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 a

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?