Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 5th May 2011 21:07 UTC, submitted by sawboss
Thread beginning with comment 471962
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-05-06
This article is bogus. I looked at the testimony for Spafford via the source link given on the Consumerist article. There is no mention of the lack of a firewall, Apache issues, or specific software patches not being applied; at least not specific to the attack on Sony. There is only this quote from the testimony, which itself is mere speculation, "I have no information about what protections they had in place, although some news reports indicate that Sony was running software that was badly out of date, and had been warned about that risk.". The testimony also does not provide any sources regarding the alleged "news reports". Perhaps he was referring to bogus news reports like the one on The Consumerist?