Wikileaks is dramatically misrepresenting what Umbrage is. There are descriptive documents that explain exactly what it is and how it's meant to be used that w

Wikileaks is dramatically misrepresenting what Umbrage is. There are descriptive documents that explain exactly what it is and how it's meant to be used that were also leaked. Even the Intercept, who aren't exactly friendly to intelligence sources took umbrage (ha) with WL's characterization: > It would be possible to leave such fingerprints if the CIA were re-using unique source code written by other actors to intentionally implicate them in CIA hacks, but the published CIA documents don’t say this. Instead they indicate the UMBRAGE group is doing something much less nefarious. > They say UMBRAGE is borrowing hacking “techniques” developed or used by other actors to use in CIA hacking projects. This is intended to save the CIA time and energy by copying methods already proven successful. If the CIA were actually re-using source code unique to a specific hacking group this could lead forensic investigators to mis-attribute CIA attacks to the original creators of the code. But the documents appear to say the UMBRAGE group is writing snippets of code that mimic the functionality of other hacking tools and placing it in a library for CIA developers to draw on when designing custom CIA tools. https://theintercept.com/2017/03/08/wikileaks-files-show-the-cia-repurposing-foreign-hacking-code-to-save-time-not-to-frame-russia/ https://theintercept.com/2017/03/08/wikileaks-files-show-the...