Security Analyst Explains Why We Love Lulzsec

[-Samurai-]

See, the thing about security is; If people didn't do illegal things and break into places they aren't supposed to be in, to take things that aren't theirs, we wouldn't need security.

Also if we lived in a world where nothing bad ever happened and everybody lived for a long age perfect life we would not need doctors,lawyers,fire department,police,armed forces,fences,banks,alarms etc.

Wake up we do not live in that world deal with it bad things will happen.Sosomeone pointing them out to people who should be protecting things is a good thing.

Crime happening isn't an excuse for people to commit crimes.

 

[Antari]

Now that people are starting to see in the right direction. Yes I'm happy Lulz is doing what they are. Because the state of security in this industry and many others is laughable and has been for many years. The fact that they are being forced to react now is a good thing, because there ARE worse things that can happen.

The only question is how long can they keep getting away with poking all these companies in the eyes before something is actually done about it.

Spoiler

 

[TechNoFear]

Even an 'air gap' in the network can be hacked with a 'carbon based' exploit.

[or no system is 100% secure if it has any human interaction.]

Social engineering if by far the most effective form of hacking (look at HGBarry).

Then they'll continue to lose valuable corporate data, lose consumer confidence, lose customers, and lose money.

It is not that these companies lack the expertese, they lack the motivation to prioritise data security any higher.

Cars would not be as safe as they are today without the cost associated with cleaning up after a traffic accident.

Data security will not improve until there is a clear loss, visible to even upper management.

 

[RvLeshrac]

Even an 'air gap' in the network can be hacked with a 'carbon based' exploit.

[or no system is 100% secure if it has any human interaction.]

Social engineering if by far the most effective form of hacking (look at HGBarry).

Then they'll continue to lose valuable corporate data, lose consumer confidence, lose customers, and lose money.

It is not that these companies lack the expertese, they lack the motivation to prioritise data security any higher.

Cars would not be as safe as they are today without the cost associated with cleaning up after a traffic accident.

Data security will not improve until there is a clear loss, visible to even upper management.

All of the above. They spend peanuts, they attract brains that match. Anyone worth more rapidly moves on, and doesn't actually contribute anything worthwhile while there.

Of course, the problem is that these companies keep getting a slap on the wrist for failure to adequately safeguard information, with the OMGHACKERS explanation seemingly absolving them of all responsibility.

Much like the issues of illegal immigration and securities fraud, data security won't improve until we start tossing three-letter managers in PMITA prison.

 

[Andy Chalk]

Waste of an article.

But a worthwhile use of a comment?

 

[Mercurial Maniac]

Apologies for the Double Post.

 

[Mercurial Maniac]

Isn't there a possibility that LulzSec intentionally released consumer data make sure that companies will have a whole bunch of angry customers demanding for improved security?

Lulzsec isn't attacking a house with a bad alarm; it's waltzing into a bank with poor security, making photocopies of the money inside its shit-quality vault, then waltzing out to paste said money out to the street, while sending a message to the managers of the bank to get their acts together.

 

[Kargathia]

So if I understand this correctly security people are happy about LulzSec pointing out painfully large holes in company cyber security?

You know, those holes they'll be paid to close.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[GestaltEsper]

I wouldn't be surprised if soon news starts spreading, about the "global war on cyber-terrorism", and how most countries in the world will be enforcing legislations, to "protect us" from the dangers of the internet......

...by restricting our access and controlling what we do.

Probably pretty bad that I've been watching V for Vendetta lately than.


Companies are incompetent, and always look for the highest profit margin. I'd rather have a lower profit for a company that actually cares about it's customers.

No offense but of course you would. You're the customer.