sqgl@beehaw.org to Privacy@lemmy.ml · 15 days agoMeta fined $101 million by Ireland for storing hundreds of millions of passwords in plaintexttherecord.mediaexternal-linkmessage-square8fedilinkarrow-up12arrow-down10
arrow-up12arrow-down1external-linkMeta fined $101 million by Ireland for storing hundreds of millions of passwords in plaintexttherecord.mediasqgl@beehaw.org to Privacy@lemmy.ml · 15 days agomessage-square8fedilink
minus-squareBearOfaTime@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up0·15 days ago“mistake” I call BS. The reviews I’ve gone through for trivial stuff would’ve exposed this. This was intentional.
minus-squareHiddenLayer555@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·15 days agoHanlon’s Razor revised: Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence, except where there is an established pattern of malice.
minus-squareBearOfaTime@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up1·7 days agoThen incompetence at a level that’s incomprehensible. A code review certainly exposed this, and some manager signed off on the risk. Again, changes I make are trivial in comparison, and our code/risk reviews would’ve exposed this in no time.
minus-squaremasterspace@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0arrow-down1·15 days agoYeah, cause trivial systems are a lot easier to parse and review. At a base level that’s nonsense logic.
minus-squareBearOfaTime@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down1·7 days agoMy point being the extensiveness of a review process. The more important a system, the more people it impacts, etc, the more extensive the review process. Someone chose to ignore this risk. That’s intentional.
minus-squaremasterspace@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·7 days agoYou quite frankly, don’t know what happened and if you’re confident it’s intentional, all that says is that you’re a grump who likes to complain.
“mistake”
I call BS. The reviews I’ve gone through for trivial stuff would’ve exposed this.
This was intentional.
Hanlon’s Razor revised: Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence, except where there is an established pattern of malice.
Then incompetence at a level that’s incomprehensible.
A code review certainly exposed this, and some manager signed off on the risk.
Again, changes I make are trivial in comparison, and our code/risk reviews would’ve exposed this in no time.
Yeah, cause trivial systems are a lot easier to parse and review. At a base level that’s nonsense logic.
My point being the extensiveness of a review process.
The more important a system, the more people it impacts, etc, the more extensive the review process.
Someone chose to ignore this risk. That’s intentional.
You quite frankly, don’t know what happened and if you’re confident it’s intentional, all that says is that you’re a grump who likes to complain.