3 ms·
# The "attack" level of sophistication does not befit a state actor. # The Reuters article mentions 2 British and one US security _officials_ # Same Reuters art
by coretx 7y ago
# The "attack" level of sophistication does not befit a state actor.
# The Reuters article mentions 2 British and one US security _officials_
# Same Reuters article states that GCHQ and US equivalent declined inquiry. ( Mind bullet #1. )
# Turkey states there has been no data ex-filtration; sources do not mention serious damage on either side.
The most simple explanation is usually true, so I think a security firm like NCC group ( GCHQ still holds a stake in them ) is creating waves for business.
- luckylion 7y agoRe "state actor", while reading the headline I figured "oh, they would have called it 'state actor' if it was believed to be Russian or Chinese", but reading the article, they may have chosen not to use that term also because it wasn't MIT but some loosely affiliated patriotic group. Given that the borders between state and non-state are very fluent in Turkey, there may also be multiple things being attributed. Still very much possible that it's FUD/PR, there's likely information, misinformation, PR and news hyping in any such report, with degrees of each varying.
- lawnchair_larry 7y agoYou said the simplest explanation is usually true, then peddled a nonsense conspiracy theory. I don’t think you understand what NCC does at all.