-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Paul Ferguson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Joel Esler <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Did anyone else think that there are two parts to that Google attack? >> Spearphishing, and it just seemed like there was another part, the part >> involving other companies? >> > > This is the most plausible explanation I have heard: > > "The US flaw-hunting specialist said that the attack was an attempt to > steal source code on an industrial scale and was, in many cases, probably > successful. If correct, this might explain why Google has by its own > normally quite restrained standards gone ballistic to the extent of > threatening to quit China." > > http://news.techworld.com/security/3210137/google-hack-hit-33-other-compa > ni es/ > > Having been in contact with the "US flaw-hunting specialist" mentioned > above, this lines up pretty accurately. > Looks like the law firm that is suing China over Green Dam was also targeted: http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=29533 - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.5.3 (Build 5003) wj8DBQFLTnjlq1pz9mNUZTMRAt/9AJ99mbh2nJwSic/rfKFLIM4SN/Mf6ACgxGDJ /p4zFNTmnuFT2R/Zc4PjHA8= =FRxe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawgster(at)gmail.com ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
