| |||||||||||||
No evidenceNo evidencePosted Mar 31, 2011 21:26 UTC (Thu) by job (guest, #670)Parent article: Security quotes of the week
Comodo has so far published zero evidence that this was actually an attack made or even sanctioned by the Iranian state. If any of my systems were hacked from an IP in a North American DSL range, I would not get away with blaming the CIA, and I don't Comodo should either.
(Log in to post comments)
No evidence Posted Apr 3, 2011 0:37 UTC (Sun) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] Comodo has so far published zero evidence that this was actually an attack made or even sanctioned by the Iranian state. According to the article, the evidence is the choice of sites to hack -- the kind of sites that would be useful for political purposes but not profit. A common thief would prefer to hack something like Paypal. But as we see in the confession, it's also possible for a non-state party to have a political goal. And there is a third class of hacker that would be interested in www.google.com: the recreational hacker stroking his overinflated ego, which is also apparent in the confession.
No evidence Posted Apr 3, 2011 21:44 UTC (Sun) by job (guest, #670) [Link] According to the article, the evidence is the choice of sites to hack -- the kind of sites that would be useful for political purposes but not profit. A common thief would prefer to hack something like Paypal. But that's completely baseless. In fact, I would suggest that these are exactly the pages you'd want to slip your malware onto (especially the Mozilla one). That's how you make money on false certificates, Paypal payments would be much more difficult to monetize.
|
|||||||||||||