> And then go on to write paragraphs of detail and a timeline that explicitly shows for a five day period an unauthorized user had full super user access to the service.
it sounds like they built the support tool (with its unfortunate name) such that it places limited trust in support contractors and the information technology that supports them. because of this they're able to identify potentially affected customers and even audit all activities that have taken place. in other words, the system worked as designed.
this is very different (and orders of magnitude less severe) than an actual compromise of the production service itself.
it sounds like they built the support tool (with its unfortunate name) such that it places limited trust in support contractors and the information technology that supports them. because of this they're able to identify potentially affected customers and even audit all activities that have taken place. in other words, the system worked as designed.
this is very different (and orders of magnitude less severe) than an actual compromise of the production service itself.