4 ms·
I wouldn’t say it is embarrassingly incorrect. Nothing in that article proves that the report I referenced is not a possibility. I agree it makes it less likel
by craigc 8y ago
I wouldn’t say it is embarrassingly incorrect. Nothing in that article proves that the report I referenced is not a possibility.
I agree it makes it less likely because the files could have been copied multiple times which could change the metadata, but that doesn’t prove definitively that they were.
- throwaway5752 8y agoI would. I would go further and say it is reputation-threatening (if not ending), mortifyingly embarassing for the members of VIPS that wrote and signed off on the memo. If you had hacked a well-protected target, would you go in directly through your origin? There were probably dozens of hops, some of which may have been fairly indirectly. I doubt they leaked it directly, too.
- craigc 8y agoI agree, but if you had financed the operation with Bitcoin would you have left a trail of hundreds of emails specifying each Bitcoin transaction and what they were used for like the indictment claims? Only saying that if they were dumb enough to do that they may have been dumb enough to go directly too.
- throwaway5752 8y ago"left a trail of hundreds of emails specifying each Bitcoin transaction" Show me where in the indictment it talks about that? I only saw a reference to a much smaller number of emails.
- rhizome 8y agoNothing in that article proves that the report I referenced is not a possibility. Right, because you can't prove a negative.