4 ms·

You seem to just be restating the ”myth”. I think people, especially on HN, like to think of these groups as far more professional than they are. Just look at

You seem to just be restating the ”myth”. I think people, especially on HN, like to think of these groups as far more professional than they are. Just look at all the talk of “tradecraft” and “threat actors”. Empirically, it appears that hackers are simply people. These groups seem to have maybe just one or a handful of talented individuals at their core, and they all have habits they like to return to.

samstave 9y ago
After meeting various nsa and US cyber security heads at RSA and having dinner with them and hearing their “war stories” about shit they have done, sure they are people, but IMO the people I met were straight up psychopaths. This is my opinion of the type-a “hacker-types” that palantir hires... (Had dinner with the head of US cyber-security and his minions and military contractors (This was when I was with Lockheed))
- GCU-Empiricist 9y ago
  Just for context what's your opinion on other tip of the spear military types, such as SOF personnel?
- zingmars 9y ago
  Any fun stories to re-tell?
- navbaker 9y ago
  What made them “psychopaths”?
- weerd 9y ago
  This is a heavy claim that you've made here... Can we get some more details? Like Sherlock-style high functioning sociopaths, or Patrick Bateman with top notch computer skills?
badrabbit 9y ago
> Empirically, it appears that hackers are simply people. These groups seem to have maybe just one or a handful of talented individuals at their core, and they all have habits they like to return to. Sure,that's why Indicators of compromise exist to begin with. What I don't get is this notion of a "high quality" indicator. You would normally match on all indicators you have. I mean,why match with a dozen indicators knowing full well the attacker might reuse any one of the hundreds of indicators that exist? All the big name security companies match against all known indicators for a group. What practical benefit is there to limiting yourself to a few indicators,even if they are top notch indicators?

samstave 9y ago

After meeting various nsa and US cyber security heads at RSA and having dinner with them and hearing their “war stories” about shit they have done, sure they are people, but IMO the people I met were straight up psychopaths. This is my opinion of the type-a “hacker-types” that palantir hires... (Had dinner with the head of US cyber-security and his minions and military contractors (This was when I was with Lockheed))

GCU-Empiricist 9y ago
Just for context what's your opinion on other tip of the spear military types, such as SOF personnel?
zingmars 9y ago
Any fun stories to re-tell?
navbaker 9y ago
What made them “psychopaths”?
weerd 9y ago
This is a heavy claim that you've made here... Can we get some more details? Like Sherlock-style high functioning sociopaths, or Patrick Bateman with top notch computer skills?

badrabbit 9y ago

> Empirically, it appears that hackers are simply people. These groups seem to have maybe just one or a handful of talented individuals at their core, and they all have habits they like to return to. Sure,that's why Indicators of compromise exist to begin with. What I don't get is this notion of a "high quality" indicator. You would normally match on all indicators you have. I mean,why match with a dozen indicators knowing full well the attacker might reuse any one of the hundreds of indicators that exist? All the big name security companies match against all known indicators for a group. What practical benefit is there to limiting yourself to a few indicators,even if they are top notch indicators?