9 ms·

An accurate but pretty lacklustre "mea culpa" and retraction. I don't mind people making mistakes, everyone does, but seeing how Krebs has handled this whole ep

by acoard 4y ago

An accurate but pretty lacklustre "mea culpa" and retraction. I don't mind people making mistakes, everyone does, but seeing how Krebs has handled this whole episode has not inspired optimism in how he'll handle future mistakes. He was essentially used as an unwitting party in a cyber blackmail scheme, and he doesn't touch on that at all. There will continue to be nefarious parties trying to misuse his reputation, so long as he remains a popular cyber researcher. I wish he would show consciousness of that rather than simply saying "I was wrong."

blantonl 4y ago
This is about of straightforward as a "I screwed up, I own it, I apologize" Everyone makes mistakes. Some of the good work Krebs has done seems to be completely overshadowed by a mistake here. Granted, this is probably in response to some legal action either in progress or already settled, but what more do you want from the guy?
- kspacewalk2 4y ago
  > This is about of straightforward as a "I screwed up, I own it, I apologize" "A source provided info. Source is now discredited. I thus no longer trust the info." That's the gist of the apology. But that's neither here nor there, it does not show understanding of the fact that his reputation was deliberately used for criminal purposes.
  - InTheArena 4y ago
    "This time, I missed the mark and, as a result, I would like to extend my sincerest apologies to Ubiquiti, and I have decided to remove those articles from my website." I think that's reasonable.
    - atyppo 4y ago
      That seems like a statement not written by a lawyer. It’s possible he’s concerned about legal ramifications
      - InTheArena 4y ago
        I would be too. Millions of dollars where lost because he was a unwitting accomplice to a extortion scheme. But lowering the bar to say "I'm sorry" when someone is obv incorrect is still a good thing.
      - flutas 4y ago
        He is being sued by them for $425,000 in damages. Last update on the court case was a request for an extension due to them trying to finalize a settlement, I suspect this was part of that settlement.
- cthalupa 4y ago
  >but what more do you want from the guy? By the time the December story was published, it seems that Krebs knew full well that his source was the person implicated in the crime to begin with. I would like to understand why he thought it was responsible to press forward while obfuscating this fact, and how he will handle similar situations moving forward. His thought process there will help inform me as to whether or not I can personally take him seriously on things of this nature in the future. As it stands, I don't know if he learned anything from this, or if he still thinks that people that very well might have perpetrated the crime he's reporting on are reputable sources that he should post information from without question or disclaimer and the only reason this is posted is because he settled in court.
  - nibbleshifter 4y ago
    many of Krebs's sources are criminals, often dropping their competitors info in Brian's lap as a way to get ahead. Brian's a willing and witting participant in this behaviour, even encourages it, because it gives him more stories.
    - Werewolf255 4y ago
      Yeah, this reflects my views too. He's using the veneer or pretext of journalism and reporting the truth in order for him to cover sloppy sourcing.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > sing the veneer or pretext of journalism and reporting the truth in order for him to cover sloppy sourcing Getting tips from criminals is not sloppy sourcing. There is verification that obviously failed here. We likely won't hear the full story until the prosecution and litigation cycles have turned.
        cthalupa 4y ago
        To me, the issue isn't really that the source in question is a criminal - I think they might be a bit less reliable than the average person, but as others have noted, general people are pretty unreliable too. But the fact that the source was also the person who has allegedly perpetrated the crimes going unmentioned and not being disclaimed to me is sloppy - even if there was additional verification done, if you are mentioning this source as the cornerstone of your article, I want to know about the vested interests that source has. Obviously, being the person that allegedly did it means you have A LOT of vested interest in how it is covered and what is revealed. If you want to talk yourself up and brag about it (which seems to be a given if you are telling a journalist about something you allegedly perpetrated) it is totally reasonable for people to be suspicious about how much is fact and how much is fiction. Humans like to exaggerate when talking themselves up.
- acoard 4y ago
  >Everyone makes mistakes. Fully agree, which is why I said the same thing. :) >Granted, this is probably in response to some legal action either in progress or already settled, but what more do you want from the guy? As I said in my post, a stated awareness that he was used in a cyber blackmail scheme, and at least some nominal promise to try and be aware of that in the future. The difference here is between "I made an honest mistake" and "I was taken advantage of and used unwittingly in a scheme." I'm not interested in him self-flagellating and begging for forgiveness, as my concern is totally forward-looking. I believe this type of problem will come again, of people trying to unwittingly use his reputation to push certain agendas. If he isn't aware of that dimension of the problem then it's likely it will re-occur. That being said, your point about this post made in a legal context is totally fair and had slipped my mind. I can imagine any apology/statement/etc getting neutered by lawyers for perfectly rational reasons.
  - oaiey 4y ago
    Saying that he was part of the blackmail scheme would make him maybe target of legal actions from Ubiquiti. So .. that you will not get. He has to do the same company-lingo like they all do after screwups.
    - tssva 4y ago
      He was/is the target of legal action from Ubiquiti. I assume this statement is part of some settlement he has reached with them regarding the legal action.
      - asdfasgasdgasdg 4y ago
        Complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.521759/gov.uscourts.vaed.521759.1.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.52... I remember at the time we were discussing the misreporting I noted that Krebs’ lack of retraction could come back and bite him. It’s interesting to see it now. It’s also interesting to note that it is referenced in point 11 of the lawsuit. A little remorse goes a long way, and pride can be expensive.
- stickfigure 4y ago
  > what more do you want from the guy? He's a guy who writes about hacks. He got "hacked". At the very least I am curious to know more of the story.
  - encryptluks2 4y ago
    If you can call it that. Seems more like a convenient excuse.
    - tunap 4y ago
      He was duped by a con man. Everyone is susceptible to SE, even smart guys like Brian. A case can be made that it is the most difficult challenge/vector in cyber security. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_(security) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_(security)
      - encryptluks2 4y ago
        Seems more like he was willfully played and that Ubiquiti lawyers can show negligence on his part which would not be a good look for a security researcher.
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  If I were ubiquiti management or shareholder I would want a pound of flesh, and I expect their lawyers will be pursuing that.
  - sxates 4y ago
    They are: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63197557/ubiquiti-inc-v-krebs/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63197557/ubiquiti-inc-v...
- ineptech 4y ago
  > what more do you want from the guy? "This has taught me that my platform can be weaponized by any bad actor who can fool or manipulate me. One column from me could get a CISO fired or move a Fortune 500 company's stock price. That's a heavy responsibility that I wasn't really accounting for, but now that I understand it, I've put some thought in to it and I have made some changes that I hope will harden me and my platform against this kind of social engineering attack."
  - fomine3 4y ago
    I'd like to see this, like a tech corps security incident explaination. Though I don't expect such statements from journalists.
- ajross 4y ago
  The timing doesn't support that take, though. Nikolas Sharp (the sole source for these stories) was arrested almost a year ago. Krebs knew then that his source was tainted, and he did nothing. Instead he waited until he was months into litigation with Ubiquity (which he's almost sure to lose) to try to backpedal. That's just a straight up violation of journalistic ethics. I think it's very reasonable to demand that our reporters in the security community be clear about their sourcing and prompt about corrections. A "what more do you want from the guy" implies that we shouldn't hold his past actions to account. And... we should. We absolutely should.
- danso 4y ago
  I would've like to see some explanation for how Krebs fell for this ruse, such as why this single-sourced claim was convincing enough to him to do a series of articles that apparently did serious material harm to Ubiquiti. And at least a few specifics of the key information that Krebs now believes to be faked. Just because his source has been indicted for alleged false info to the press doesn't mean that everything this source gave Krebs is automatically fake. In other words, what claims in the indictment, relating to which evidence the source gave to Krebs, leads Krebs to believe that that evidence is completely unreliable -- and how much, if any, doubt/scrutiny did Krebs give that evidence before this indictment? It doesn't have to be written in the tone of CYA excuses. The angle is: this is how I got fooled, and these are the lessons I've learned going forward. As Krebs writes in his mea culpa: "I always endeavor to ensure that my articles are properly sourced and factual." Okay, so why didn't that happen here? Is it one-time bespoke situation, i.e. a perfect storm of mistakes? Or was it because of standard practices that he now sees as insufficient for these kinds of stories going forward?
  - system2 4y ago
    I agree, maybe "how he fell for this" part is related to some legal constrictions. I personally dislike this type of apologies which is very commonly used by corporates.
- Hamuko 4y ago
  I'm not really sure if he's owning it. This post has not made it to his Twitter feed, unlike most of the other recent stories. They're probably not automated, so I wouldn't expect it to be there immediately, but I kinda feel like he wants it to just quietly go away if he doesn't mention it there as well. https://twitter.com/briankrebs https://twitter.com/briankrebs
- initplus 4y ago
  Brian is a journalist more than he is a security researcher, anything he publishes as a journalist should be held to held to a higher standard than an random person just speaking their mind. He had ample opportunity to get out ahead and issue a retraction of the story when it was known to be false, well before the Ubiquiti lawsuit.
duxup 4y ago
For a site that generally is there to give you the inside scoop on what is really going on / happened, interesting / disappointing that the choice is to not do so here. To me "sorry I was wrong" isn't enough.
- Jenk 4y ago
  That's a non-answer. What more do you want? What would be "enough"?
  - duxup 4y ago
    I don't know what you mean by non answer.
  - IMTDb 4y ago
    Compensation for the damages done to ubiquiti ? He chose to relay false information from un trustworthy source, in a way that damaged the ubiquiti brand, and this took some time and energy from ubiquiti employees to fight those false accusations. Here he is saying "Yeah, here is $0 for your troubles, I'll be doing the bare minimum so you can't drag me in front of a courthouse anymore". He is literally posting a 1 paragraph piece of text. "Enough" would be : "I am going to fully compensate you for the damages I have done by lacking professional integrity, and making extraordinary claims while lacking the required extraordinary proofs that usually come with them. Please send me a bill for the salaires of the technical staff, marketers and lawyers that had to be pulled from more important projects to fight the fake news I relayed. I understand that you have had to pay these people so you are not going to profit from this and this only allows you to break even on this whole mess. I note that - going forward - this will be used as an additional compass for me as I understand that my words have real, tangible consequences for the people involved and I will avoid putting anyone in danger without putting myself on the hook as well."
    - yrro 4y ago
      He's being sued by Ubiquity.
ulrashida 4y ago
I think you're right, but it took me a few minutes to put my finger on what was missing. There should have been a "going forward I will..." segment.
- criddell 4y ago
  What should he do going forward?
  - elteto 4y ago
    He should become immune to social engineering and manipulation... /s Now seriously, there is not much he can do going forward other than be even more careful with vetting his sources. Which I am sure he already internalized.
    - InitialLastName 4y ago
      (Questions about the current state of journalism aside...) There is already standard journalistic practice for avoiding this: get a second, more reliable source. It can often be much easier to get a reliable source to verify information initially provided by a sketchy source than to get that reliable source to provide information in the first place. If you post unverified information that one person on the internet tells you, your work is indistinguishable from gossip, and should be taken as such.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    Not be a shock jock revealing things based on untrustworthy sources.
    - mandevil 4y ago
      His entire beat is based on untrustworthy sources. What makes him special is that he is hanging out on Russian language carder forums and the like, monitoring the gossip and identifying new threats and patterns of behavior. That is the value that he adds, and it's a reasonably big value. In this case, he got played, but if he stops trying to work with untrustworthy sources he stops doing his job.
stronglikedan 4y ago
This is why he should have never apologized in the first place, but rather just admit being wrong an move on. Apologies are never enough for some people, and often even weaponized.
- Jenk 4y ago
  Yep. Apologies are blood to lynch mobs.
karaterobot 4y ago
As a third party unaffected by the events in any direct way, I don't feel it's appropriate to give an opinion on whether the apology is satisfactory or not. If Ubiquiti has one, I suppose that's for them to express, or not, as they choose.
- lolc 4y ago
  As a reporter, Krebs failed to promptly disclose or retract when the source turned out to be the leak. That means my understanding of events was left incomplete for longer than it should have been. So he wronged Ubiquity, which I don't particularily care for. He also wronged his readers, which I am party to. This late retraction is underwhelming and doesn't give me trust. As he seems to only have retracted after being forced to by Ubiquity, now what do I make of his stories where his targets don't have a legal team in his jurisdiction?
bedhead 4y ago
I’m still bitter about this. The story absolutely reeked from the beginning and Krebs did nothing but unnecessarily sensationalize it like a tabloid journalist. I got downvoted a million times over when I pointed this out at the time, why I don’t know, it was obvious to anyone who wasn’t foaming at the mouth to pounce on Ubiquiti. In decades past this was a career-ending error…I wish it still was, I’ll never take a single word Krebs says seriously ever again.
- oaiey 4y ago
  One upvote returned ;)
  - bedhead 4y ago
    Ha, thanks. Seriously, this was not a run-of-the-mill journalistic mistake for which one apologizes for and moves on. This was so brazen I couldn't even believe it at the time, my assumption was that he was short Ubiquiti's stock or something. What Krebs did was so egregious and so extreme that I really have no idea why the world hasn't turned its back on him as a journalist.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      Because there are no journalists left, it's all entertainment, and we were entertained. I don't like it, but that's what it is.
- BonoboIO 4y ago
  Sometimes HN doesn’t want to see the obvious, because he is their hero
neilv 4y ago
I'd guess he's been advised not to say too much, and the specific way to say what he did. Besides the ongoing criminal case for which he may be a witness, I'd guess there may be potential liability wrt the company, and I'd guess that he's being careful not to create new potential liability wrt the indicted person (see several different nuances in his "My sole source" sentence). And this sounds like a lawyer-approved away to convey that he recognizes the importance, without saying any specific possible mistake of his that could be fodder, nor prejudging the case: > I always endeavor to ensure that my articles are properly sourced and factual.
- dotBen 4y ago
  Yes, this is exactly right - his post is clearly the product of legal negotiations with Ubiquity and probably cleared by both them and his own counsel. He's well advised not to say more than he needs to, even if people in this community would like him to fall on his sword more, that's just not how this stuff works.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
skullone 4y ago
I think he had to limit what he said, because he potentially has some liability on what he had reported on in the past. Crazy situation
pdntspa 4y ago
Given that the target he "hurt" is a massive company that can absorb losses, I think this retraction is quite enough.
- bombcar 4y ago
  He also "hurt" his readers and those who had trust in him, damaging his own reputation.
VogonPoetry 4y ago
Unfortunately I don't think this is the first time he has been socially manipulated in this way. Mr Krebs does seem to have a habit of only getting the details from one side of things and only writing things from that side of the story. Perhaps due to the nature of some of his investigations. Everyone has weaknesses to being socially manipulated. One way to mitigate this is to open a dialog with "the other side" to check and seek out inconsistencies. Perhaps not revealing everything in your exposé story or leaving the veracity of it somewhat ambiguous until things develop further. This could weaken the impact of your initial story. Dialog is probably not easy when the other party is undoubtably criminal and you can get blocked from reaching the right people. In this case, the accusations were against a corporation. They can be good or bad, but ultimately legal processes will reveal things. I do think Mr Krebs has upped his game in recent years and enjoy reading his stories, but I read them like fiction rather than actual verified facts.
jpgvm 4y ago
I read this as a post probably vetted by his legal team and probably not issued earlier because of the ongoing legal action (and then probably subsequent negotiations with Ubiquiti). He absolutely fucked up here but he probably can't say so and likely wasn't able to retract sooner less he open himself up to legal culpability for his part in the blackmail scheme (unwitting or not). Unfortunately this is just how the world works. I hope he has learnt his lesson and will be more through in his vetting of his sources and how his reputation can be misappropriated by malicious actors to do very serious harm.
doctor_eval 4y ago
It does read, to me, much like it’s something that was workshopped between Krebs, his lawyers and Ubiquiti’s. This apology should be about Ubiquiti, not Krebs, and maybe the terseness is just a reflection of that. Frankly I was on the fence about buying new Ubiquiti gear because of what I’d heard, and seeing this lets me reevaluate my position - which I think is the point.

by acoard 4y ago

blantonl 4y ago

This is about of straightforward as a "I screwed up, I own it, I apologize" Everyone makes mistakes. Some of the good work Krebs has done seems to be completely overshadowed by a mistake here. Granted, this is probably in response to some legal action either in progress or already settled, but what more do you want from the guy?

kspacewalk2 4y ago
> This is about of straightforward as a "I screwed up, I own it, I apologize" "A source provided info. Source is now discredited. I thus no longer trust the info." That's the gist of the apology. But that's neither here nor there, it does not show understanding of the fact that his reputation was deliberately used for criminal purposes.
- InTheArena 4y ago
  "This time, I missed the mark and, as a result, I would like to extend my sincerest apologies to Ubiquiti, and I have decided to remove those articles from my website." I think that's reasonable.
  - atyppo 4y ago
    That seems like a statement not written by a lawyer. It’s possible he’s concerned about legal ramifications
    - InTheArena 4y ago
      I would be too. Millions of dollars where lost because he was a unwitting accomplice to a extortion scheme. But lowering the bar to say "I'm sorry" when someone is obv incorrect is still a good thing.
    - flutas 4y ago
      He is being sued by them for $425,000 in damages. Last update on the court case was a request for an extension due to them trying to finalize a settlement, I suspect this was part of that settlement.
cthalupa 4y ago
>but what more do you want from the guy? By the time the December story was published, it seems that Krebs knew full well that his source was the person implicated in the crime to begin with. I would like to understand why he thought it was responsible to press forward while obfuscating this fact, and how he will handle similar situations moving forward. His thought process there will help inform me as to whether or not I can personally take him seriously on things of this nature in the future. As it stands, I don't know if he learned anything from this, or if he still thinks that people that very well might have perpetrated the crime he's reporting on are reputable sources that he should post information from without question or disclaimer and the only reason this is posted is because he settled in court.
- nibbleshifter 4y ago
  many of Krebs's sources are criminals, often dropping their competitors info in Brian's lap as a way to get ahead. Brian's a willing and witting participant in this behaviour, even encourages it, because it gives him more stories.
  - Werewolf255 4y ago
    Yeah, this reflects my views too. He's using the veneer or pretext of journalism and reporting the truth in order for him to cover sloppy sourcing.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > sing the veneer or pretext of journalism and reporting the truth in order for him to cover sloppy sourcing Getting tips from criminals is not sloppy sourcing. There is verification that obviously failed here. We likely won't hear the full story until the prosecution and litigation cycles have turned.
      - cthalupa 4y ago
        To me, the issue isn't really that the source in question is a criminal - I think they might be a bit less reliable than the average person, but as others have noted, general people are pretty unreliable too. But the fact that the source was also the person who has allegedly perpetrated the crimes going unmentioned and not being disclaimed to me is sloppy - even if there was additional verification done, if you are mentioning this source as the cornerstone of your article, I want to know about the vested interests that source has. Obviously, being the person that allegedly did it means you have A LOT of vested interest in how it is covered and what is revealed. If you want to talk yourself up and brag about it (which seems to be a given if you are telling a journalist about something you allegedly perpetrated) it is totally reasonable for people to be suspicious about how much is fact and how much is fiction. Humans like to exaggerate when talking themselves up.
acoard 4y ago
>Everyone makes mistakes. Fully agree, which is why I said the same thing. :) >Granted, this is probably in response to some legal action either in progress or already settled, but what more do you want from the guy? As I said in my post, a stated awareness that he was used in a cyber blackmail scheme, and at least some nominal promise to try and be aware of that in the future. The difference here is between "I made an honest mistake" and "I was taken advantage of and used unwittingly in a scheme." I'm not interested in him self-flagellating and begging for forgiveness, as my concern is totally forward-looking. I believe this type of problem will come again, of people trying to unwittingly use his reputation to push certain agendas. If he isn't aware of that dimension of the problem then it's likely it will re-occur. That being said, your point about this post made in a legal context is totally fair and had slipped my mind. I can imagine any apology/statement/etc getting neutered by lawyers for perfectly rational reasons.
- oaiey 4y ago
  Saying that he was part of the blackmail scheme would make him maybe target of legal actions from Ubiquiti. So .. that you will not get. He has to do the same company-lingo like they all do after screwups.
  - tssva 4y ago
    He was/is the target of legal action from Ubiquiti. I assume this statement is part of some settlement he has reached with them regarding the legal action.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 4y ago
      Complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.521759/gov.uscourts.vaed.521759.1.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.52... I remember at the time we were discussing the misreporting I noted that Krebs’ lack of retraction could come back and bite him. It’s interesting to see it now. It’s also interesting to note that it is referenced in point 11 of the lawsuit. A little remorse goes a long way, and pride can be expensive.
stickfigure 4y ago
> what more do you want from the guy? He's a guy who writes about hacks. He got "hacked". At the very least I am curious to know more of the story.
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  If you can call it that. Seems more like a convenient excuse.
  - tunap 4y ago
    He was duped by a con man. Everyone is susceptible to SE, even smart guys like Brian. A case can be made that it is the most difficult challenge/vector in cyber security. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_(security) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_(security)
    - encryptluks2 4y ago
      Seems more like he was willfully played and that Ubiquiti lawyers can show negligence on his part which would not be a good look for a security researcher.
fnordpiglet 4y ago
If I were ubiquiti management or shareholder I would want a pound of flesh, and I expect their lawyers will be pursuing that.
- sxates 4y ago
  They are: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63197557/ubiquiti-inc-v-krebs/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63197557/ubiquiti-inc-v...
ineptech 4y ago
> what more do you want from the guy? "This has taught me that my platform can be weaponized by any bad actor who can fool or manipulate me. One column from me could get a CISO fired or move a Fortune 500 company's stock price. That's a heavy responsibility that I wasn't really accounting for, but now that I understand it, I've put some thought in to it and I have made some changes that I hope will harden me and my platform against this kind of social engineering attack."
- fomine3 4y ago
  I'd like to see this, like a tech corps security incident explaination. Though I don't expect such statements from journalists.
ajross 4y ago
The timing doesn't support that take, though. Nikolas Sharp (the sole source for these stories) was arrested almost a year ago. Krebs knew then that his source was tainted, and he did nothing. Instead he waited until he was months into litigation with Ubiquity (which he's almost sure to lose) to try to backpedal. That's just a straight up violation of journalistic ethics. I think it's very reasonable to demand that our reporters in the security community be clear about their sourcing and prompt about corrections. A "what more do you want from the guy" implies that we shouldn't hold his past actions to account. And... we should. We absolutely should.
danso 4y ago
I would've like to see some explanation for how Krebs fell for this ruse, such as why this single-sourced claim was convincing enough to him to do a series of articles that apparently did serious material harm to Ubiquiti. And at least a few specifics of the key information that Krebs now believes to be faked. Just because his source has been indicted for alleged false info to the press doesn't mean that everything this source gave Krebs is automatically fake. In other words, what claims in the indictment, relating to which evidence the source gave to Krebs, leads Krebs to believe that that evidence is completely unreliable -- and how much, if any, doubt/scrutiny did Krebs give that evidence before this indictment? It doesn't have to be written in the tone of CYA excuses. The angle is: this is how I got fooled, and these are the lessons I've learned going forward. As Krebs writes in his mea culpa: "I always endeavor to ensure that my articles are properly sourced and factual." Okay, so why didn't that happen here? Is it one-time bespoke situation, i.e. a perfect storm of mistakes? Or was it because of standard practices that he now sees as insufficient for these kinds of stories going forward?
- system2 4y ago
  I agree, maybe "how he fell for this" part is related to some legal constrictions. I personally dislike this type of apologies which is very commonly used by corporates.
Hamuko 4y ago
I'm not really sure if he's owning it. This post has not made it to his Twitter feed, unlike most of the other recent stories. They're probably not automated, so I wouldn't expect it to be there immediately, but I kinda feel like he wants it to just quietly go away if he doesn't mention it there as well. https://twitter.com/briankrebs https://twitter.com/briankrebs
initplus 4y ago
Brian is a journalist more than he is a security researcher, anything he publishes as a journalist should be held to held to a higher standard than an random person just speaking their mind. He had ample opportunity to get out ahead and issue a retraction of the story when it was known to be false, well before the Ubiquiti lawsuit.

duxup 4y ago

For a site that generally is there to give you the inside scoop on what is really going on / happened, interesting / disappointing that the choice is to not do so here. To me "sorry I was wrong" isn't enough.

Jenk 4y ago
That's a non-answer. What more do you want? What would be "enough"?
- duxup 4y ago
  I don't know what you mean by non answer.
- IMTDb 4y ago
  Compensation for the damages done to ubiquiti ? He chose to relay false information from un trustworthy source, in a way that damaged the ubiquiti brand, and this took some time and energy from ubiquiti employees to fight those false accusations. Here he is saying "Yeah, here is $0 for your troubles, I'll be doing the bare minimum so you can't drag me in front of a courthouse anymore". He is literally posting a 1 paragraph piece of text. "Enough" would be : "I am going to fully compensate you for the damages I have done by lacking professional integrity, and making extraordinary claims while lacking the required extraordinary proofs that usually come with them. Please send me a bill for the salaires of the technical staff, marketers and lawyers that had to be pulled from more important projects to fight the fake news I relayed. I understand that you have had to pay these people so you are not going to profit from this and this only allows you to break even on this whole mess. I note that - going forward - this will be used as an additional compass for me as I understand that my words have real, tangible consequences for the people involved and I will avoid putting anyone in danger without putting myself on the hook as well."
  - yrro 4y ago
    He's being sued by Ubiquity.

ulrashida 4y ago

I think you're right, but it took me a few minutes to put my finger on what was missing. There should have been a "going forward I will..." segment.

criddell 4y ago
What should he do going forward?
- elteto 4y ago
  He should become immune to social engineering and manipulation... /s Now seriously, there is not much he can do going forward other than be even more careful with vetting his sources. Which I am sure he already internalized.
  - InitialLastName 4y ago
    (Questions about the current state of journalism aside...) There is already standard journalistic practice for avoiding this: get a second, more reliable source. It can often be much easier to get a reliable source to verify information initially provided by a sketchy source than to get that reliable source to provide information in the first place. If you post unverified information that one person on the internet tells you, your work is indistinguishable from gossip, and should be taken as such.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  Not be a shock jock revealing things based on untrustworthy sources.
  - mandevil 4y ago
    His entire beat is based on untrustworthy sources. What makes him special is that he is hanging out on Russian language carder forums and the like, monitoring the gossip and identifying new threats and patterns of behavior. That is the value that he adds, and it's a reasonably big value. In this case, he got played, but if he stops trying to work with untrustworthy sources he stops doing his job.

stronglikedan 4y ago

This is why he should have never apologized in the first place, but rather just admit being wrong an move on. Apologies are never enough for some people, and often even weaponized.

Jenk 4y ago
Yep. Apologies are blood to lynch mobs.

karaterobot 4y ago

As a third party unaffected by the events in any direct way, I don't feel it's appropriate to give an opinion on whether the apology is satisfactory or not. If Ubiquiti has one, I suppose that's for them to express, or not, as they choose.

lolc 4y ago
As a reporter, Krebs failed to promptly disclose or retract when the source turned out to be the leak. That means my understanding of events was left incomplete for longer than it should have been. So he wronged Ubiquity, which I don't particularily care for. He also wronged his readers, which I am party to. This late retraction is underwhelming and doesn't give me trust. As he seems to only have retracted after being forced to by Ubiquity, now what do I make of his stories where his targets don't have a legal team in his jurisdiction?

bedhead 4y ago

I’m still bitter about this. The story absolutely reeked from the beginning and Krebs did nothing but unnecessarily sensationalize it like a tabloid journalist. I got downvoted a million times over when I pointed this out at the time, why I don’t know, it was obvious to anyone who wasn’t foaming at the mouth to pounce on Ubiquiti. In decades past this was a career-ending error…I wish it still was, I’ll never take a single word Krebs says seriously ever again.

oaiey 4y ago
One upvote returned ;)
- bedhead 4y ago
  Ha, thanks. Seriously, this was not a run-of-the-mill journalistic mistake for which one apologizes for and moves on. This was so brazen I couldn't even believe it at the time, my assumption was that he was short Ubiquiti's stock or something. What Krebs did was so egregious and so extreme that I really have no idea why the world hasn't turned its back on him as a journalist.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Because there are no journalists left, it's all entertainment, and we were entertained. I don't like it, but that's what it is.
BonoboIO 4y ago
Sometimes HN doesn’t want to see the obvious, because he is their hero

neilv 4y ago

I'd guess he's been advised not to say too much, and the specific way to say what he did. Besides the ongoing criminal case for which he may be a witness, I'd guess there may be potential liability wrt the company, and I'd guess that he's being careful not to create new potential liability wrt the indicted person (see several different nuances in his "My sole source" sentence). And this sounds like a lawyer-approved away to convey that he recognizes the importance, without saying any specific possible mistake of his that could be fodder, nor prejudging the case: > I always endeavor to ensure that my articles are properly sourced and factual.

dotBen 4y ago
Yes, this is exactly right - his post is clearly the product of legal negotiations with Ubiquity and probably cleared by both them and his own counsel. He's well advised not to say more than he needs to, even if people in this community would like him to fall on his sword more, that's just not how this stuff works.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

skullone 4y ago

I think he had to limit what he said, because he potentially has some liability on what he had reported on in the past. Crazy situation

pdntspa 4y ago

Given that the target he "hurt" is a massive company that can absorb losses, I think this retraction is quite enough.

bombcar 4y ago
He also "hurt" his readers and those who had trust in him, damaging his own reputation.

VogonPoetry 4y ago

Unfortunately I don't think this is the first time he has been socially manipulated in this way. Mr Krebs does seem to have a habit of only getting the details from one side of things and only writing things from that side of the story. Perhaps due to the nature of some of his investigations. Everyone has weaknesses to being socially manipulated. One way to mitigate this is to open a dialog with "the other side" to check and seek out inconsistencies. Perhaps not revealing everything in your exposé story or leaving the veracity of it somewhat ambiguous until things develop further. This could weaken the impact of your initial story. Dialog is probably not easy when the other party is undoubtably criminal and you can get blocked from reaching the right people. In this case, the accusations were against a corporation. They can be good or bad, but ultimately legal processes will reveal things. I do think Mr Krebs has upped his game in recent years and enjoy reading his stories, but I read them like fiction rather than actual verified facts.

jpgvm 4y ago

I read this as a post probably vetted by his legal team and probably not issued earlier because of the ongoing legal action (and then probably subsequent negotiations with Ubiquiti). He absolutely fucked up here but he probably can't say so and likely wasn't able to retract sooner less he open himself up to legal culpability for his part in the blackmail scheme (unwitting or not). Unfortunately this is just how the world works. I hope he has learnt his lesson and will be more through in his vetting of his sources and how his reputation can be misappropriated by malicious actors to do very serious harm.

doctor_eval 4y ago

It does read, to me, much like it’s something that was workshopped between Krebs, his lawyers and Ubiquiti’s. This apology should be about Ubiquiti, not Krebs, and maybe the terseness is just a reflection of that. Frankly I was on the fence about buying new Ubiquiti gear because of what I’d heard, and seeing this lets me reevaluate my position - which I think is the point.