dailymail.co.uk
M&S Website Reopens After £300 Million Cyberattack
Marks & Spencer's website reopened today after a two-month closure due to a cyberattack costing £300 million, caused by human error via a third party, impacting online orders and resulting in up to ten-day delivery delays.
- What were the causes and consequences of the cyberattack on Marks & Spencer?
- The cyberattack on Marks & Spencer highlights the vulnerability of even large retailers to such incidents, resulting in significant financial losses and operational disruptions. The attack impacted online sales, causing a backlog of orders and delivery delays. The incident underscores the importance of robust cybersecurity measures and incident response planning.
- What is the immediate impact of the Marks & Spencer cyberattack on its operations and customers?
- Marks & Spencer's website resumed online orders after a two-month disruption caused by a cyberattack. Deliveries are currently delayed up to ten days due to a high volume of orders. The attack, attributed to human error, is expected to cost the company £300 million.
- What are the long-term implications of this cyberattack for Marks & Spencer's financial performance and reputation?
- The incident's long-term effects on Marks & Spencer's profitability and customer trust remain uncertain. While the company expects to mitigate some of the financial impact, the reputational damage and potential loss of customer loyalty could have lingering consequences. Increased cybersecurity investment and improved employee training are crucial for preventing future incidents.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The narrative is framed around the negative consequences of the cyberattack, emphasizing the financial losses and operational disruptions. The headline and early paragraphs emphasize the lengthy website closure and delivery delays, potentially creating a negative perception of M&S's response. The inclusion of the CEO's compensation increase near the end of the article could be seen as downplaying the severity of the situation or creating a contrast that shifts focus from the cyberattack's impacts.
Language Bias
While the article largely employs neutral language, the descriptions of the cyberattack as "damaging" and the delays as creating "heavy disruption" carry a slightly negative connotation. Phrases like "retail giant" and "major cyber attack" amplify the severity of the event. More neutral alternatives could include "significant" or "substantial" instead of "damaging", "significant disruption" instead of "heavy disruption", and "large retailer" instead of "retail giant".
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the disruption caused by the cyberattack and the financial implications for M&S, but omits discussion of the potential impact on customers beyond delayed deliveries. It doesn't explore the long-term effects of the data breach on customer trust or the company's efforts to mitigate those effects. The article also doesn't mention the specifics of the data that was stolen, only stating that "customer personal data" was taken, leaving out details that could be crucial for readers to assess their own risk.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic view of the situation, focusing primarily on the negative impacts of the cyberattack without exploring alternative perspectives or potential positive outcomes, such as the resilience of M&S in continuing store operations and the steps taken to improve security going forward. There is no exploration of whether the company had appropriate security measures in place or if the third-party vendor played a significant role.
Gender Bias
The article does not exhibit overt gender bias. The quotes from John Lyttle and Stuart Machin are presented without any gendered language or assumptions. However, the article is primarily focused on business and financial aspects, omitting perspectives that might provide a wider understanding of gender impacts.