Thank you all for your answers and interesting links!
I'm surprised that the cost (in dollars or euros) of a single cyberattack or hack can be (orders of magnitude!!!) less than the cost of damage from such an attack.
I'd like to add: we understand perfectly well that it's not just the IT infrastructure of an organization or enterprise, protected by a security system protected by a self-taught administrator, that is being hacked and attacked.
They're hacking... what? They're hacking brands. Protecting large and government organizations is not a script written on the fly (in a week or a month) by a full-time security administrator.
Let's switch to financial terminology. The perimeter and internals are protected by brands such as:
CISCO, Avaya, Nortel Telecom, Microsoft, Norton, HP, IBM, RedHat. There are thousands of them. Correct?
And... then an attack, with a total cost of, say, $50,000 or $100,000, cripples organizations and their businesses worth several billion dollars.
So... what? Nothing. And sometimes losses are even greater.
How did it all end with that same British branch of Jaguar Land Rover? The government practically paid for the mistake,
allocating precisely $2 billion, or £1.5 billion, in loans.
And if the British government provided a 5-year loan through a commercial bank, then the hacking problem is not simple, but rather at the level of "governments" and the highest circles.
Is it logical to assume that such attacks are organized by another government of another country?
This is the level of hacking of a "financial-industrial group" (the "state-commercial cluster" nexus).
Or am I missing something? Or is government lending a kickback?
Why isn't there an article about at least one of the CEOs being fired for such a hack?
Security managers receive enormous salaries!
Everything will remain as before: they'll sign another contract or agreement with CISCO, HP, Oracle, etc.
And why didn't the security contractor pay part of the amount?
Or did they pay, but no one wrote about it? And if they did pay, the financial losses would be even more colossal.
Doesn't the contract specify a percentage of the recovery for risks such as the collapse of the ENTIRE Jaguar Land Rover industrial cluster?
I'm very disappointed with your news.
www.wired.com
