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

91–100 of 238 posts

Re: Final thoughts on Ubiquiti

#91

Post by filmgirlcw »

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the article up but plaster a big red 'retracted' banner across it, with a link to a complete explanation as to why it was retracted.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) and the more complicated aspect is that your source was later indicted in relation to a crime directly connected to the information they shared as the basis of that article, this seems like a pretty straightforward "settle it and move on" scenario, rather than trying to fight it in the courts. Barring the largesse of a large news organization (who also might choose to settle, as the Washington Post did with that kid in DC, even though the New York Times and others were years later found to not have defamed him), this is probably not the sort of thing you want to spend the potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting. Because at the end of the day, the reporting was still flawed.

Re: Final thoughts on Ubiquiti

#92

Post by legitster »

"A lie gets halfway around the world before truth puts on its boots."

Another good reminder to take whistleblower claims with a grain of salt. Even someone as professional as Krebs still wants to get the scoop.

I still don't understand why it took Krebs so long or why he insisted on trusting his insider so much without any corroborating evidence.

Re: Final thoughts on Ubiquiti

#93

Post by LordDragonfang »

nibbleshifter wrote: post #71
cthalupa wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but what more do you want from the guy? By the time the December story was published, it seems that Krebs knew full well that his source was the person implicated in the crime to begin with. I would like to understand why he thought it was responsible to press forward while obfuscating this fact, and how he will handle similar situations moving forward. His thought process there will help inform me as to whether or…

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.

Re: Final thoughts on Ubiquiti

#95

Post by washadjeffmad »

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…

Well, we don't know. How many times has he been either the willing accomplice or unwitting patsy in stock manipulation or corporate sabotage? Does he even know?

Re: Final thoughts on Ubiquiti

#97

Post by treesknees »

user3939382 wrote: post #29

Ubiquiti is so worried about suing Krebs meanwhile their brand reputation has turned to mud due to the quality of their products, both from my own experience and the general consensus I've heard online. If this incident had never occurred I still would have stopped recommending and using their equipment.

Is that so true? I've seen that as they've become more popular, some of the rougher edges and complaints come out. Personally I've had no reliability/quality problems with my Ubiquiti equipment. But I do know several people who have moved away from their gear due to the breach and fallout from these Krebs articles.

Re: Final thoughts on Ubiquiti

#98

Post by de6u99er »

Did he just delete the previous articles?

IMO he should have linked to them from this post, and updated them with a big fat impossible to miss disclaimer on the top of the article because some other sites might still link to them and use wuotes which are not accurate any more.

Re: Final thoughts on Ubiquiti

#99

Post by fnordpiglet »

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?

If I were ubiquiti management or shareholder I would want a pound of flesh, and I expect their lawyers will be pursuing that.

Re: Final thoughts on Ubiquiti

#100

Post by encryptluks2 »

tunap wrote: post #85
encryptluks2 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can call it that. Seems more like a convenient excuse.

He was duped by a con man. Everyone is susceptible to SE, even smart guys like Brian. A case can be made that it is the most difficult challenge/vector in cyber security. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_(security)

Seems more like he was willfully played and that Ubiquiti lawyers can show negligence on his part which would not be a good look for a security researcher.
Post reply on HN