> It said the attack had “used a sophisticated infiltration method, intended to evade our checks”, which was why it had taken so long to detect. They seem pret

> It said the attack had “used a sophisticated infiltration method, intended to evade our checks”, which was why it had taken so long to detect. They seem pretty clear that it was an attack rather than accident, but I agree the details seem intentionally vague. Maybe it wasn't quite that sophisticated after all...