The story could've been good, but the style of writing is neither witty nor clever and when I arrived at reserved seats in the front row at Black Hat I closed the tab with a quick sigh of relief afterwards. Horrible.
The story could've been good, but the style of writing is neither witty nor clever and when I arrived at reserved seats in the front row at Black Hat I closed the tab with a quick sigh of relief afterwards. Horrible.
That said: What details did you take away from the article? I'm serious. I just went back and skimmed the rest. It seems this is really a long version of 'someone found an exploit, we fixed it, he presented it in public and we handled the aftermath'. No details at all. The most technical bit was the 'Now we're so much more secure by requiring signed code', and that was it?
Apparently, there is little meaningful verification that an ATM is secure before people start using it.
The target was randomly chosen, and a second company's ATM was breached in a completely separate fashion.
This was simply a publicity stunt for a security research company.
etc.