Oracle attempt to hide cybersecurity incident from customers?

Whether we like it or not security incidents have become such common place in the last several years that if they just admitted to it this entire story would have likely been shrugged off and mostly forgotten about in a couple days but instead it is turning into an entire thing that just seems to be getting deeper and deeper. (Not downplaying the security incident, but that is the unfortunate reality).

Seriously if I can't trust that I am going to actually be told and not lied too when there is a security incident at the bare minimum, why would I chose to work with a company? What is Oracle's end goal here?

Are they somehow really confident that this didn't happen, maybe they don't have the logs to confirm it? Trying to think about how this is anything except them just straight up lying.

I can't remember the last time we saw a company this strongly try to deny that something like this happened. Especially when according to Ars Technica:

> On Friday, when I asked Oracle for comment, a spokesperson asked if they could provide a statement that couldn’t be attributed to Oracle in any way. After I declined, the spokesperson said Oracle would have no comment.

I think you're coming at this from the wrong point of view. Oracle couldn't care in the slightest about what regular people think of them. Remember, they are the company that sent lawyers after the employers of folks who downloaded non-free but bundled by default extensions to VirtualBox, and the company that declared that you need to license every core their software could _potentially_ run on in your virtualisation estate (so if you have a 8 vCPU VM for some Oracle software, you need licenses for however many physical cores you have on your cluster). They've variously been described as a law firm with an engineering side business, and One Rich Asshole Called Larry Ellisson. Speaking of whom, he multiple times flat out lied on stage to make his shitty "cloud" nobody cares about seem relevant compared to AWS.

Nobody buys Oracle because they like them or their good reputation. You buy them because you have legacy stuff that depends on them and you have no choice (even Amazon took many years to get off Oracle databases, and they wrote a gloating success story one they were done with it because they were that happy to be rid of the leeches), or because your bosses' boss was convinced at a golf course they're getting a good deal. Or because their bandwidth is very cheap and you accept the risk of dealing with the devil incarnate with zero morals. (cf. Zoom).

Oracle is like Broadcom. Everyone hates their guts, everyone who worked there has a black mark on their CV. Yet they persist, continue leeching off companies too scared to make the jump elsewhere.

This is just your opinion. Most people I know who work there feel just fine if not very happy. Pay/benefits are good. Work is about same everywhere. In fact depending on group there maybe good, challenging technical work there.

As far as CV is concerned working there is mostly positive or at best neutral in term of job change.

> Nobody buys Oracle because they like them or their good reputation.

Oracle is quite expensive but they have reputation of solid database for enterprise workloads.

Also their cloud business is doing fine and growing and not irrelevant. One can see that from their quarterly results.