[ThisIBereave]

"He had no idea who was behind it until last August, when he provided malware samples to a security firm at the request of a Bloomberg reporter. A forensic analysis of the malware by Joe Stewart, a threat expert at Atlanta-based Dell SecureWorks, identified the intruders who rifled Solid Oak’s networks as a team of Shanghai- based hackers involved in a string of sensitive national security-related breaches going back years."

[danso]

What does that prove? The Bloomberg reporter doesn't show much evidence of being able to discern what is a valid analysis and what is not. What is a malware sample? Is it so easy to tell if a malicious script was actually used by a group, or merely copied by a script kiddie?

To give you an idea of how stunningly bad conclusions can be drawn from technobabble inferences, I present this:

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2012/05/30/powerful-flame-cyberw...

Powerful ‘Flame’ cyberweapon tied to popular Angry Birds game

The most sophisticated and powerful cyberweapon uncovered to date was written in the LUA computer language, cyber security experts tell Fox News -- the same one used to make the incredibly popular Angry Birds game.

LUA is favored by game programmers because it’s easy to use and easy to embed. Flame is described as enormously powerful and large, containing some 250,000 lines of code, making it far larger than other such cyberweapons. Yet it was built with gamer code, said Cedric Leighton, a retired Air Force Intelligence officer who now consults in the national security arena.

FOX News claims that Angry Birds is a delivery vehicle for a virus because both of them are programmed in Lua. And who can blame the reporter? Her source is a former intelligence officer in the Air Force who is likely paid way more than every developer on HN to hype up such threats.