3 ms·
1. Thank you for the response and resources. 2. As a paid NYT subscriber, I am becoming increasingly aware that they make some big mistakes in their reporting.
by cyberlurker 6y ago
1. Thank you for the response and resources.
2. As a paid NYT subscriber, I am becoming increasingly aware that they make some big mistakes in their reporting. They deserve some criticism, absolutely. I continue to expand my sources outside of the bubble and think critically when reading the NYT.
3. In 2012, Mitt Romney was mocked after a debate with Obama for saying Russia was a threat to the USA. That has aged poorly. Let’s not make the mistake of dismissing Russia as a legitimate cyber threat. Not all of the reporting on Russia is incorrect.
- mike_hearn 6y agoI agree the Russian government (as opposed to all of Russia) is absolutely a legitimate threat to the integrity of US networks, as are the governments of many other countries. And of course the US government is a proven threat to the integrity of both US and non-US networks. Unfortunately the reporting on purported Russian hacking events seems invariably to collapse when examined. My conclusion from all this is that the Russian equivalent of the NSA or GCHQ (the GRU?) must be pretty good at not leaking and not being caught with obvious fingerprints on its operations. Every plausible connection between a serious hack and Russia I've seen is extremely circumstantial, whereas for the NSA or GCHQ we actually have their internal training materials and presentation slides.
- cyberlurker 6y agoAttribution is always hard but SolarWinds has some obvious fingerprints. If you consider it hacking, the Russian bot farms (IRA) is well documented too. Maybe they are good at not leaking, I’m not sure. I will say, I’ve heard some grudging respect for the SolarWinds operation in security circles. They have a functioning offensive cyber organization, that’s for sure.
- mike_hearn 6y agoWhat are those fingerprints, in the SolarWinds case?