3 ms·
That's a good sentiment to have. The evidence has been released by both Crowdstrike and FireEye. They both have fairly detailed writeups of them. Attribution
by linkregister 10y ago
That's a good sentiment to have.
The evidence has been released by both Crowdstrike and FireEye. They both have fairly detailed writeups of them. Attribution is an important part of computer security. FireEye has a similar reputation for attribution and forensics as Kaspersky.
- pjmorris 10y agoThe NYT article mentions that the Russian groups Crowdstrike identified ('Cozy Bear', 'Fancy Bear') were working independently of each other. If two groups gained access independently, how is anyone sure that one or more other groups or individuals didn't also gain access? And the article never makes the link to how Wikipedia came to receive the information, only assumes it was one of the two Russian groups Crowdstrike identified.
- linkregister 10y agoThese are good questions to ask. The right thing for you to do is study how a computer intrusion campaign works and how attribution is done. Everyone has their own limit of when they trust expert advice. For example, I refuse to trust my doctor's advice fully and pull up studies at home to verify what she tells me. It's good to learn more about computer security if it interests you. It is extremely difficult, maybe impossible, to completely conceal one's pivots, implants, and exfiltration in a computer network. True, it is possible that an attacker that is more capable than GRU/Cozy Bear and FSB/Fancy Bear did just that and exfiltrated the emails and documents. But this is going beyond what the evidence suggests.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]