3 ms·

If you've been following this story you'll realize that someone at Reuters really has it in for Microsoft. This despite the backlash they've seen in the communi

If you've been following this story you'll realize that someone at Reuters really has it in for Microsoft. This despite the backlash they've seen in the community for their rather tenuous leaps of logic (see for instance this gem: https://in.reuters.com/article/global-cyber-usa/suspected-russian-hackers-used-microsoft-vendors-to-breach-customers-idINKBN28Y1QF https://in.reuters.com/article/global-cyber-usa/suspected-ru...). You'll note that they buried the byline in this piece at the bottom, crediting "Reuters staff" at the top.

tpmx 6y ago
Trying to understand: You're saying Reuters shouldn't report severe security breaches at Microsoft? Or that they are doing it because someone there dislikes Microsoft? For the latter - does the motivation really matter?
- Godel_unicode 6y ago
  I was responding to a comment about why Reuters didn't link their source for the article by pointing out that it's consistent with their coverage of trying to sensationalize a pretty boring story. If they linked the Microsoft blog post, people might realize that the story isn't what Reuters is trying to spin it as. Their motivation of generating click-bait at Microsoft's expense matters as it means you should seek clarifying information from other sources. Or just ignore Reuters and hope the drop in traffic drives them to more closely tell the whole story.
  - tpmx 6y ago
    But the Reuters piece (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-cyber-microsoft/solarwinds-hackers-accessed-microsoft-source-code-the-company-says-idUSKBN2951M9 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-cyber-microsoft/so...) is on point. Microsoft was in fact breached and attacker(s) accessed source code. Simplified, sure, but not overly so. (Linking or not linking to corporate blog posts - I agree they should do that, but I suspect it's a general article style guide thing.)
    - guenthert 6y ago
      MS blog might be safe, but I suspect Reuters just generally doesn't want to be responsible for the source being slashdotted (rather "reutered" then).
      - tpmx 6y ago
        My gut feeling is that it's more about an instinct not to drive traffic offsite from their customers online properties, perhaps combined with a now hilarious print-defensive attitude ("URLs don't work in print and our reports must work equally well both online and in print").
    - Godel_unicode 6y ago
      Technically true as far as it goes, the important bit about the piece is what it doesn't say; no modifications or builds. To understand how important that is, and why Microsoft included it in big letters in their post, just see how many people here are asking/worrying about that possibility. Read isn't cool, nefariously wrote is cool. Technically true but highly misleading is a dangerous route to go, and it makes me sad how often stories tread that path in the name of clicks.
    - kerng 6y ago
      Breached is a legal term... they were compromised but probably didnt suffer a breach. The MSRC blog post is exactly there to cover those legal grounds I guess.

tpmx 6y ago

Trying to understand: You're saying Reuters shouldn't report severe security breaches at Microsoft? Or that they are doing it because someone there dislikes Microsoft? For the latter - does the motivation really matter?

Godel_unicode 6y ago
I was responding to a comment about why Reuters didn't link their source for the article by pointing out that it's consistent with their coverage of trying to sensationalize a pretty boring story. If they linked the Microsoft blog post, people might realize that the story isn't what Reuters is trying to spin it as. Their motivation of generating click-bait at Microsoft's expense matters as it means you should seek clarifying information from other sources. Or just ignore Reuters and hope the drop in traffic drives them to more closely tell the whole story.
- tpmx 6y ago
  But the Reuters piece (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-cyber-microsoft/solarwinds-hackers-accessed-microsoft-source-code-the-company-says-idUSKBN2951M9 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-cyber-microsoft/so...) is on point. Microsoft was in fact breached and attacker(s) accessed source code. Simplified, sure, but not overly so. (Linking or not linking to corporate blog posts - I agree they should do that, but I suspect it's a general article style guide thing.)
  - guenthert 6y ago
    MS blog might be safe, but I suspect Reuters just generally doesn't want to be responsible for the source being slashdotted (rather "reutered" then).
    - tpmx 6y ago
      My gut feeling is that it's more about an instinct not to drive traffic offsite from their customers online properties, perhaps combined with a now hilarious print-defensive attitude ("URLs don't work in print and our reports must work equally well both online and in print").
  - Godel_unicode 6y ago
    Technically true as far as it goes, the important bit about the piece is what it doesn't say; no modifications or builds. To understand how important that is, and why Microsoft included it in big letters in their post, just see how many people here are asking/worrying about that possibility. Read isn't cool, nefariously wrote is cool. Technically true but highly misleading is a dangerous route to go, and it makes me sad how often stories tread that path in the name of clicks.
  - kerng 6y ago
    Breached is a legal term... they were compromised but probably didnt suffer a breach. The MSRC blog post is exactly there to cover those legal grounds I guess.