> They later tell us they believed that datacentre was introducing the corruption
What now? Their datacentre was ... rewriting (presumably) encrypted packets?
What now? Their datacentre was ... rewriting (presumably) encrypted packets?
What I meant here is they could tell that the corruption was being introduced by some component in their infrastructure, and they were only observing it for messages passing through one of their two active-active sites.
It's a fine line between understandable to laymen and people been pernickity sadly.