Reply to post: Re: In the words

Firm issues soft denial against Iron Dome hack


Re: In the words

Well, to judge from my own experience as a US DoD IA contractor, the contract isn't at risk due to underperofmance.

I've watched that one firsthand, with a one billion dollar recovery for one incident and a classified cost for the month later recurrance.

Said company was *awarded*, based upon the response to the monster they created by their non-compliance with US DoD standards.

Now, as a victim, I'd usually minimize the impact in a press release.

But, the impact was a pitiful 800 megs or so. In an age where terabytes are normally sent astray.

Knowing information systems rather intimately and, erm, knowing something about guided missile systems, 800 megs would give them some fuel formuae and general construction data only and more likely, granted access to laundry and food consumption data as well.

Leaving them at best, fuel formua data and sparse information on anything *really* of import.

But then, I've dealt with compromises, *real* data and know what file size files actually are for designs.

So, it's most likely that the data compromized was chow hall consumption and sparse unclassified data that is of little import.

Hence, "downgraded".

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon