> "...and found no history of abuse..."
Because they didn't have enough logging or auditing to start with, or no logs or audit data left since the hack.
Because they didn't have enough logging or auditing to start with, or no logs or audit data left since the hack.
I mean, if you think about it from Cox's point of view — why would you disclose to someone outside the company if there had been history of abuse? Why would you disclose anything at all in fact?