71–80 of 172 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you’ll find TAG regularly gives assessment on attribution at least at the country level. Iran, China, Russia, Belarus and North Korea at least have been named in the last few years. (Disclaimer: I am head of TAG)
Quoted post unavailable.
https://www.clearskysec.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Dream...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you’ll find TAG regularly gives assessment on attribution at least at the country level. Iran, China, Russia, Belarus and North Korea at least have been named in the last few years. (Disclaimer: I am head of TAG)
Quoted post unavailable.
Just because you might not know what techniques the researchers here used to reach to that conclusion, doesn't mean they would have used dubious methods.
It is better to ask than attack a person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Rather than attacking him, you are free to discuss on how it would be hard to attribute or reach to a source. Just because you might not know what techniques the researchers here used to reach to that conclusion, doesn't mean they would have used dubious methods. It is better to ask than attack a person.
To be precise. After the CIA made up reports of WMDs in Irak people should ask for receipts earlier.
[0]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-defense-cybersecurity...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Here's the report which associated Clear Sky with NK, and it's not from Google: https://www.clearskysec.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Dream...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> (Insert obligatory "wiki it's not always accurate etc etc"). Overall I'd take either one and personally don't care. Just trying to match what you're saying with what I'm reading and make sense of where the truth is. Diving in (even if the parent doesn't care :) ): The last sentence is the real challenge: Meanings depend 100% on writer and reader understandings. If two agree that 'homograph' means 'chicken poop', as…
> Some dictionaries influence meaning by being prescriptive (e.g., American Heritage, IIRC); others report what has been understood by being descriptive (e.g., Oxford). The problem is, Wikipedia is neither: It represents the understandings of a few editors of unknown knowledge; it is neither descriptive nor prescriptive and we quickly get into chicken poop scenarios. To be clear: reporting what has been understood st…
I agree and actually had a sentence in the GP that said it, but removed it because it was getting too long. An important point. Also, the Oxford English Dictionary intends to be descriptive and says so, but many readers won't understand that and take it as prescriptive.
> OED no less "represents the understandings of a few editors of unknown knowledge" than Wikipedia does.
The knowledge of OED editors is not unknown but well known and exceptional - the world's leading lexicographers, with the best training and decades of experience. The resources are exceptional: top-notch professional lexicographers, domain experts, databases, teams of volunteers reading and contributing, etc. The definitions are not based on the contemporary understanding of a few people but on over a century of accumulated research, back to the beginning of English, and the understandings of those people, plus it depends on the input of domain experts, editors, etc.
I'm not knocking Wikipedia, which has its value, and the OED is, like every human institution, limited. But beyond that general statement, the quoted sentence doesn't describe the OED at all.
Been looking in that article to find how they concluded it's from North Korea, but I can't find it. Can anyone point it out for me?
https://www.clearskysec.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Dream...
Interesting seeing Japanese here but might just be a language thing.
> LinkedIn profile Protection – we believe that LinkedIn has yet to develop sufficient security mechanisms and protect its users against impostor accounts. We find it alarming that a fictitious profile, copycat an existing account, can be open and use without alerting to source profile from which the information was stolen, as well as profiles contacted by the new imposter profile.
Sounds like some low hanging fruit
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's fair I'm not really one for jargon and whatnot (I think it can actually become less useful if the goal is just to communicate something to a person), but the first line in wiki says: > a homoglyph is one of two or more graphemes, characters, or glyphs with shapes that appear identical or very similar. "Very similar" and "two or more" being the key words. As for homograph I found homoglyph by reading the wiki a…
> (Insert obligatory "wiki it's not always accurate etc etc"). Overall I'd take either one and personally don't care. Just trying to match what you're saying with what I'm reading and make sense of where the truth is. Diving in (even if the parent doesn't care :) ): The last sentence is the real challenge: Meanings depend 100% on writer and reader understandings. If two agree that 'homograph' means 'chicken poop', as…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's the report which associated Clear Sky with NK, and it's not from Google: https://www.clearskysec.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Dream...
Yeah, still waiting for something to substantiate the headline. This report isn't it. A lot of hand-waving about other people's hand-waving.
Been looking in that article to find how they concluded it's from North Korea, but I can't find it. Can anyone point it out for me?
https://www.clearskysec.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Dream...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or potentially there were exploits but they weren't able to encounter them due to the various protection measures the attackers used.
Either way, I find it very hard to believe that they haven’t coordinated with Apple and Mozilla on this CVE.
"We expect this group has zero days that they're exploiting in your software but we don't know what specifically they are" isn't a cve.