themselves. Do you understand that word?sunami88 said:Snip
Think of this. They hire one company, they say, we can do this but with our staff it will take 4 months. So they hire firm 2 to get the manpower to do it faster. Same with 3, or perhaps they found some new problem and needed more people.sunami88 said:@All;
Perphaps hubris was the wrong word to use. It certainly seems to be judging by the number of people jumping down my throat. I just found it arrogant that they had to go out and get three companies to complicate a job that just one of them would have been capable of doing. They could have then hired another afterwards to check the firsts work, but instead decided that no less than 3 companies were needed to go over their work.
It's really what brought me to my next point. I've always seen them as a company that had trouble communicating, and found it funny when instead of getting one company to do one job, they got three. That must've been a lot of memo's to read through.
Perhaps. Money and people isn't always the answer, though. I don't see why they couldn't just get one team and work with them.bombadilillo said:Think of this. They hire one company, they say, we can do this but with our staff it will take 4 months. So they hire firm 2 to get the manpower to do it faster. Same with 3, or perhaps they found some new problem and needed more people.
EVERYONE is pissed at them for PSN being down. It isnt arrogant to hire all the people you need to get it done timely. With all the things you can be mad at Sony for about this it doesnt make any sense to be mad at them for spending the money to hire all the people they need to fix it.
It wasn't in plaintext/cleartext, though, they've clarified on that [http://blog.us.playstation.com/2011/05/02/playstation-network-security-update/]. Really, everybody's been going around, saying Sony didn't update their servers, Sony did update their servers, they stored it in cleartext, they encrypted their data, whathaveyou. What's done is done, they got hacked and no amount of security would have prevented the eventual hackage. Maybe to minimize it, but who knows how secure it actually was.unwesen said:This. This should never have happened. It's a n00b mistake to store plaintext passwords; any half-witted security engineer will tell you not to do it. That Sony has someone done it is unforgivable, in terms of trusting their security solutions.One group of people had (or might have) the password for everyone else.