› ›

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Quick Links

Squenix servers hacked

rwmillerrwmiller Member Posts: 472
in Final Fantasy XIV

It's not directly related to their MMOs and it is not of the same size as the EPIC FAIL that Sony let happen but never the less it seems companies still refuse to learn lessons other than the hard way.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13394968

 

Comments

  • XxGrimmxXXxGrimmxX Member UncommonPosts: 223

    What are they supposed to learn? You think the companies want to have law suits and other legal matters on their hands due to hacked account information.. Get real.

  • rwmillerrwmiller Member Posts: 472

    Originally posted by XxGrimmxX

    What are they supposed to learn? They have all of the standard defenses up. Of course people like you are going to complain when you really have no idea what actually happened.

    I guess they could learn the same lesson you need to learn which is not to assume you know everything.

    In this case they failed to follow their own internal security audting standards in regards to these systems based on some faulty assumptions but you are familar with that so you should be able to understand it.

  • rwmillerrwmiller Member Posts: 472

    Originally posted by XxGrimmxX

    What are they supposed to learn? You think the companies want to have law suits and other legal matters on their hands due to hacked account information.. Get real.

     

    You changed your message so to expand on my reply no I don't think that they WANT to get hacked, sued or have bad PR but a business is always in tension between the bean counters that want to reduce costs and those that want to do things that cost money but don't directly generate revenue. Good security costs time and money and requires that companies make that effort and even then they still will be subject to new exploits that are developed but failing to keep up and be active will result in breaches like this. Smaller remote offices are ideal targets because that is one of the first places that standards tend to slip.

     

    But the fact that they didn't want it to happen and the fact that it did are two entirely different points. I'm perfectly real btw.

  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,888

    At least this isn't as bad as Sony fiasco. It's one thing for hackers to get access to e-mail servers, another thing for hackers to get access to servers that hold personal information of more than 70 million people.

     
  • XxGrimmxXXxGrimmxX Member UncommonPosts: 223

    Originally posted by rwmiller

    Originally posted by XxGrimmxX

    What are they supposed to learn? You think the companies want to have law suits and other legal matters on their hands due to hacked account information.. Get real.

     

    You changed your message so to expand on my reply no I don't think that they WANT to get hacked, sued or have bad PR but a business is always in tension between the bean counters that want to reduce costs and those that want to do things that cost money but don't directly generate revenue. Good security costs time and money and requires that companies make that effort and even then they still will be subject to new exploits that are developed but failing to keep up and be active will result in breaches like this. Smaller remote offices are ideal targets because that is one of the first places that standards tend to slip.

     

    But the fact that they didn't want it to happen and the fact that it did are two entirely different points. I'm perfectly real btw.

    So if you can't be completely protected due to new exploits, you would think they would pick a good spot and stick with it because constantly trying to update your security would cost a lot, especially for "smaller remote offices". Seems like if you were only worried about security not much would get done.. hmmm

  • odinsrathodinsrath Member UncommonPosts: 814

    Originally posted by XxGrimmxX

    What are they supposed to learn? You think the companies want to have law suits and other legal matters on their hands due to hacked account information.. Get real.

    i agree ..what are they sopose to do? lol

    the interwebz is bad mmk and anyone who dosent think that anything / anyone isnt vulnerable at any given time is kidding their selfs..people need to think about some common sence before makeing these kind of threads..i see so many..like its gotta be the products fault?

    imageI ROLEPLAY!

  • rwmillerrwmiller Member Posts: 472

    Originally posted by XxGrimmxX

    Originally posted by rwmiller

    Originally posted by XxGrimmxX

    What are they supposed to learn? You think the companies want to have law suits and other legal matters on their hands due to hacked account information.. Get real.

     

    You changed your message so to expand on my reply no I don't think that they WANT to get hacked, sued or have bad PR but a business is always in tension between the bean counters that want to reduce costs and those that want to do things that cost money but don't directly generate revenue. Good security costs time and money and requires that companies make that effort and even then they still will be subject to new exploits that are developed but failing to keep up and be active will result in breaches like this. Smaller remote offices are ideal targets because that is one of the first places that standards tend to slip.

     

    But the fact that they didn't want it to happen and the fact that it did are two entirely different points. I'm perfectly real btw.

    So if you can't be completely protected due to new exploits, you would think they would pick a good spot and stick with it because constantly trying to update your security would cost a lot, especially for "smaller remote offices". Seems like if you were only worried about security not much would get done.. hmmm

    No you are right in that there has to be balance in your approach but in the security business paranoia is the best choice because there really are people out to get you. And to be honest you can sometimes make your system less secure by updating it with something that is not fully tested. It is not an easy task and maybe I was a bit harsh in my original statement but the idea that anyone in the gaming industry who has not or is not busy doing security aduits of all their systems haven't learned the basic lesson of "let it be that other poor bastard first".

     

    I vaguely rember a statement by someone working for the Secret Service that said an assassin only needs to be succesfull once but that they need to be succesfull 100% which is a lot harder.

  • XxGrimmxXXxGrimmxX Member UncommonPosts: 223

    Originally posted by rwmiller

    Originally posted by XxGrimmxX

    Originally posted by rwmiller

    Originally posted by XxGrimmxX

    What are they supposed to learn? You think the companies want to have law suits and other legal matters on their hands due to hacked account information.. Get real.

     

    You changed your message so to expand on my reply no I don't think that they WANT to get hacked, sued or have bad PR but a business is always in tension between the bean counters that want to reduce costs and those that want to do things that cost money but don't directly generate revenue. Good security costs time and money and requires that companies make that effort and even then they still will be subject to new exploits that are developed but failing to keep up and be active will result in breaches like this. Smaller remote offices are ideal targets because that is one of the first places that standards tend to slip.

     

    But the fact that they didn't want it to happen and the fact that it did are two entirely different points. I'm perfectly real btw.

    So if you can't be completely protected due to new exploits, you would think they would pick a good spot and stick with it because constantly trying to update your security would cost a lot, especially for "smaller remote offices". Seems like if you were only worried about security not much would get done.. hmmm

    No you are right in that there has to be balance in your approach but in the security business paranoia is the best choice because there really are people out to get you. And to be honest you can sometimes make your system less secure by updating it with something that is not fully tested. It is not an easy task and maybe I was a bit harsh in my original statement but the idea that anyone in the gaming industry who has not or is not busy doing security aduits of all their systems haven't learned the basic lesson of "let it be that other poor bastard first".

     

    I vaguely rember a statement by someone working for the Secret Service that said an assassin only needs to be succesfull once but that they need to be succesfull 100% which is a lot harder.

    Well then there is something we can agree on =P

Sign In or Register to comment.