What would you consider a misleading about its description of the behavior as a “backdoor? The write-up describes it as a persistent executable payload and goe

What would you consider a misleading about its description of the behavior as a “backdoor? The write-up describes it as a persistent executable payload and goes on to enumerate the C2 commands that it reportedly received from a remote server, for which some IPs are provided. Whether or not it’s a trojan depends on how it got onto the system in the first place. There isn’t more information in the article about how the system was infected, but maybe the author didn’t have evidence to share. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong, just that more details would be needed to substantiate that aspect of the attack.