3 ms·

Since you admit that you’re not an expert, you shouldn’t really assume that attribution is that simple, or that they aren’t fully aware of these things you ment

Since you admit that you’re not an expert, you shouldn’t really assume that attribution is that simple, or that they aren’t fully aware of these things you mention.

stefan_ 7y ago
Because all of these things being trivially manipulated means in the past, attribution was entirely done for nation states to point at other nation states or for scam artists to promote their cyber cyber cyber security technology consulting services. If there is such a thing as "the science of attribution", and that is very questionable, it sure as hell isn't above the noise floor.
- lawnchair_larry 7y ago
  No, that is not the case.
catalogia 7y ago
Since he admits he isn't an expert, maybe you shouldn't scold him for probing the depths of his knowledge and asking questions to expand his understanding.
- lawnchair_larry 7y ago
  I’m not, and he isn’t really doing that either. He started by saying he isn’t an expert, and then attacked a straw man and challenged the work of actual experts, based on his incorrect assumptions of what they do. This is like what antivaxxers do, or like claiming that jet fuel can’t melt steel beams. Inquiry is fine, but never criticize from a position of ignorance.
  - catalogia 7y ago
    Comparing the guy to antivaxxers or 911 truthers goes a bit further than merely scolding him... In for a penny, in for a pound?
  - allovernow 7y ago
    Don't lump me in with antivaxxers just because I'm being critical of something. Even if I'm not an expert I'm an experienced software developer and a generalist. This is a plausible suspicion and even then, look at the answers: most of them boil down to yeah, hackers cover tracks, but sometimes they screw up and leave behind clues - which really means we may only be catching the shitty ones. It's exactly the kind of business that potentially could be populated by dishonest and/or overconfident people, like people have been doing with arson for decades. There's the same lack of verifiability - you can finger a group, but how often do you get any sort of confirmation? In any case, the fact that "anti vaxxers" use certain lines of questioning doesn't mean that the truth seeking methods are themselves suspect. Some people are pessimists, and rightly so; isn't that what hacking is all about?
    - Kalium 7y ago
      Your argument seems to take the general form of "non-expert does not understand specialty field, doubts veracity of experts in field". It's understandable that some might be skeptical of any argument of this form, as they are all essentially arguments from incomprehension and incredulity. The specialty here isn't software, really. It's intelligence. That's a very different field and knowing something generally about how computers work might not translate into as much relevant expertise as one could hope for. I know my expertise in software security doesn't equip me to do this kind of intelligence analysis. IMO, that doesn't leave me with a lot of standing to comment substantively on many - even most - aspects of such analysis.

Since you admit that you’re not an expert, you shouldn’t really assume that attribution is that simple, or that they aren’t fully aware of these things you mention.

stefan_ 7y ago

Because all of these things being trivially manipulated means in the past, attribution was entirely done for nation states to point at other nation states or for scam artists to promote their cyber cyber cyber security technology consulting services. If there is such a thing as "the science of attribution", and that is very questionable, it sure as hell isn't above the noise floor.

lawnchair_larry 7y ago
No, that is not the case.

catalogia 7y ago

Since he admits he isn't an expert, maybe you shouldn't scold him for probing the depths of his knowledge and asking questions to expand his understanding.

lawnchair_larry 7y ago
I’m not, and he isn’t really doing that either. He started by saying he isn’t an expert, and then attacked a straw man and challenged the work of actual experts, based on his incorrect assumptions of what they do. This is like what antivaxxers do, or like claiming that jet fuel can’t melt steel beams. Inquiry is fine, but never criticize from a position of ignorance.
- catalogia 7y ago
  Comparing the guy to antivaxxers or 911 truthers goes a bit further than merely scolding him... In for a penny, in for a pound?
- allovernow 7y ago
  Don't lump me in with antivaxxers just because I'm being critical of something. Even if I'm not an expert I'm an experienced software developer and a generalist. This is a plausible suspicion and even then, look at the answers: most of them boil down to yeah, hackers cover tracks, but sometimes they screw up and leave behind clues - which really means we may only be catching the shitty ones. It's exactly the kind of business that potentially could be populated by dishonest and/or overconfident people, like people have been doing with arson for decades. There's the same lack of verifiability - you can finger a group, but how often do you get any sort of confirmation? In any case, the fact that "anti vaxxers" use certain lines of questioning doesn't mean that the truth seeking methods are themselves suspect. Some people are pessimists, and rightly so; isn't that what hacking is all about?
  - Kalium 7y ago
    Your argument seems to take the general form of "non-expert does not understand specialty field, doubts veracity of experts in field". It's understandable that some might be skeptical of any argument of this form, as they are all essentially arguments from incomprehension and incredulity. The specialty here isn't software, really. It's intelligence. That's a very different field and knowing something generally about how computers work might not translate into as much relevant expertise as one could hope for. I know my expertise in software security doesn't equip me to do this kind of intelligence analysis. IMO, that doesn't leave me with a lot of standing to comment substantively on many - even most - aspects of such analysis.