BreachExchange mailing list archives
Re: seriously flawed U Washington breach study
From: Chris Walsh <cwalsh () cwalsh org>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 06:31:01 -0500
Bill Yurcik wrote: "the press does pick up a significant portion of the disclosures between organizations and the parties affected." Two questions: Q1: What do you mean by "significant"? Q2: If the answer to Q1 depends in any way on the (unobserved) total number of communications between breached entity and parties affected, how do you know your statement is true? That is, how do you test it as a hypothesis? I read the quoted material as saying "The press has revealed a large proportion of breaches for which disclosure has occurred". Well, ascertaining the numerator is easy in principle: Google+LexisNexis --> a number. The denominator is the hard one. Is it 95% of the iceberg? Is it 5%? Is the visible part of the iceberg just like the submerged part, so from an analytical standpoint it doesn't matter? I think that we know of a more than 5% or reported breaches, but that the ones we don't know about are different in analytically meaningful ways. I can think of a way to sort of prove it, even. The more important question is whether the breaches that are never even reported to anyone "look like" the ones we have info on. Impossible, using current data, to answer. cw _______________________________________________ Dataloss Mailing List (dataloss () attrition org) http://attrition.org/dataloss Tracking more than 149 million compromised records in 598 incidents over 7 years.
Current thread:
- seriously flawed U Washington breach study gets press making claims Bill Yurcik (Mar 14)
- Electronic Copiers Now Potential Source of Identity Theft DAIL, ANDY (Mar 14)
- Re: seriously flawed U Washington breach study gets press making claims B.K. DeLong (Mar 14)
- Re: seriously flawed U Washington breach study getspress making claims James Childers (Mar 14)
- Re: seriously flawed U Washington breach study gets press making claims Adam Shostack (Mar 14)
- Re: seriously flawed U Washington breach study Bill Yurcik (Mar 14)
- Re: seriously flawed U Washington breach study Adam Shostack (Mar 14)
- Re: seriously flawed U Washington breach study Bill Yurcik (Mar 15)
- Re: seriously flawed U Washington breach study Jim Neister (Mar 15)
- Re: seriously flawed U Washington breach study Adam Shostack (Mar 15)
- Re: seriously flawed U Washington breach study Bill Yurcik (Mar 14)
- Re: seriously flawed U Washington breach study Chris Walsh (Mar 15)
- Re: seriously flawed U Washington breach study Bill Yurcik (Mar 15)
- Re: seriously flawed U Washington breach study Nash, Kim (Mar 15)