this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2024
1209 points (99.2% liked)

Linux

48333 readers
800 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm not suggesting one way or another, only that the quoted explanation taken at face value isn't suggesting China based on name analysis.

There's also no reason to assume a nation state. This is completely within the realm of a single or small group of hackers. Organized crime another possibility. Errors with naming are plausible just as the initial mistakes with timing analysis and valgrind errors.

Even assuming a nation state, you name Russia as a possibility. Russia has shown themselves to be completely capable of errors, in their hacks (2016 election interference that was traced back to their intelligence base), their wars, their assassination attempts, etc.

And to me it doesn't seem any more likely that China would point to themselves but sprinkle doubt with inconsistent naming versus just outright pointing to someone else.

It's all guesses, nothing points one way or another. I think we agree on that.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

A big part of it is also letting other people know you did it. China and Russia are big on this. The create dangerous situations, then say they aren't responsible all while sowing confusion. The want plausible deniability, confusion and credit for doing it.