3 ms·

It’s about reputation. His reputation has been damaged. I think people genuinely appreciate what he’s done and hope that he’ll rehabilitate it. Let’s avoid ad

• windexh8er 4y ago
  While Krebs may have gotten it wrong this time, I think there are some interesting components that we better understand because of the scrutiny on Ubiquiti. The first is that Ubiquiti's opsec was subpar and contributed to the breach. This was at a time where long time Ubiquiti customers were getting very publicly frustrated that they were forcing products and users to rely on their cloud ops for authentication into local gear. This mainly impacted the products under the UniFi lineup, but it was clear Ubiquiti was testing the waters to see how much pushback they'd get by removing the capability of local auth. The two together likely made the public fiasco even more turbulent internally. The second is that we learned that Ubiquiti did not do right by customers in their timing or statement of breach disclosure. It was a very weak disclosure and they did everything to skirt around the true situation. Let's not forget that Ubiquiti buried this into a very benign looking statement in the 10-Q files on 02-04-22 [0] (around page 31) when they knew damn well that this was a significant risk to all of their customers. All in all I think the additional exposure Krebs brought on Ubiquiti at least forced a lot of the truth into the spotlight. Without that I don't think the extent of the breach would be known. Ubiquiti downplayed and chose to not respond to their customers. For that, I still think they handled the situation very poorly. [0] https://ir.ui.com/financial/sec-filings https://ir.ui.com/financial/sec-filings