Attacks on Google may have been work of amateurs | Hacker News Reader

Attacks on Google may have been work of amateurs

computerworld.com

8 pointsilamont8 comments

The whole story is based on the word of Damballa, Inc. who has a vested interest in pushing this story out to the media. Strike one.

Secondly, Google specifically denies Damballa having any first-hand knowledge of the attacks or the resulting investigation. Strike two.

Third, Damballa's conclusions are completely unfounded. The fact that the attacks were 'unsophisticated' in nature doesn't exonerate the Chinese government. In fact, it seems quite in character. Strike three.

Until Damballa or Google publishes something more conclusive, I think we can safely ignore this story. As it stands, this smells like a grab for media attention by a new security vendor.

I had exactly the same feeling reading this. The only thing I'd add is that this is exactly the sort of clumsy FUD that the Chinese government might throw out there to cover their tracks, especially given what a diplomatic cluster-you-know-what this has become for them.

"...carried out by relatively unsophisticated attackers using outdated botnet tools..."

Sounds exactly like a government launched attack to me. "Amateurs" are more likely than anyone to be using the cutting edge of botnet tools.

I have no idea what the submitters intent was, but I upvoted this and am commenting on it because I think that it's interesting.

If the anti-botnet vendor's assertion is true, that the botnet was ordinary/amateur, then the much of what the media called 'advanced persistent threats' and 'state sponsored' attacks would be incorrect. If major corporations got beaten by amateurs, the state of corporate desktop security is far worse than I imagined.

The assertion originated from a security tool vendor though, so one must assume that they are severely biased toward selling security tools.

We don't sell security tools but do deal with this type of stuff. You'd be surprised at the state of corporate desktop security and how easy it is to get hit.

To be honest the line between APT, the more advanced criminal stuff and the run of the mill botnets are more blurred than most vendors would be happy to say, especially when information is bought and sold anyway (so in theory the chinese government wouldn't even need to attack people).

That's interesting. I thought I was the only one with fifty thousand unsecured desktops on my network. It's nice to know I have company.

Not really.

'advanced persistent threats': Also means having the discipline to use just the right amount of force. "Advanced" in APT could just be the mindset of the threat not necessarily the sophistication of exploit.

> If the anti-botnet vendor's assertion is true, that the botnet was ordinary/amateur, then the much of what the media called 'advanced persistent threats' and 'state sponsored' attacks would be incorrect.

That conclusion doesn't follow from the premises offered.

Govts use amateur tools all the time. Govt does not imply competent or well-run - see your local DMV for an example.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com