Linked by David Adams on Tue 28th Jun 2011 15:35 UTC, submitted by HAL2001
Privacy, Security, Encryption In an unexpected move for a security company, SecurEnvoy today said that cyber break-ins and advanced malware incidents, such as the recent DDoS attack by LulzSec, should actually be welcomed and their initiators applauded. The company's CTO Andy Kemshall said: "I firmly believe that the media attention LulzSec’s DDoS attack has recently received is deserving. It’s thanks to these guys, who’re exposing the blase attitudes of government and businesses without any personal financial gain, that will make a difference in the long term to the security being put in place to protect our own personal data!"
Thread beginning with comment 479055
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by MORB
by Alfman on Wed 29th Jun 2011 12:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by MORB"
Member since:


"It's certainly not the same, but if there's a way to take a server down with a small amount of organization/friends, due to the way the software running on this server works, it's another form of security vulnerability."

This speaks to unscalable designs and systems, however a company can find itself in a situation where systems can handle the legitimate load of X customers, but not X + Y attackers. I'm uncomfortable with the conclusion that a company out to design the infrastructure to handle X customers + Y attacks.

Edit: Although, what choice is there?

Edited 2011-06-29 12:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2