People are going to read this because it's Bruce friggin' Schneier. But Bruce is best when he's discussing low-level details of some actual exploit. And usually

People are going to read this because it's Bruce friggin' Schneier. But Bruce is best when he's discussing low-level details of some actual exploit. And usually even then, his coverage glosses over most technical details. He's the guy you go to when you hear about "spectre" or "meltdown" and want a quick three-paragraph summary of what the deal is. This is different. This is a hand-wavy "maybe somehow possibly I guess someday" article, presumably his freelance writing fee is nice. This is a trait you see in his other articles (the hand-waviness) but here it's all fluff and hand-waviness. Take, for example: > By modifying core systems, the attackers have not only compromised current operations, but have also left behind vulnerabilities that could be exploited in future attacks Logically, that should say "By modifying core system, the attackers could compromise current operations and/or leave behind vulnerabilities" (he's calling the DOGE government employees "attackers" because his politics allow him to look at the grey area from a highly-polarized angle, another mainstay of Bruce's reporting). But logic flew out the window, I guess. If you modify code, you introduce vulnerabilities. Always! 100% of the time! This guy spent too much time writing encryption code, methinks.