5 ms·
The article is clearer, but the author of the article seems to not understand his own article. It's a little baffling, really.
by dimino 10y ago
The article is clearer, but the author of the article seems to not understand his own article.
It's a little baffling, really.
- mistermann 10y agoI'm completely baffled what you're talking about. Is this the sentence you take issue with? "Turns out it's a hacking group in Ukraine, anyone can get it for free (but if you're nice you'll donate to their BTC account) and the DHS and FBI sample was several versions behind." Is the point of contention here not whether we know with certainty whether it was the Russians behind this, or is it something else?
- dimino 10y agoThe point is the article cherry-picks a single point of data and claims it's the only point of data, when in reality the whole sum of the IOC is what identifies Russia, not any specific piece of malware.
- md_ 10y agoI believe the JAR is crap work and doesn't contain any real evidence Russia was behind this. I also believe Russia was behind this. I'm also inclined to believe that mmaunder's blog post is a bit of posturing, but this is kind of what people do in this industry--hop on a hot topic, try to publish first, try to get clicks. Sigh.
- deskamess 10y agoI think the article implies that the totality of evidence is not compelling. As the article states, other institutions like the Guardian and Washington Post have issued retractions about Russian involvement.
- mistermann 10y ago> The point is the article cherry-picks a single point of data and claims it's the only point of data It does? > when in reality the whole sum of the IOC is what identifies Russia Really? What evidence here identifies Russia definitively? You can certainly make a plausible argument that Russia would be a good candidate for the culprit, but I'm not seeing an open and shut case here.
- waterphone 10y agoNo, you fail to understand the author's comment and then instead of asking whether you were understanding something correctly, you've jumped to conclusions and started attacking the author as a fraud and a spammer instead of recognizing that the summary here was written a little vaguely in a way that you interpreted as the author claiming to have identified who the attackers were, rather than the creators of the malware.
- dimino 10y agoI didn't fail to understand anything, the author was intentionally misleading/wrong in his comment so he can hop on the "but we don't KNOW" bandwagon, like every climate denier and anti-vaxxer does.
- waterphone 10y agoI have no idea what you're talking about. You've twisted subtle phrasing in a comment into an absurd conspiracy.