3 ms·
The 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
by dimino 10y ago
The 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.