Linked by David Adams on Tue 28th Jun 2011 15:35 UTC, submitted by HAL2001
Permalink for comment 478918
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/15/13 22:44 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-01-28
MORB,
"They do have a point, though. All those companies that got hacked had crappy security yet are always demanding personal information from their customers to use their products."
In so far as the data breaches expose a vulnerability which the company then fixes, then yes the company's security could benefit in the long term. There's nothing like an attack to raise awareness. However in context of the piece quoted, the vendor specifically mentions that DDoS encourage better data security, which is idiotic.
There's no connection between bandwidth limitations and data security. If you can't keep up with the attacker/botnet, then your dead. It doesn't indicate anything about bad security practices.