3 ms·
tl;dr: It's weev. It will be interesting to see how, if at all, this changes the widely-held APT28 attribution hypothesis.
by daxorid 9y ago
tl;dr: It's weev.
It will be interesting to see how, if at all, this changes the widely-held APT28 attribution hypothesis.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- alva 9y agoIt is quite interesting from a strategy perspective of the agreeing third party security companies. If (for this or the alleged Russia DNC hack) clear evidence arises that completely contradict the reports they have put out (paid for by whom?) it could potentially be catastrophic to their business. In these circumstance then at some point the company would have had to essentially doctor evidence to support the required conclusion. If unequivocal evidence arises that is contrary to this, then it would be a massive deal. How could they explain away their findings? I am not making any judgements on if the above happened, but it will be interesting to follow in this particular case which appears to clearly point to weev.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- tptacek 9y agoIt won't at all (sorry), because nobody is claiming Auernheimer is behind the Macron hack, just the juvenile 4chan forgery.
- dsl 9y agoTwo different incidents: - State sponsored email hacking - A kid on 4chan faked a document
- fixxer 9y agoIs the kid executing this purported forgery from his parents' basement?
- chatmasta 9y agoI think a big problem is that when a powerful politician calls a security expert to provide an opinion, the expert might feel pressured into giving a binary answer, even if the best answer is "I don't know," or "not enough information." Ultimately the root problem is politicians/media/people demanding certainty from experts who are used to dealing in probabilities. Security is inherently a cat and mouse game. Nothing is ever certain. It's frustrating to see these stories play out in the media, and it's unfortunate how many people are so willingly uninformed. But I digress.