4 ms·
That's not very convincing. They still abused trust placed in them - by an active attacker, granted, but still... This seems like a legally risky move and it do
by bornfreddy 1y ago
That's not very convincing. They still abused trust placed in them - by an active attacker, granted, but still... This seems like a legally risky move and it doesn't inspire trust in Huntress.
- fckgw 1y agoWho's trust? Their job is to hunt down and research threat actors. The information gained from this is used to better protect their enterprise customers. This gains more trust with their customers and breaking trust with ... threat actors?
- viccis 1y ago>Who's trust? Their job is to hunt down and research threat actors No, their job is to provide EDR protection for their customers.
- cybergreg 1y agoThreat intelligence is a thing.in fact there’s entire companies that sell just that. In fact, there’s entire government organizations that do just that.
- viccis 1y agoSure but that's not what their customer was engaging with them to do. It's not ethical to sell "EDR" services and then use that access to spy on your customers for intelligence purposes.