| ▲ | iampims 7 hours ago |
| It’s bold to set status page incident to resolved. |
|
| ▲ | weird-eye-issue 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| If they fixed the exploit then what do you want them to do? Do they need to wait an arbitrary amount of time before setting it to resolved? |
| |
| ▲ | eddythompson80 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't disagree with you, but I think generally when the mistake involves compromised user data, the answer is a bit more emotionally driven. People get rightfully mad when things like that happens, and services usually keep the incident in a "Mitigated" status while they "work with their customers to ensure blah blah blah" or whatever. Everywhere I've personally worked the Mitigated->Resolved involves publishing a postmortem, repair items, and general assurances or safe guards based on learnings from the incident that the issue won't happen again. However, the industry as a whole doesn't have a standard for what the line between Mitigation and Resolution is. | | |
| ▲ | weird-eye-issue 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | So the active incident is now fixed and they've already reached out to impacted customers but they can't mark it as resolved yet because they are still yet to publish a more detailed blog post? | | |
| ▲ | jtchang 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's not that they can't mark it as resolved.
It's just that it is bad business to do so. How they handle the communication on the incident is crucially as important as remediating the original cause. Just the fact that they are doing this means I will probably never use this service or recommend this service to anyone else. | | |
| ▲ | weird-eye-issue 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Okay so let's just say you are one of those affected users The founder of the company has already emailed you with details and their support team is around for you to ask any follow-up questions. Also the bug/exploit has been fully fixed At this point are you saying you would actually be upset and leave because the incident on their status page has been marked as resolved? | | |
| |
| ▲ | whilenot-dev 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What makes you think it's fixed? They just state that they "blocked the exploit", and that could mean anything: - did they just take the affected API offline? - or did they just disable the account of the attacker? - or is the exploit actually being fixed? Environment variables are sensible data, and marking a security incident as resolved with that little detail is quite a take. Even changelog entries for harmless bug fixes are more detailed. | | |
| ▲ | weird-eye-issue 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | I assume it's fixed based on it being marked resolved and from what was communicated. Yeah I agree it's a major issue but if it's fixed what they have done so far seems totally fine |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | rugma 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| they could have explained a bit better with proper postmortem and steps taken to improve, before marking it as resolved |
|
| ▲ | Traubenfuchs 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They are no longer exposing anything, so they no longer have an incident. Their customers now have an incident that will be resolved once their secrets are rotated. Maybe they also need to do previous intrusion forensics… In any case, not triggers problem anymore. |
|
| ▲ | cheeze 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I like the fancy gradient INCIDENT REPORT image as well. At least it looks fancy and AI-ey |
