(Untitled)

[tmaher]

(I wrote this initially as a comment in http://pamshouseblend.com/diary/10412/amazon-backpedals-blames-glitch. Someone asked for an IT professional to translate to layman's terms the exploit described at Read more... )

Comments

[tmaher]

I can very easily believe that Amazon would publicly describe the exploitation of a vulnerability as a glitch.

[bk2w]

I'm absolutely positive that Amazon's management knows this is a security exploit. But keep in mind that what Amazon publicly states has direct impact on the stock price.

Scenario: Amazon says their website is currently insecure and that they are working to solve the problem.
Result: They just admitted that they do not have effective security, therefore they have a system-wide problem, therefore the stock takes a significant hit. And they just opened the door to legal questions about the security of all that private information they already have.

Scenario: Amazon says nothing at all until they have a security fix.
Result: Amazon takes a PR hit from the LGBT and civil-rights population, lowering sales, and therefore lowering stock price.

Scenario: Amazon lies about the weak security cause, instead claiming it was a temporary technical glitch. At the same time, they go an review the security system and fix the real problem

[cyano]

Agreed.

[ozdachs]

I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on the blogs. However, I'm pretty sure you cannot tell a lie and uphold your fiduciary responsibility. Misleading investors will get you in trouble, civil, if not criminal.