They sold their cyber services unit because they believed cyber is not that important.
Then they provided it by having 3 data breaches. These are only the ones we know about. There will be more. Many more. This is what happens when you destroy a company and treat your employees like disposable garbage.
The cyber services unit or correct name "Managed Security Services" had nothing to do with AT&T security. They are a customer facing security organization. The leak also came from a third party vendor not systems that internal AT&T security have direct control over. If you are going to post this stuff out here, I suggest you know what your talking about so you dont look like an id--t.
Sorry, but you look like an id--t. CSO is responsible for AT&T’s data, no matter where it is.
The cyber services unit or correct name "Managed Security Services" had nothing to do with AT&T security. They are a customer facing security organization. The leak also came from a third party vendor not systems that internal AT&T security have direct control over. If you are going to post this stuff out here, I suggest you know what your talking about so you dont look like an id--t.
LevelBlue is worth about as much as the brochure, and has the same level of respect in the Cybersecurity industry. A complete embarassment.
All they care about is mobility and fiber.
“We were promised that we would all move over to LevelBlue and things "would be the same" for at least a year. Bullsh-t. Lies. Two months later, layoffs.”
Once LevelBlue assessed the current skill level of many T employees, it was determined radical change was needed.
Do you think they'll rush to get Dynamic Defense out as a result?
The cyber division they sold didn't handle internal matters, that's CSO's job. It handled cyber solutions that were sold to customers both commercial and government.
We were promised that we would all move over to LevelBlue and things "would be the same" for at least a year. Bullsh-t. Lies. Two months later, layoffs.
it was and it will be only a matter of time. Nothing on the cloud is private take full responsibility and don't blame the 3rd party application such data shouldn't be exposed to the internet
The funny part about this is, with the way cloud resources are billed (some billing even if resources aren’t used) we actually end up paying more for Azure than if we stayed on-prem. It’s become a big issue because a lot of resources are spun up for POC’s, development, presentations, etc and then never spun down so we just get charged for them perpetually.
It’s actually kinda hilarious. The biggest win for Microsoft, Amazon, and other cloud providers was to convince id--ts (Stankey, Legg) that switching to cloud would actually save them money.
It is very convenient being able to quickly allocate resources for new projects, etc, but we could honestly do the same with on-premise if we had similar software and permissions.
it was and it will be only a matter of time. Nothing on the cloud is private take full responsibility and don't blame the 3rd party application such data shouldn't be exposed to the internet
When your goal is to go from 16 billion fcf to 18 you’re going to break all kinds of stuff. We’ve already done all the easy cost reductions. Now we’re full on risking the company with each cut.
Good opportunity to blame RTO, whether it is true or not.
Those of you on here trying to simp for T also don’t know what you’re talking about.
I’m a developer and Lead Member of Technical Staff and I’ll attest that they’ve been letting people go for d-mb things such as living in the wrong place, not going to office, not relocating, etc, INCLUDING our security expert on your team who had decades of experience.
T does NOT care, RTO is all that matters, sitting in the right seat in the right state is all that matters to these foolish executives.
The incompetence here knows no bounds, and we are DESPERATELY short on REAL talent.
those of you posting that T lacks an adequate talent pool for cyber security are 100% right. Same with mobility. They are firing people who live "outside a hub location" which basically filters out a lot of talent based on nothing. It's mediocrity all the way up and down.
This right here. Those who choose to not relocate for AT&T know they can find work elsewhere.
This isn't Twitter where people cling to the company because they are infatuated with Elon. Stankey is a nobody and AT&T is not a prestigious company to work at.
That means those who do relocate for AT&T are the bottom feeders, and this is the kind of people AT&T is investing in.
Can we just fire c-suite?
Yes they have to ensure the integrity of the data all the way into third party systems as it’s their data. I wonder how this affects their ability to do government jobs? Can they still meet compliance with this many hacks?
those of you posting that T lacks an adequate talent pool for cyber security are 100% right. Same with mobility. They are firing people who live "outside a hub location" which basically filters out a lot of talent based on nothing. It's mediocrity all the way up and down.
Anyone worth their salt in cyber knows that you ALWAYS own the risk. It matters little that this was a breach in a 3rd party system. T authorized that data to be in the system and was 💯 responsible for ensuring the proper controls were in place to protect it.
Suspect that OP is a Vz or TMO Troll-his rant shows true ignorance and no knowledge of any of the events, also has nothing to with the layoff's. I won't go into details as I don't want to feed knowledge, but T employees know the truth and how to candidly address each of these matters with customers.
T cares. It has just never had the talent to properly manage a cyber division and can’t afford to stand a new one up.
Uhh, the data breaches were on 3rd party cloud services. At least have some supporting knowledge before you bi--h.
It’s all connected. The board , c-suite, and officers can’t even spell cybersecurity. They are complete id--ts who care about one thing: money.
There is no interest in building a great company with secure products and a positive employee experience.
The board should be sued for breach of duty of care. They are completely vulnerable for personal liability at this point for keeping Stankey and his leadership at the helm - taking us straight to insolvency.
They sold cyber because they were too stupid to run it. There cost reduction is what is causing the breaches, they are desperate to save money.