Take that with a grain of salt.
I like to use the 2013 Target breach case. They lost $1 billion due to the attack, their stocks dropped significantly after the attack, had several lawsuits, they closed a few stores, and changed the CEO and CIO. But a few months later, all was forgiven, their stocks recovered, and life went on.
Don't get me wrong, the risks of a cyber attack have to be taken seriously. But I feel that I have overestimated the impacts of reputational damage my whole life, as an infosec professional. My thinking was always like this: if you get reputational damage, you are done, no chance to recover, it is the end of it.
I'm following the Crowdstrike case, but I would bet that they will lose some market share (mostly prospects), perhaps some layoffs, but stocks will come up eventually.
Not as much as if it contained passwords, for sure. Bu it gives a nice mailing list for phishing and so on.
Depends of the country. Disrupt with Internet/communications may be a crime in some countries.
Kudos to SOC team.
CrowdStrike report of the incident: https://www.crowdstrike.com/falcon-content-update-remediation-and-guidance-hub/
Well, depends. If the user go to a captive portal to "authenticate" before the VPN could closes, than no. But, if the VPN can "pierce" through it (without any intervention from the AP), than yes. Anyways, If the user is willing to provide authentication data (like social media accounts, etc), nothing matters.
Update: Israel Planted Explosives in Pagers Sold to Hezbollah, Officials Say (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/17/world/middleeast/israel-hezbollah-pagers-explosives.html)