3 ms·
But the Reuters piece (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-cyber-microsoft/solarwinds-hackers-accessed-microsoft-source-code-the-company-says-idUSKBN2951M
by 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 agoMS 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 agoMy 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 agoTechnically 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 agoBreached 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.