Equifax Can't Protect Data, But It Can Keep a Secret
(Bloomberg Gadfly) -- Equifax, as everyone knows now, proved inept at securing the most sensitive personal and financial data of as many as 143 million Americans. But it turns out the company was exceptionally good at protecting news of the hack from getting out.
The credit-reporting bureau was, it seems, able to keep that news from top executives, the board and eventually the public for far longer than other corporate victims. LinkedIn confirmed a 2012 hack just three days after the social network found out about it. Target confirmed its huge hack in 2014 seven days after it was discovered, and a day after rumors, spread by cybersecurity bloggers, had begun circulating that the retailer's customers' credit card information had been breached. At Equifax, however, the company was able to keep that information safe from the public for 39 days. And you say former CEO Richard Smith isn't deserving of a $7.6 million stock bonus?
The timing is important. It is human nature to want to hide bad news for as long as possible, but it is absolutely toxic for confidence in publicly traded corporations, which most often trumpet the virtues of transparency. Any delay in disclosure naturally raises suspicion about what a company might be trying to hide. And when it comes to the breach of consumers' most vital personal information, the delay risks real damage, regardless of any best intentions. In Equifax's case, its tardiness compounded a host of problems it might have been able to avoid. Â Â
At a congressional hearing on the hack on Tuesday, Smith said Equifax had 225 cybersecurity experts on its payrolls worldwide, none of whom were able to prevent the breach. Yet the company has one general counsel, John J. Kelley, who also appears to have overseen security for the firm, as well as a board that, put nicely, liked to keep its schedule light.
Understandably, much of the questioning at the hearing on Tuesday was about when Smith and the rest of his executive team knew about the hack and whether they kept that information from the public longer than they should have. Smith said that he became aware some kind of cybersecurity event on July 31, but, he says, he didn't know that consumer information was stolen. Given what his company does, he could have probably guessed what hackers were after.
A day later, three top executives, including the company's chief financial officer, started selling shares. They, according to Smith, didn't know about the hack. Kelley, the company's top lawyer, and, once again, also the head of corporate security, signed off on the stock sales although he had been made aware of suspicious cyber activity on July 30. It wasn't until two weeks later, in the afternoon, that Smith's crack team of 225 cybersecurity experts were able to report back to the CEO that its consumer database had been hacked. That's important, because just that morning, conveniently before his hack briefing, Smith gave a rosy speech about the company and how it understood the importance of cybersecurity.
Smith says it was still another two days before he was 100 percent sure that consumer data had been compromised. The board wasn't made aware until five days later and then presumably decided collectively that consumers didn't have a right to know for 15 more days. And that was after, as Bloomberg has reported, someone at Equifax alerted LifeLock about the hack so that Equifax's partner could profit from it. Nice work all around.
It's important to understand that what happened at Equifax was not just a technological failure but more important a failure of management and corporate governance. Questions about why Equifax was so tardy in telling the victims about the egregious breach are a start, but the company still has lot more questions to answer and changes to make before shareholders and the public in general can trust it again.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Stephen Gandel is a Bloomberg Gadfly columnist covering equity markets. He was previously a deputy digital editor for Fortune and an economics blogger at Time. He has also covered finance and the housing market.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Daniel Niemi at dniemi1@bloomberg.net.
-
Indians Stay With Family, Not In Hotels | The Reason Why
India still lacks enough clean, reliable and affordable hotels for budget-conscious travellers.
-
The Economic Imperative: Analysing The Material Driving Force Behind India-Canada Strategic Reset
This economic complementarity is further reinforced by deep institutional investment ties and talent mobility, which form the bedrock of the bilateral framework.
-
Medicine Pricing: Where Must Profit Stop?
India must confront excessive margins, hidden incentives and regulatory gaps that threaten the integrity of medicine.
-
Why Amazon And Flipkart Are Struggling To Beat Meesho In India's Smaller Cities
With 274 million users and lowest-cost logistics, Meesho is defending its value commerce crown against giants like Amazon and Flipkart.
-
High US Salaries, No Green Card Certainty: The Financial Calculation Facing Indian H-1B Families
The suspension of PERM processing at eight technology employers does not cancel existing H-1B visas. What it does is force a question many Indian families have been avoiding: is the US salary worth tying your career and family plans to one employer?
-
Swiggy vs Eternal: Food Delivery's Two Rivals Are No Longer In The Same Race
Eternal is building a private AI assistant, dark.ai. Swiggy is still working out how to make Instamart pay, with an operating loss of Rs 895 crore in the July-September quarter while Blinkit stayed profitable.
-
Where You Live Shapes How You Get To Work | The Reason Why
Two-wheelers are the most popular way to get to work in India, accounting for nearly 43% of workplace commutes.
-
Unhedged Position: Can India See An Indonesia-Style Time Correction?
The Nifty is trading below levels it first clocked in 2024. Is there, then, as I have suggested in the headline, potential that the current time correction drags on painfully for the next three-five, even ten years?
-
Navigating Friction And Energy Realities: An Analysis Of Marco Rubio's October Visit To India
Occurring at a critical juncture marked by stalled trade negotiations and escalating geopolitical pressures over global energy supplies, the visit offers a profound window into modern US-India relations.
-
India Exports Capital. Why Not Export Trusteeship?
The big question, then, is whether India can build an institution that global borrowers, investors, banks, and lawyers can trust, even without an Indian connection.