3 ms·

Currently the linked URL 302-redirects to '/'. @dang, consider replacing with: https://web.archive.org/web/20240531140540/https://www.hudsonrock.com/blog/snowf

by voytec 2y ago

Currently the linked URL 302-redirects to '/'. @dang, consider replacing with: https://web.archive.org/web/20240531140540/https://www.hudsonrock.com/blog/snowflake-massive-breach-access-through-infostealer-infection https://web.archive.org/web/20240531140540/https://www.hudso...

demosthanos 2y ago
@dang is a no-op, consider contacting at the email in the footer. But on the other hand, that they yanked the blog post is interesting and shouldn't be glossed over by just linking to the archive. What changed? Edit: It looks like Snowflake's official response denies essentially all of the claims in TFA. Maybe Hudson Rock got taken in by a dishonest source and pulled the article when they realized their mistake? https://community.snowflake.com/s/question/0D5VI00000Emyl00AB/detecting-and-preventing-unauthorized-user-access https://community.snowflake.com/s/question/0D5VI00000Emyl00A...
- beardedwizard 2y ago
  extremely likely scenario. Hudson tried to write a splashy hit piece and was met with reality.
  - p0seidon 2y ago
    Yes, that must be what happened. Maybe it was also traced back to the person based on previous posts or something like that, and they got cold fee.
- dandandan 2y ago
  Quietly pulling the piece without a retraction is pretty shady as well
  - demosthanos 2y ago
    Yeah, the piece itself had a tone that made me suspicious of the company, but this silent retraction makes me certain that they're untrustworthy.
  - dang 2y ago
    Yeah that's bad. I've put "[withdrawn]" in the title and taken out the name of the company for now, since it seems unfair to leave it in there. If the claims turn out to have been accurate, we can put it back.
  - hylaride 2y ago
    Well, they doxed the alleged employee that they claimed was the source of the breach and likely got conned into what could have been a short-selling scam. Life comes at you fast…
- skilled 2y ago
  I don’t think the source was dishonest. Also, Snowflake hasn’t really denied anything. That press release still reads the same, and still acknowledges that customers were impacted. Also, both infosec groups and journalists were given sample data. On top of that, Live Nation explicitly said in their SEC filing that the breach happened through a third-party cloud provider, which is what Snowflake is. I think that if Ticketmaster starts to send out breach emails to their customers next week, that will put any suspicions about this being fake to rest. It’s difficult to imagine ShinyHunters getting duped as well, since they are the initial strongest link to this whole thing. vx-underground says that Mandiant and Crowdstrike worked with Snowflake and tl;dr of it is that Snowflake wasn’t breached. That is also strange. They weren’t breached but some customers were affected? :jackie_chan_holding_his_head_pic:

by voytec 2y ago

demosthanos 2y ago

@dang is a no-op, consider contacting at the email in the footer. But on the other hand, that they yanked the blog post is interesting and shouldn't be glossed over by just linking to the archive. What changed? Edit: It looks like Snowflake's official response denies essentially all of the claims in TFA. Maybe Hudson Rock got taken in by a dishonest source and pulled the article when they realized their mistake? https://community.snowflake.com/s/question/0D5VI00000Emyl00AB/detecting-and-preventing-unauthorized-user-access https://community.snowflake.com/s/question/0D5VI00000Emyl00A...

beardedwizard 2y ago
extremely likely scenario. Hudson tried to write a splashy hit piece and was met with reality.
- p0seidon 2y ago
  Yes, that must be what happened. Maybe it was also traced back to the person based on previous posts or something like that, and they got cold fee.
dandandan 2y ago
Quietly pulling the piece without a retraction is pretty shady as well
- demosthanos 2y ago
  Yeah, the piece itself had a tone that made me suspicious of the company, but this silent retraction makes me certain that they're untrustworthy.
- dang 2y ago
  Yeah that's bad. I've put "[withdrawn]" in the title and taken out the name of the company for now, since it seems unfair to leave it in there. If the claims turn out to have been accurate, we can put it back.
- hylaride 2y ago
  Well, they doxed the alleged employee that they claimed was the source of the breach and likely got conned into what could have been a short-selling scam. Life comes at you fast…
skilled 2y ago
I don’t think the source was dishonest. Also, Snowflake hasn’t really denied anything. That press release still reads the same, and still acknowledges that customers were impacted. Also, both infosec groups and journalists were given sample data. On top of that, Live Nation explicitly said in their SEC filing that the breach happened through a third-party cloud provider, which is what Snowflake is. I think that if Ticketmaster starts to send out breach emails to their customers next week, that will put any suspicions about this being fake to rest. It’s difficult to imagine ShinyHunters getting duped as well, since they are the initial strongest link to this whole thing. vx-underground says that Mandiant and Crowdstrike worked with Snowflake and tl;dr of it is that Snowflake wasn’t breached. That is also strange. They weren’t breached but some customers were affected? :jackie_chan_holding_his_head_pic: