Funny how many people are saying this is gibberish.
I don't think it's gibberish, I think it's meaningful (though terribly bloated), and a lie.
The PR-speak makes it generic enough that while it's a lie, it's a lie that can't easily be proven to be one. But it is one. They do not strive to stay ahead of threats: they grudgingly take some steps, without adequate resources.
You're looking at this logically and rationally. That's not how PR works and I believe this is poor PR because it sounds fake, generic, and uninspiring. So they basically would have been in the same position had they said nothing at all.
Which IMO greatly reflects Yahoo these days, they are simply maintaining the status quo. And that status quo is pure mediocrity from which they haven't shown any aptitude at reforming.
This security breach handling is no different from the rest of their business. Yawn.
...Yahoo these days, they are simply maintaining the status quo.
Was there a time, this millennium, when that wasn't the case? I've never seen a Yahoo service I wanted to use. In 2001, I would have been shocked to learn that Yahoo would still exist in 2016.
I don't think it's gibberish, I think it's meaningful (though terribly bloated), and a lie.
The PR-speak makes it generic enough that while it's a lie, it's a lie that can't easily be proven to be one. But it is one. They do not strive to stay ahead of threats: they grudgingly take some steps, without adequate resources.