4 ms·
Only 600 were targeted. Stupid question, but is there a scenarios where this isnt a state actor? Who would throw away already infected machines.
by cf141q5325 8y ago
Only 600 were targeted. Stupid question, but is there a scenarios where this isnt a state actor? Who would throw away already infected machines.
- NelsonMinar 8y agoI find the precision sort of comforting. One danger of the growth of state-actor malware is that a lot of us could be collateral damage caught in the crossfire. This sort of precise targeting seems at least reasonably responsible. Stuxnet also had careful target selection.
- dsfyu404ed 8y agoRest assured, you'll be caught in the crossfire when they use that targeted access to turn off your power.
- cf141q5325 8y ago>Stuxnet also had careful target selection. The NSA also had stuff like eternalblue lying around instead of getting it patched, the polar opposite being responsible. I doubt that there is such a thing as responsible hacking by state actors. They know of and are actively exploiting weaknesses that are a danger to all of us.
- NelsonMinar 8y agoYeah, and also NSA has forever compromised part of their mission; to secure US infrastructure. No American company will trust their "help" any more since they've spent so much time subverting our own security.
- johnwyles 8y agoThis talk is all well and good between us here on Hackernews but I don't think your Joe Plumber really cares that these things are going on behind the curtains enough to vote about them, protest, or write his congressman. Look at the "uproar" Snowden caused - it just pushed these activities further under ground within US cyber intelligence.