4 ms·

I don't think we should assume a state actor. We don't know. It's kind of similar to stuxnet but attacking Linux distros is so broad and has such a huge risk o

I don't think we should assume a state actor. We don't know. It's kind of similar to stuxnet but attacking Linux distros is so broad and has such a huge risk of being exposed, as it was within a few weeks of deployment. A good nation state attack would put more effort into not being caught. But we don't know. So maybe I'm wrong.

XorNot 3y ago
Assuming a state-actor is a cope though. It's looking at the problem and saying "well we were fighting god himself, so really what could we have done?" Whereas given the number of identities and time involved, the thing we really see is "it took what, 2-3 or burner email accounts and a few dozen hours over 2 years to almost hack the world?" The entire exploit was within the scope of capability of one guy. Telling ourselves "nation-state" is pretending there isn't a really serious problem.
- rightbyte 3y ago
  Ye it is a really good scapegoat. You get cover from war mongerers in a "don't blame the victim" way too.