> just hasn't been targeted by any serious attackers yet.
Source? Just because they haven't announced any successful security breaches, doesn't mean they haven't been seriously targeted.
In fact, considering the amount of times my random dedicated server instance (not hosted at DO) gets hit with random attacks, I'm sure a large provider like DO has had numerous serious, targeted attacks against their network/servers/control panel/etc.
> Source? Just because they haven't announced any successful security breaches, doesn't mean they haven't been seriously targeted.
True, and in fact the only basis for my statement is that they have historically taken security so not-seriously that it would be surprising if they were in fact able to withstand advanced attacks, given that even the most secure organizations are often unable to do so. (see: every talk at Black Hat)
> In fact, considering the amount of times my random dedicated server instance (not hosted at DO) gets hit with random attacks, I'm sure a large provider like DO has had numerous serious, targeted attacks against their network/servers/control panel/etc.
this statement is just as baseless as mine. perhaps even moreso, since the two numbers seem to have nothing to do with each other. one could just as well say "my server gets lots of bogus SSH attempts, so banks get robbed a lot".
Source? Just because they haven't announced any successful security breaches, doesn't mean they haven't been seriously targeted.
In fact, considering the amount of times my random dedicated server instance (not hosted at DO) gets hit with random attacks, I'm sure a large provider like DO has had numerous serious, targeted attacks against their network/servers/control panel/etc.