Oracle attempt to hide cybersecurity incident from customers?

This is honestly wild.

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'm guessing nobody chooses to work with Oracle anymore for reasons or in situations that we would consider reasonable. It's probably either governments contracts, with or without corruption, companies already locked in, contracts made by executives that don't really understand technology, that sort of thing.

I worked as a contractor for the Wisconsin state government and they had hundreds of Oracle databases that they were consolidating on the Oracle EXADATA11 servers. Insane having hardware that can only run Oracle but the Oracle DBA said that the Exadata was dozens of times faster than Oracle on VMware VMs.