14 comments

[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 40.4 ms ] thread
I couldn't help reading this as a submarine [0] for Area 1.

0 - http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html

Agreed. I wish I better understood how a PR firm manages to place an article that is so clearly an advertisement, like this, with such a major news outlet, without it setting off the editor's spidey-sense.
It's not a bad story, and writers are busy. It's tough to get a good scoop. Much easier if someone just hands it to you.
She's been working with a few security firms for over a year doing research into a few threat groups. I think this was a better story than a simple network tap at a datacenter. In that sense, it probably was handed to her simply because it was different and more relatable.
(comment deleted)
This is most definitely part of a larger set of investigations she's working on.
This is actually part of a series of investigations she has been working. I think the article is overall a good read and take on the situation.

Take note of the fact that it's C0d0s0, former NSA Agents directly tasked with targeting threat groups, and even more interestingly this quote "Not all companies heed the warning. A security consultant for one victim, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of nondisclosure agreements, said that his client chose not to act on a tip from Area 1 last year out of concern that a scandal over a successful online attack against the company would jeopardize its recent acquisition. It figured its acquirer would not have been thrilled to learn that the start-up’s proprietary technology was now in Chinese hacker’s hands."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/08/technology/chinese-hackers...

There is a lot more to this story than has come out.

Forgive me for doubting a new account that starts off a post with "actually".
NoSuchAgent account created 3 hours ago and most likely is the same PR, or the company referenced. Unbelievable.
Yeah, this is really weird.
(comment deleted)
Not the company, not the pr firm, not the reporter. Security Analyst that's familiar with the research she's doing for the stories.
PR puff in the NY Times, with such a dire headline is more than a little disappointing. Seeing it here is downright annoying.