Read the text below. Reply top it, provide a feedback and ask relevant question related to the subject matter as well as to the text for a discussion

One incident that caught my attention recently is the Qantas cyber-attack, which exposed the personal information of up to 6 million customers. The breach occurred through a third party customer service platform, compromising details like names, email addresses, phone numbers, birth dates, and frequent flyer numbers, but no payment or passport data was affected. The intrusion was detected when the airline noticed unusual activity on the platform and acted quickly to secure the system (Qantas cyber-attack, 2025).

In response, Qantas alerted cybersecurity authorities and set up a dedicated support line for affected customers. They are also working with independent experts to investigate and strengthen security moving forward. If I were managing the response, I would contain the breach immediately, lock down and analyze the affected system, notify impacted users, and implement stricter vendor controls and monitoring to prevent future incidents.

Comparing proactive versus reactive strategies, this case shows how valuable regular third party security audits and continuous monitoring can be. These proactive steps might have detected suspicious activity earlier and reduced the overall impact.