Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Final thoughts on Ubiquiti

krebsonsecurity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 238 posts

Re: Final thoughts on Ubiquiti

#141

Post by blitzar »

filmgirlcw wrote: post #91
photochemsyn wrote: post #54

This seems to be the basics of the case: Initial report: https://web.archive.org/web/20211202143043/https://krebsonse... Indictment of source: https://web.archive.org/web/20211202161703/https://krebsonse... In cases like this it's probably better to leave the article up but plaster a big red 'retracted' banner across it, with a link to a complete explanation as to why it was retracted. As far as defamation, isn't the…

As I said in another comment, I feel certain (based on my own direct experience working for a publication that faced numerous lawsuits over what in those cases were factual articles) that this was a condition of a legal settlement. And the thing is, you settle in this case because even though the defamation bar is really high, if your sourcing was wrong (and you maybe didn't do the best job of vetting that sourcing)…

Date Filed: August 25th, 2022 "Defendants Brian Krebs and Krebs on Security, LLC respectfully request that the Court extend the deadline for Defendants to respond to the Complaint by an additional thirty days in light of extraordinary circumstances that have delayed the finalization of the parties’ settlement"

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63197557/21/ubiquiti-in...

They have been finalizing the settlement for some time. I would guess it is now settled.

Re: Final thoughts on Ubiquiti

#142

Post by andrewaylett »

IncRnd wrote: post #127
bombcar wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a failure across many journalists; the inability to view what they're involved with objectively. The amount of scrutiny applied to a source is inversely proportional with how much I want to believe the source.

> This is a failure across many journalists Only one journalist was involved here. I think you meant "failing of many journalists" not "failure across many". > The amount of scrutiny applied to a source is inversely proportional with how much I want to believe the source. Why do you disbelieve a source that has been greatly scrutinized? Did you mean "directly proportional"?

The sense I read from the GP is that if I want to believe the source, I'm less likely to apply strict scrutiny to what they tell me. The more I want to believe, the less I'll dig into what I'm hearing. Some things are just too good to not believe.

Re: Final thoughts on Ubiquiti

#143

Post by dotBen »

neilv wrote: post #126
acoard wrote: post #6

An accurate but pretty lacklustre "mea culpa" and retraction. I don't mind people making mistakes, everyone does, but seeing how Krebs has handled this whole episode has not inspired optimism in how he'll handle future mistakes. He was essentially used as an unwitting party in a cyber blackmail scheme, and he doesn't touch on that at all. There will continue to be nefarious parties trying to misuse his reputation, so…

I'd guess he's been advised not to say too much, and the specific way to say what he did. Besides the ongoing criminal case for which he may be a witness, I'd guess there may be potential liability wrt the company, and I'd guess that he's being careful not to create new potential liability wrt the indicted person (see several different nuances in his "My sole source" sentence). And this sounds like a lawyer-approved…

Yes, this is exactly right - his post is clearly the product of legal negotiations with Ubiquity and probably cleared by both them and his own counsel. He's well advised not to say more than he needs to, even if people in this community would like him to fall on his sword more, that's just not how this stuff works.

Re: Final thoughts on Ubiquiti

#144

Post by danso »

blantonl wrote: post #12
acoard wrote: post #6

An accurate but pretty lacklustre "mea culpa" and retraction. I don't mind people making mistakes, everyone does, but seeing how Krebs has handled this whole episode has not inspired optimism in how he'll handle future mistakes. He was essentially used as an unwitting party in a cyber blackmail scheme, and he doesn't touch on that at all. There will continue to be nefarious parties trying to misuse his reputation, so…

This is about of straightforward as a "I screwed up, I own it, I apologize" Everyone makes mistakes. Some of the good work Krebs has done seems to be completely overshadowed by a mistake here. Granted, this is probably in response to some legal action either in progress or already settled, but what more do you want from the guy?

I would've like to see some explanation for how Krebs fell for this ruse, such as why this single-sourced claim was convincing enough to him to do a series of articles that apparently did serious material harm to Ubiquiti. And at least a few specifics of the key information that Krebs now believes to be faked. Just because his source has been indicted for alleged false info to the press doesn't mean that everything this source gave Krebs is automatically fake. In other words, what claims in the indictment, relating to which evidence the source gave to Krebs, leads Krebs to believe that that evidence is completely unreliable -- and how much, if any, doubt/scrutiny did Krebs give that evidence before this indictment?

It doesn't have to be written in the tone of CYA excuses. The angle is: this is how I got fooled, and these are the lessons I've learned going forward.

As Krebs writes in his mea culpa: "I always endeavor to ensure that my articles are properly sourced and factual." Okay, so why didn't that happen here? Is it one-time bespoke situation, i.e. a perfect storm of mistakes? Or was it because of standard practices that he now sees as insufficient for these kinds of stories going forward?

Re: Final thoughts on Ubiquiti

#146

Post by rovr138 »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #80
obblekk wrote: post #32

Before people jump on this with super negativity... mistakes happen. What is Krebs' false positive rate? I think low enough that a simple, clear explanation of why it happened is sufficient. There's no weasel words or evasion here - he owns up to the error, apologizes to affected parties, and retracts all original posts. It's true that his reporting probably caused stress for Ubiquity. I'm curious what people think i…

> What is Krebs' false positive rate? What's more important is how those false positives are handled. In this case, it feels like it was swept under the rug and he avoided addressing for as long as possible. If he had simply addressed the problem head-on as the news came out and the FBI information became public, it would have been a different story. The way he rushed to report accusations from an anonymous source (w…

> If he had simply addressed the problem head-on as the news came out and the FBI information became public, it would have been a different story.

Isn’t that what caused the issue in the first place? He talked before all the info was out and he could verify all of it.

Re: Final thoughts on Ubiquiti

#147

Post by jibe »

LordDragonfang wrote: post #93
nibbleshifter wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

many of Krebs's sources are criminals, often dropping their competitors info in Brian's lap as a way to get ahead. Brian's a willing and witting participant in this behaviour, even encourages it, because it gives him more stories.

That might seem like an indictment of Brian's ethics, but I'd argue that having criminals as sources is an unfortunate inevitability if you're going to have up-to-date reporting on a topic that is so heavily entangled with cybercrime. Besides, it's not like non-criminal sources never lie.

It is fine to use criminal sources, but in this case the criminal was a primary party with a self interest. If you can’t disclose that and still wrote the story, it is a warning that you either need additional sources, or don’t publish.

Re: Final thoughts on Ubiquiti

#148

Post by system2 »

danso wrote: post #144
blantonl wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is about of straightforward as a "I screwed up, I own it, I apologize" Everyone makes mistakes. Some of the good work Krebs has done seems to be completely overshadowed by a mistake here. Granted, this is probably in response to some legal action either in progress or already settled, but what more do you want from the guy?

I would've like to see some explanation for how Krebs fell for this ruse, such as why this single-sourced claim was convincing enough to him to do a series of articles that apparently did serious material harm to Ubiquiti. And at least a few specifics of the key information that Krebs now believes to be faked. Just because his source has been indicted for alleged false info to the press doesn't mean that everything t…

I agree, maybe "how he fell for this" part is related to some legal constrictions. I personally dislike this type of apologies which is very commonly used by corporates.

Re: Final thoughts on Ubiquiti

#150

Post by dotBen »

hot_gril wrote: post #117
OJFord wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody competes with them as 'Apple for networking', but MikroTik is if anything a bit cheaper and better on the actual specs etc. - just without the snazzy UI and easy GUI (highly-G) config. There's probably a lot of people who'd love Ubiquiti gear ('gadget nerds', Linus Tech Tips viewers, gamers, etc.) to whom I wouldn't recommend MikroTik, but to anyone who's.. idk, heard of iptables, I would. All the gamer-market…

> Nobody competes with them as 'Apple for networking' Apple used to ;_; I was still using my Airport Expresses until they gave out. Didn't care if they didn't have the latest wifi standards, they were way easier to manage than Ubiquiti or anything else.

The founder of Ubiquiti used to be a radio engineer on the AirPort product at Apple. Part of the reason he left was because the line became devalued in Apple's product lineup and would ultimately be shelved.
Post reply on HN