3 ms·
NYT would of course never back erroneous allegations by US officials on geopolitical matters like these.
by jampekka 2y ago
NYT would of course never back erroneous allegations by US officials on geopolitical matters like these.
- ethbr1 2y agoWhat satisfiable criteria would you like in a source?
- bjourne 2y agoRead the sources carefully. It all boils down to "US officials says so". It's different from the Podesta hack as forensic evidence were published linking Russian hackers to the attack.
- ethbr1 2y agoThe Podesta "hack" was a spear phishing link, no? With the emails then published by Wikileaks? What forensic evidence was published? Afaicr, it was attributed on the basis of methods. Gmail didn't publicly disclose any internal logging. And the email chain of custody is unreliable, so post-leak analysis has the can't-spot-a-perfect-forgery problem.
- bjourne 2y agoFancy Bear and their software was analyzed by FireEye and Secureworks. You can judge for yourself whether you find the evidence persuasive: https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/apt28-a-window-into-russias-cyber-espionage-operations https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/apt... https://www.secureworks.com/research/threat-group-4127-targets-hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign https://www.secureworks.com/research/threat-group-4127-targe... No such evidence has been published implicating the Chinese government.