4 ms·

I’m not seeing the connection between Sony and racial slurs. In fact, especially without knowing what racial slur this is, it tells me very little about the cre

• DangitBobby 5y ago
  They are saying the slurs could be intended to throw you off of the corporate scent and should be discarded as any evidence one way or the other who commissioned the creation.
  • tedunangst 5y ago
    It seems like most people are saying that all evidence found and all evidence not found should be interpreted to prove Sony or the MPAA or whoever is responsible. Evidence they didn't is fake and proof they did. Absence of evidence is proof of a coverup.
    • edgyquant 5y ago
      Sounds like your typical conspiracy theory.
    • squiggleblaz 5y ago
      That isn't the claim. The claim is the inclusion of a racial slur doesn't tell us anything. Instinctively, when I read it, I thought, "Oh, this is written by a independent vigilante, not by stakeholder". But other commenters are right. It is compatible with being written by an independent vigilante, and it is compatible with being written by or on behalf of stakeholders. I will withhold conclusion until further evidence is tendered.
• rozab 5y ago
  The point is Sony continued to deny the existence of the rootkit for years, despite overwhelming evidence. If this malware was commissioned by the MPAA or something, I think they would have no issue with telling whatever morally dubious firm they hired to make it look like it came from stereotypical hacker types. They know that security blogs love to make conclusions on the origins of malware based on strings that could be trivially obscured.