|
Post by juthi52943 on Jan 6, 2024 4:43:24 GMT
In further steps, the processing entity aimed to determine whether the information received was reliable and whether providing the answer did not threaten the security of the Companys IT resources. Before the controller obtained confirmation in this respect from the processing entity, the Company was approached by an unidentified third party who informed. The Company that it had downloaded publicly Job Function Email List available data and deleted it from the Companys server and demanded a ransom in exchange for the return of the data. The processing entity confirmed the data collection, the scale of the violation was determined and remedial actions were taken, ., among others the correct server configuration was restored port closed and the passwords of moneyman. Apl website users were reset. Only after the events described occurred, did the Company initially report the personal data protection breach to the President of the Data Protection Office. What does the Office of Personal Data Protection say about this? In its decision, the Personal Data Protection Office has repeatedly emphasized that the Company was late in reporting the violation.
|
|