I feel the market's subdued response is too positive on...

I feel the market's subdued response is too positive on this - given the ramifications for LFS and the costs and penalties likely to be incurred (if it exceeds insurance claims limits), the cost of investing in more robust permanent cybersecurity solutions going forward, and the reputation risks. Not to mention the business that is being lost from people leaving or the business currently not being fully operational, with no new customers or merchants being onboarded (assuming there are any potential customers wanting to be onboarded whilst the hacker is still live in the system!), and customers not being able to be serviced as the systems are offline,

I am surprised that the expensive tech resources employed cannot kick the hackers out - it's been an substantial amount of time since the attack was identified.

It is interesting in the last two updates the company only mentions an attack on "its systems" rather than on the systems of the third party service providers (as originally flagged).