The security breach in question involved Anthem Inc., one of the biggest insurance providers in the US; the company and third-party security experts estimated that nearly 80 million individual records containing names, medical IDs, addresses, social security numbers and other personal data have been compromised by the attack. Investigators came to the conclusion that the attacking party was able to access the records by sending out phishing emails to Anthem employees; some also linked Chinese government to the attack but this assumption was either dismissed as impossible to verify, or relevant information have not yet been released to the public. Anthem reacted quickly and disclosed all the information about the hack as soon as they could in order to minimize the potential damage.
Source 1 (http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/04/technology/anthem-insurance-hack-data-security/).
Presentation. The information in the article is written in a clear and concise manner; CNN maintains its image of a reputable news source and aims to deliver a succinct report.
Relevance. The article provides little technical detail on the incident which makes it not so relevant in terms of understanding how the hack actually happened.
Objectivity. The style of the article does not allow for any implicit message or advertising inclusion.
Method. The only kind of data presented in the article concerns the number of people affected by the hack; it is provided by Anthem itself.
Provenance. CNN is a reputable news provider; the data is first-hand.
Timeliness. The article was published 2 days after Anthem went public about the breach; it was current at the time.
Source 2 (http://www.bankinfosecurity.com/anthem-breach-phishing-attack-cited-a-7895).
Presentation. The article is broken down into specifically themed parts which allows for a quick understanding of its contents.
Relevance. This article is a good read for those who wish to familiarize themselves with the technical side of things.
Objectivity. There is some speculation on China’s involvement but it does not affect the objective nature of the report about the hack.
Method. The only kind of data presented in the article concerns the number of people affected by the hack; it is provided by Anthem itself.
Provenance. Such topic is a perfect fit for a banking security website; the data is first-hand.
Timeliness. The article was published 5 days after Anthem went public about the breach; but it presented many technical details about the hack.
For those attempting to understand how the breach actually happened I would recommend reading the Source 2 because it is focused on the specifics and technical details of the attack, such as the method used by the hackers. It is also easier to read because the information is structured into subtopics; PROMPT analysis backs up my suggestion: in the context of trying to understand the methods behind the hack Source 2 is superior to Source 1 in terms of Presentation and Relevance.
Works Cited:
Riley, Charles. "Insurance Giant Anthem Hit By Massive Data Breach". CNNMoney. N.p., 2015. Web. 12 Jan. 2017.
Schwartz, Mathew. "Anthem Breach: Phishing Attack Cited". Bankinfosecurity.com. N.p., 2015. Web. 12 Jan. 2017.
