Posted Monday 13th October 2008 14:55 GMT
Fox News? Fair and Balanced? Yeah, right.
This is a softening up piece. Just wait for the follow up that subtley suggests that hackers are responsible for the US mortgages, banks and share market collapses, not the attrocious economic policies of the last decade.
Posted Monday 13th October 2008 14:55 GMT
>"at no point has a hacking attack accessed sensitive information in the World Bank's Treasury, procurement, anti-corruption or human resources departments"
So we *can* be sure that a) hacking attacks have accessed what they would call non-sensitive information in those departments, and /or that b) hacking attacks have accessed sensitive information in every other department. Otherwise they wouldn't have specified "sensitive" information, nor listed the departments.
Posted Monday 13th October 2008 14:57 GMT
Because it seems pretty explicit to me, I don't really see how it can be mis-interpreted.
Posted Monday 13th October 2008 16:12 GMT
How would the World Bank know if a hacking attack was successful? Isn't a successful attach undetected by definition? All they know about is the unsuccessful, and nearly-successful attacks.
Sign up, sign up for The Register's weekly IT security newsletter - click here
Back to the article
