3 ms·

I think it's obvious he's going to do something to avoid this happening again but also I highly doubt anything would be disclosed publicly about this. This isn'

I think it's obvious he's going to do something to avoid this happening again but also I highly doubt anything would be disclosed publicly about this. This isn't exactly a guy with a track record of not learning.

acoard 4y ago
> I think it's obvious he's going to do something to avoid this happening again but also I highly doubt anything would be disclosed publicly about this. This isn't exactly a guy with a track record of not learning. Sure, but part of a "mea culpa" is saying what's important to be said. Otherwise why say anything at all? Maybe he doesn't get it? Maybe he sees the facts differently? Generally I agree with you, and think he's a smart guy who is likely aware of this. But by not touching on those lessons, he only weakens his message.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- rovr138 4y ago
  This is a a publishing retraction. This isn’t a postmortem from a technical issue. He can’t say it won’t happen again. Like stated above, they’ll try to keep abusing him. He can’t say what his process is or how it will change, because that leaves it open to exploit. mea culpa is just that, admitting fault. He did. He also took action and described it there. There is no root cause analysis, corrective actions, and preventive steps. It can happen again and statistically, if it goes long enough, we can say it will happen again.
- PuppyTailWags 4y ago
  Frankly, he is retracting something because is wrong and he is broadcasting that retraction on the largest platform he has access to: his platform. He has sincerely apologized to and made clear who he has harmed: Ubiquiti. So like, what do you want? What more should he say? You say "maybe he sees the facts differently" as if we as anonymous internet crowds are entitled to a post-mortem on his psychological state. This strikes me as distinctly parasocial.
  - acoard 4y ago
    This isn't about a parasocial relationship with Krebs at all, but determining how he'll avoid the situation again going forward. > So like, what do you want? I think I've been pretty clear, basically an acknowledgement of the situation and a statement that he has some ideas on how to address it from coming again. I'm not even asking for an in-depth process update, I realize why he might want to be vague. Importantly, I just want to make sure he sees the problem. Otherwise, what stops it from happening again? > What more should he say? You say "maybe he sees the facts differently" as if we as anonymous internet crowds are entitled to a post-mortem on his psychological state. I'm certainly not entitled to his mental state, he's free to remain as private as he'd like. To go back to my original point, I said "[how he] has handled this whole episode has not inspired optimism in how he'll handle future mistakes." So to answer your question, all I'm saying is if he wants to be seen as a trustworthy public security researcher that is a step he can take in service of it. If he wishes to remain private on it he can too, but as he's decided to be a public security researcher I think it's only fair to engage with that. And I think it's off the mark to call it parasocial, when I'm only engaging with him as a public security researcher doing security work.
  - lostlogin 4y ago
    > So like, what do you want? This hasn’t been a particularly prompt retraction. Why the delay?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - lazide 4y ago
      Because it's been an active court case?
      - lostlogin 4y ago
        When obviously wrong, failing to acknowledge it is an interesting choice. Maybe acknowledging it has legal repercussions, but so does the path taken.

acoard 4y ago

> I think it's obvious he's going to do something to avoid this happening again but also I highly doubt anything would be disclosed publicly about this. This isn't exactly a guy with a track record of not learning. Sure, but part of a "mea culpa" is saying what's important to be said. Otherwise why say anything at all? Maybe he doesn't get it? Maybe he sees the facts differently? Generally I agree with you, and think he's a smart guy who is likely aware of this. But by not touching on those lessons, he only weakens his message.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rovr138 4y ago
This is a a publishing retraction. This isn’t a postmortem from a technical issue. He can’t say it won’t happen again. Like stated above, they’ll try to keep abusing him. He can’t say what his process is or how it will change, because that leaves it open to exploit. mea culpa is just that, admitting fault. He did. He also took action and described it there. There is no root cause analysis, corrective actions, and preventive steps. It can happen again and statistically, if it goes long enough, we can say it will happen again.
PuppyTailWags 4y ago
Frankly, he is retracting something because is wrong and he is broadcasting that retraction on the largest platform he has access to: his platform. He has sincerely apologized to and made clear who he has harmed: Ubiquiti. So like, what do you want? What more should he say? You say "maybe he sees the facts differently" as if we as anonymous internet crowds are entitled to a post-mortem on his psychological state. This strikes me as distinctly parasocial.
- acoard 4y ago
  This isn't about a parasocial relationship with Krebs at all, but determining how he'll avoid the situation again going forward. > So like, what do you want? I think I've been pretty clear, basically an acknowledgement of the situation and a statement that he has some ideas on how to address it from coming again. I'm not even asking for an in-depth process update, I realize why he might want to be vague. Importantly, I just want to make sure he sees the problem. Otherwise, what stops it from happening again? > What more should he say? You say "maybe he sees the facts differently" as if we as anonymous internet crowds are entitled to a post-mortem on his psychological state. I'm certainly not entitled to his mental state, he's free to remain as private as he'd like. To go back to my original point, I said "[how he] has handled this whole episode has not inspired optimism in how he'll handle future mistakes." So to answer your question, all I'm saying is if he wants to be seen as a trustworthy public security researcher that is a step he can take in service of it. If he wishes to remain private on it he can too, but as he's decided to be a public security researcher I think it's only fair to engage with that. And I think it's off the mark to call it parasocial, when I'm only engaging with him as a public security researcher doing security work.
- lostlogin 4y ago
  > So like, what do you want? This hasn’t been a particularly prompt retraction. Why the delay?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - lazide 4y ago
    Because it's been an active court case?
    - lostlogin 4y ago
      When obviously wrong, failing to acknowledge it is an interesting choice. Maybe acknowledging it has legal repercussions, but so does the path taken.