4 ms·
The sophistication is not evidence of government involvement, the lack of sophistication is not evidence that a government was not involved. Certainly malware
by EthanHeilman 10y ago
The sophistication is not evidence of government involvement, the lack of sophistication is not evidence that a government was not involved.
Certainly malware which costs serious resources to develop, like stuxnet, says something about the capabilities of the attacker. Given that at the high end of the resource spectrum it is mostly governments, resources required are suggestive of a government, but resources are not conclusive in and of themselves.
The attribution of the DNC hack to APT28 and APT29 was not based on its sophistication but on the similarity to the methods used, tradecraft fingerprints, and the sharing of C&C servers to past attacks.
- candiodari 10y agoApparently John McAfee disagrees with you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDTKKmBjlwE#t=5m40s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDTKKmBjlwE#t=5m40s
- EthanHeilman 10y agoWatched, didn't hear anything that contradicts what I wrote. Can you be more specific? The closest I can find is when McAfee says: "If it looks like the Russians it isn't the Russians." I said "It looks like the Russians." These statements don't contradict each other. We do disagree on attribution, but I haven't discussed that in this thread. He is radically skeptical about ever attributing any state sponsored hacking, although in the same interview he does attribute Stuxnet to the US/Israel and the OPM hack to China.