advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

As Sony’s Breach Tops 100 Million Accounts, It Needs To Fix Its Encryption Rhetoric

May 4th, 2011

Continuing with its Q&A: “Second, we are enhancing security and strengthening our network infrastructure. Moving forward, we are initiating several measures that will significantly enhance all aspects of PlayStation Network’s security and your personal data, including moving our network infrastructure and datacenter to a new, more secure location, which is already underway.”

Sony is moving its datacenter to a new building? That’s baffling but it’s actually more BS than baffling, given that they had planned to move to that new location long before the breach.

Next question: “Has Sony identified the party or parties responsible for the PlayStation Network hack and subsequent theft of personal information? A: We are currently conducting a thorough investigation of the situation and are working closely with a recognized technology security firm and law enforcement to find those responsible for this criminal act no matter where in the world they might be located.” Sony isn’t even identifying the security firm, other than to say that it’s recognized? It’s understandable to not reveal what security firm has been hired. But if you choose to not mention the firm’s name, you don’t get to boast about it. Besides, the best boast you could come up with is recognized?

By the way, in congressional testimony on Wednesday (May 4), Sony did a much better job of answering the question. When asked the same question, Kazuo Hirai (Chairman of the Board of Directors of Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC) answered: “No.”

Then there’s this: “Q: When will the PlayStation Network and Qriocity be back online? A: Our employees have been working day and night to restore operations as quickly as possible, and we expect to have some services up and running within a week from yesterday. However, we want to be very clear that we will only restore operations when we are confident that the network is secure.”

Sony wants to assure everyone—including the handful of people somewhere who have not been personally involved in the breach—that “we will only restore operations when we are confident that the network is secure.” Easy question: Guys, would you say that you were confident before that the network was secure?

Guess there’s a plus side to the breach number now hitting 100 million. With a global population of 4 billion, Sony’s brushing up against the physical limit of how bad this can get.


advertisement

One Comment | Read As Sony’s Breach Tops 100 Million Accounts, It Needs To Fix Its Encryption Rhetoric

  1. Steve Sommers Says:

    Good story. All I can say is wow!

    It’s interesting to me that it seems more information is coming from the hacker side of this incident that from the Sony side (http://www.zdnet.com/news/hackers-plan-third-sony-attack/6231055?tag=nl.e589). But this does not surprise me since hackers don’t have to worry about lawsuits and liability.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

StorefrontBacktalk
Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.