Donnyp said:
danpascooch said:
Donnyp said:
danpascooch said:
As compared to no defense? They get your info and they have your Address and your email address. I'm not to worried about getting mail that might harm me. As for the Mediocre defense how would you know the hackers weren't the best of the best and they just made the protection they had set up look like nothing. It's one thing to say "Come on guys. You could have done better" to saying "It's your fault and you are to blame" Simple statement is Someone burns your house down but it's your fault for building it out of flammable material.
Hacking is not easy, there has to be a vulnerability, they claimed this was one server, so a single point of security (this one server) had all 45 million profiles on it. That sort of lack of compartmentalization is a critical error in secure networking. Not to mention the fact that they stated the user data was in plaintext and unencrypted. Those two facts mean that the security was unacceptably bad, no matter how skilled this hackers are.
Having one server seems better then multiple. even if it is to Hold the different info on separate servers. Then the servers would have to communicate between each one and that would create a good deal of lag. One server seems enough. As for the user data being encrypted do you encrypt every file on your computer that has info about you? And not Important info but just small things like addresses or groceries.
No, I don't encrypt that info, but then again, my computer is not in charge of
45 million people's. Just mine, you can bet your ass if I
was in charge of 45 million people, I'd encrypt the fuck out of it, and I would sure hope Sony has better security than my laptop.
You don't need the servers to be far away from each other, hell, they can be in the
same room. This isn't a 500mb file, it's profile info, even if each one was 1000 miles apart there would be basically no lag, if they put them in the same room it has the same speed as one server (ok fine, it requires like an extra 0.00000001 seconds) with the security of segmentation. The important bit is that they aren't linked to eachother directly, and each require their own security checks, that way if someone gets in, they don't make off with
everything
Here are the facts:
1.) Sony lost 45 million people's data, and possibly credit cards
2.) The user data was in plaintext
3.) It was all on a single server so that once you broke that layer of security you could access
all of it.
Is fact 1 enough to condemn Sony? No.
Are facts 2 and 3 enough to condemn Sony? No.
Are facts 1, 2 and 3 together enough to condemn Sony? FUCK YES.
fact one establishes damages, facts 2 and 3 establish negligence. They fucked up.