17thspartan

I've noticed that Hillary supporters were out in force saying that it was 4 people who spent 40 minutes copying and downloading everything. That's the case that Wasserman Schultz made to the media, and she provided "proof" that it happened. The only problem is, the vendor made a completely conflicting statement. So unless she has backdoors into the vendor, or has access that the vendor themselves are incapable of accessing (considering that they host the data, own the software, and generate the logs), I'd have a hard time believing her on any of this.

"Updated: 3:53 PM EST Updating with additional information and clarification: First, a one page-style report containing summary data on a list was saved out of VoteBuilder by one Sanders user. This is what some people have referred to as the “export” from VoteBuilder. As noted below, users were unable to export lists of people."

1 person accessed a summary document which contained no voter information which could not be exported. The fact that they say they only saved a summary document sounds like he was genuinely trying to document the breach, which is the first step you take when responding to an incident. They were unable to export any sensitive information as pointed out, and the summary document had no voter information.

If you'd like to read about security incident protocols and best practices, google NIST 800-62. It's a lengthy document (it's meant to serve as a template/baseline for companies who want to write their own security incident policies) but it shows all the steps and explains in great detail how things should be done. To the best of my knowledge, from what I've read on major media, he sounds like he was doing his job. Unfortunately the layman won't understand it, which makes it really easy for Wasserman Schultz to spin however she would like.

I fully expect that he notified them of the problem, they said it was fixed (months ago), he experienced the problem again, went into full containment mode (keep Bernie's information from being exposed, and mitigate the data breach as best he can), started documenting the breach in order to provide the company with proof that this was happening, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz saw this as an excellent opportunity to point the finger and said that they did something wrong.

Until a full and independant investigation is done on both campaigns, the vendor and the DNC, we likely can't know what really happened. But until then, I'm ready to tentatively believe the vendor, since they are literally the only ones who have all the data and logs and information regarding this incident at this point.

http://blog.ngpvan.com/data-security-and-privacy

I like the idea, because I loath micro transactions and DLC can be a pain when there's lots of it and they don't provide enough content for the cost. Your strategy solves that issue.

My question is, for the developers who regularly release a lot of DLC, are there any rules in place on what counts as a DLC worthy of the extra attention they'd get by being featured in New Content Updates?

Some devs are slow to release their DLC, but it'll have enough content to be its own game, but others often add tons of small game elements/small story chapters, etc on a regular basis. Seems that extra attention to the latter developer (because they keep adding new content to stay in that category) might be unfair to the former developer.