https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/02/28/ucsf-tech-worke...
Fire the leadership from the top down. Every one approved outsourcing the IT staff.
> This move will save UCSF $30 million over the next 5 years.
So they're ahead?
I'm being slightly snarky here, but also earnest. If they save 30 but lose 1.14 isn't it worth it?
The 1.14M is just the ransom, doesn't account for how much money was wasted on other aspects of recovery and total downtime...
Are you asserting that the breach would not have happened if the IT operations were in-house? Could you also clarify why did you feel it necessary to qualify the location of outsourcing? If the project was outsourced to any other country besides India, this would not have happened?
I think the emphasis is on the fact it was outsourced to another country; you can't generally check the credentials of someone on the other side of the world very easily. The University of Delhi probably has good IT staff, but “Delhi International Computer Help”? Probably not.
If that were true, we would not have any trust in global trade. There are plenty of IT companies that have all American IT workforce and still have suffered data breaches. The issue at hand is not checking someone's credentials here. The issue is the political undertone that OP has taken.