You have stated that it was an automated attack but press articles quote the Forensics Report as saying “the server was under the control of a person.” Why the discrepancy?
Based on the evidence in the Forensics Report, we believe the nature of this particular incident was an automated attack, where malicious software was remotely installed on the computer allowing it to become part of a “botnet.” Botnet is a term for a collection of compromised machines – often hundreds – running programs autonomously, usually “worms,” “Trojan horses” or “backdoors,” under a common command and control infrastructure. Obviously there is an individual that launches these larger scale attacks but that individual controls the botnet remotely, often in an attempt to launch “denial of service attacks” or to relay items like pirated movies and television shows. For example, during the forensic analysis we discovered an episode of a current television program on the computer. Regardless of the nature of the attack, and while there is still no evidence that confidential files were accessed, unfortunately, there is also no evidence that they were not accessed. AHS is taking proact
Related Questions
- Press articles also quote a Norwich University Professor saying the system had "limited security protection" and a design that hadn’t been used in "more than 10 years" – is that the case?
- WHERE CAN I FIND ALBUM REVIEWS/ARTICLES/PRESS CLIPPINGS ABOUT THE BAND?
- Does SearchWarp.com allow automated or bulk submission of articles?
