[zamadatix]

Even if it was actually an honest to god nation-state I can't see why security circles get hyperfixated on the term. Does it really matter at all if it's a nation, state, or nation-state? Of course not, but "nation-state" sounds really cool so that's the go to, even when it's not actually a nation-state.

[ecshafer]

Because "We got hacked by the concerted efforts of China/Russia" sounds much better than "We literally never update php or linux, and John Script Kiddy Jones pwnd us".

[roywiggins]

It's a bit like copspeak's fondness for mentioning "individuals" (otherwise known as "people.") It's just a kind of shibboleth. "State actors" is just as clear and means the same thing.

[kakacik]

Lowers the percieved incompetence on hacked side, and its hard to argue against (how do you prove it wasnt?). Stock price fall distaster mitigation via simple PR.

But I agree experts should know better when of any solid proof is lacking. Or any proof at all.

[zamadatix]

What I'm saying is they often actually mean "country", but that is less fancy sounding. A nation-state is just one specific type of polity, certainly not the only type which organize attacks.

[dandelany]

You’re overthinking it. “Country” is simply more ambiguous when used as an adjective. “F5 announces attack from country hackers” sounds silly and confusing.

[zamadatix]

"F5 announces hack by foreign country" (or the infinite variations of) is less silly than "F5 announces attack from nation-state hackers", you're just used to hearing the latter repeated every incident. Anyone can intentionally use a phrase poorly, pointing out a silly sounding phrasing exists adds nothing.

Not that "F5 announces attack by state sponsored hackers", "F5 announces attack by nation-state backed hackers", or "F5 announces attack from nationally backed hackers" have to be invalid, particularly since the latter is often what is actually most specifically correct anyways.

[lan321]

yeehaw brother

[bsder]

Personally, I think its worse. The whole point of employing a company like F5 is precisely to protect against those kind of "nation-state" actors.

If F5 can't do that, what is their actual value proposition?

[habinero]

No, it's a real thing with a real meaning. Nation-state actors are, in general, very well-funded and sophisticated, and therefore much more difficult (and expensive) to defend against and clean up after. They tend to have different motivations than the normal crime groups, and therefore go after different things.

[zamadatix]

Of course nation-state actors are real, that was never in question.