Woolworths hit by “major technical issues”

Maybe the link to China went down and their 'key resource' couldn't outsource.
:erm:
 
phaktza said:
That was the conclusion Bern jumped to, not me. Had you actually read the original post to which I was referring to you would realise he hypothesised (incorrectly) that only "paper records with cash" were processed and, as such, there was a complete and total storage failure in the part of Woolworths which "led to an inability to process any kind of transaction".

I was merely pointing out this was not the case and made no actual assumption regarding the actual configuration, which could have these transactions kept elsewhere on storage that did not fail.
Click to expand...

Easy there, I just added the comments together hoping someone who had some knowledge could verify the points, I am interested in getting some detail and was hoping this would instigate some replies with actual info. Seems to not have worked.
 
phaktza said:
I was merely pointing out this was not the case and made no actual assumption regarding the actual configuration, which could have these transactions kept elsewhere on storage that did not fail.
Click to expand...

And no offence but you assumption could still be wrong.

The reality is it could have been logged to failed storage but they recovered that first since that database would not need previous rows to complete the transaction (whereas credit/debit might). Furthermore you don't know for a fact that a cash transaction requires connecting to any kind of back-end system. If it does it doesn't mean that system needs storage, etc. etc. etc.

Complete storage failure was still possible.
 
Gnome said:
And no offence but you assumption could still be wrong.

The reality is it could have been logged to failed storage but they recovered that first since that database would not need previous rows to complete the transaction (whereas credit/debit might). Furthermore you don't know for a fact that a cash transaction requires connecting to any kind of back-end system. If it does it doesn't mean that system needs storage, etc. etc. etc.

Complete storage failure was still possible.
Click to expand...

Then how did it store card transactions?
 
Sinbad said:
Ram backed by local raid. Ie, not on the SAN.
Click to expand...

So not a total storage failure then?

If this works so well you'd imagine they'd do it for all transactions. However, all things being equal, I'm inclined to believe that it wasn't a total storage failure but something else.
 
Last edited:
phaktza said:
So not a total storage failure then?

If this works so well you'd imagine they'd do it for all transactions. However, all things being equal, I'm inclined to believe that it wasn't a total storage failure but something else.
Click to expand...

Maybe all the switches in the SAN?

But would that count as something else?
 
kingrob said:
Maybe all the switches in the SAN?

But would that count as something else?
Click to expand...

Perhaps the entire storage is one big SAN, unfortunately without us knowing more it is all speculation. Suffice it to say if parts of their system were working, yet the parts relying on outside communication (to the banks) was not, the odds are it had nothing to do with storage.
 
bum-smeller said:
For your information. It was a hack group and nothing to do with WoolWorth's various stuff of South Africans.

http://www.cyberwarnews.info/2013/01/29/700000-accounts-leaked-for-project-sun-rise-heart-of-africa/
Click to expand...

@TeamGhostShell must be the biggest bunch of idiots in the world - hacking Postnet and the Mail & Guardian, I mean seriously. I understand Postnet for being useless, but MG? They should be supporting them if anything. Idiots trying to justify their vandalism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X