Sounds like another government-approved leak to a compliant corporate media outlet by 'anonymous sources'. I don't know why the relevant government agencies do

Sounds like another government-approved leak to a compliant corporate media outlet by 'anonymous sources'. I don't know why the relevant government agencies don't just issue a press release unless they're unusually embarrassed by this apparent security failure. The other possibility is the story is no more true than all those 'anonymous source' leaks about Iraq's (nonexistent) chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs from two decades ago. If we're not going to accept Seymour Hersch's anonymously-sourced claim that the US Navy was involved in the destruction of the Nordstream pipelines, why accept this claim at face value either? For an example of reporting of a major hacking incident not reliant on anonymous government sources, see the OPM hack: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/us/breach-in-a-federal-computer-system-exposes-personnel-data.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/us/breach-in-a-federal-co... Notably, the WSJ source report doesn't include any mention of reporters attempting to get official statements from the relevant US government agencies and being rebuffed. That smells like plausible deniability of the kind involved in the bogus Iraq WMD leaks.