What if AT&T was asked to pay a ransom to avoid having customer information published…and opted to just let the data be made public….?
6 replies (most recent on top)
they keep trying to blame a vendor after only very recently admitting it seems odd also.
Doesn't matter. AT&T provided the data to a 3rd party, so they are guilty by association.
There is absolutely no valid need for AT&T to retain former customer data. For starters, there isn't even a good reason to retain the SSN - once the credit check is done, the SSN should be purged.
It was "for sale" in 2021 for 1 Million for the whole thing or starting bids at 200k. This group of hackers often will later release for free if there are no takers. $1M seems kind of low if the data was that good?
As someone else pointed out, the actual hack happened several years ago, 2019 I believe. It was just recently discovered on the dark web (the dataset of AT&T customers). So I don't think it has anything to do with ransom, more likely just reckless handling of sensitive data since AT&T didn't even know they lost it all these years ago. (or maybe they did and tried to simply keep it on the down low. Almost got away with it)
"don't you have to investigate first ?"
T just following the govt's lead where jumping to conclusions is based on the context of the situation.
Stankey is cute and cuddly in his PJs making million dollars a week?
Nope, this hack was known for a while, it was only recently that it came out.
AT&T was clueless then and still denied it until last week.
Why they keep trying to blame a vendor after only very recently admitting it seems odd also.
I mean, don't you have to investigate first ?, they admitted they knew nothing so there was no investigation already.
One thing is sure though, it happened on Stankeys watch. How he is still around and not been surplussed is beyond me.