[Closi]

How it happened doesn't change the fact that they have been breached.

If I was a bank and claimed that I haven't been robbed, an insider just transferred billions of pounds out of the bank and then fled, I think everyone would rightly say "What are you talking about, you have been robbed!"

It doesn't matter if it was done by a guy in a black and white stripey t-shirt, or if it was done by a rogue internal employee, a bank robbery is a bank robbery.

In fact, the ability of an internal staff member to transfer lots of money out of the bank probably signifies a more significant and systemic issue - particularly if i've lost my money and the bank refuses to acknowledge they have been breached/robbed (it was just an internal rogue staff member, not a robbery! our security hasn't been breached!).

A bit of a stretched analogy - but i'm sure everyone gets the point. Security isn't just about technical security - it's the whole process involved in making sure these things don't happen. A banks 'technical' security might be great, but the bank would still be considered horribly insecure if a staff member can transfer any money out of an account. Equally an auth service might be 'technically' secure, but the ability of a single rogue staff member to impose a lot of damage suggests more systemic issues.

[haswell]

> It doesn't matter if it was done by a guy in a black and white stripey t-shirt, or if it was done by a rogue internal employee, a bank robbery is a bank robbery.

I have to respectfully disagree.

Yes, the end result may be the same, but even in a bank robbery, the how matters, and will drive different behaviors from everyone involved: the bank, law enforcement, and customers of that bank.

If as a customer, I learn that a guy in a stripey t-shirt holds a teller at gunpoint, my conclusion goes something like "that's a terrifying situation for the teller, and I hope they're ok". I'm probably not going to stop using that bank.

If on the other hand, I learn that there are systemic issues with bank security, and internal employees have been embezzling funds somehow, I'm probably going to think hard about whether this is a bank I want to do business with.

> Security isn't just about technical security - it's the whole process involved in making sure these things don't happen.

Yes, and when factors are involved that are out of the bank's control (e.g. a crazy person walks in with a gun), it might be fair to ask why the guy got inside to begin with, but the conclusions you draw about such an incident are far different than the conclusions you'd draw if internal employees were involved.

In case this wasn't clear from my earlier comment, I didn't mean to imply that an internal process issue makes any of this ok. But it does make it different than other types of breaches.

Bottom line: the how still matters, not because one type of problem is ok and the other isn't, but because the actions a customer should take / consider will be different depending on how the breach happened.

[Closi]

To be honest I think we are agreeing but arguing slightly different points.

The how matters, I agree, but it doesn’t change the fact that a breach is a breach.

Different breaches can have different severities, but they are still both breaches.

My issue isn’t on the severity of the breach, it’s that Okta are saying there wasn’t a breach.

[haswell]

Yeah, I think we're on the same page. The primary focus of my original reply was that the "how" really does matter. I agree that this is still a breach regardless.

[stevage]

I don't think anyone would call the second case a robbery, they'd call it embezzlement or fraud.