Quote:
Originally Posted by Due
I'm sorry but this is not something that NATS / John must do, but this is something the PROGRAM OWNER must do.
It is not NATS that keep and maintain the databases that was compromised, they designed it, but they do not keep and maintain it.
|
Well, they do seem to maintain it. That is what started this whole thing, mismanagement of the maintenance accounts. But you do raise a valid point as to who should actually be sending the notifications. For that, I guess we'd have to look at the contracts NATS has with it's clients and see who is responsible for what. But I am gonna go out on a limb and guess that we'll never, ever see any of those. So its anyone's guess as to who is actually responsible for it. But if the NATS client contract was as thought out as the TMM/NATS response and solution to the rest of this mess, its probably safe to say that it could would not be defined in the contract and either or both should have and were responsible for seeing that it is done. A great example of that ounce of prevention being worth a pound of cure.