top | item 24009455

(no title)

opqpo | 5 years ago

Do you have any evidence that FireEye’s report is accurate and not misleading? they are the ones that claimed it in the first place.

Also what do you think is more plausible for a western cybersecurity company's bottomline? make Russia innocent or make it guilty? especially when you got the backing of all western governments and media.

discuss

posixplz|5 years ago

FireEye has provided their own evidence[1]. BBC has strong editorial guidelines for dealing with evidence from third-parties[2]. You, however, have provided nothing but conjecture and redirection.

Can you substantiate your claim? If not, it’s fair to classify your comments as obvious attempts to gaslight HN’s readers.

1: https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/fireeye-www/blog/pdfs/Gh... 2: https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/accurac...

opqpo|5 years ago

Literally there is ZERO evidence in the report. It's all pathetic nonsense "ghostwriting" about a few accounts upvoting each other on some blogs. The company and others have every incentive to blame these pathetic "ghostwriting" nonsense on Russia to make profit and be relevant. They have no reason whatsover to not do that. Even mentioning that they have no clear evidence against Russia means bad for their business.

raverbashing|5 years ago

They need to update their response book, at this point it becomes too predictable