36 ms·
? You have strange beliefs about what is easy and what is hard on machines that are setup properly in advance and ones that are not. I could believe that the Do
by languagewars 10y ago
? You have strange beliefs about what is easy and what is hard on machines that are setup properly in advance and ones that are not. I could believe that the DoD can occasionally do attributions on attacks into its network. That poorly administered machines attacked over years contain sufficient data to identify that only one perpetrator took data and then which attack they were needs a lead actor like travolta.
(Nowhere did I say Russia attacks without traces, script kiddies just watch ninja films. They are among the tens of thousands of attackers that leave traces of attempts every few minutes. The only inherent advantage state attackers have is that they don't need to monitize so 90% of the ways they should get noticed are gone, leaving them to get noticed more by honeypots than people running machines on the open Internet with no specific plan to detect intrusions.)
- tptacek 10y agoI think this is a (rare) case where my beliefs are pretty much entirely within the mainstream of the broader infosec community.
- languagewars 10y agoWell it is a shame to see the industry converging on believing the seemingly impossible based on secret evidence when presented by people who have every reason to lie (or build their own overconfidence) about their capabilities. When I worked in infosec the dominant opinion was that anyone with extrodinary claims should be ignored until they presented means of community verification, not just more salesmen who said they can do it too.