|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 05:36 PM EDT |
"hardware + software replacements + cost to set it all up < total costs
to remove the malware"
That never happens, because "total costs to remove hardware <= cost to
set it all up", and the other are non-negative.
The worst case of common malware removal is that you must reinstall everything.
That's the best case for replacement.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Sorry - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 11:54 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 10 2013 @ 10:44 PM EDT |
Your little equation
"hardware + software replacements + cost to set it all up < total costs
to remove the malware"
looks simple enough, yet it masks the ugly truth:
hardware + software replacements + cost to set it all up VS.
investigation and advice + temporary infrastructure + physical destruction +
cost of destroyed hardware + development of a long-term response + almost a
year's worth of X amount of man hours
Looks like the cost balance, once the consultant had finished investigating and
advising, were already tilted...
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 11 2013 @ 04:14 PM EDT |
It would make sense to me if they replaced the OS and programs with software
that had been hardened against any type of cyber-attack. However, the PDF
implies that they simply reinstalled the known malware on their new hardware.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
