[marcus_holmes]

From the article:

> "So not saying this was it, but an AI agent automated attempt at a Xz like compromise might really look very similar what we have just seen here."

Without identifying and interviewing the attacker we can't confirm that's what they intended, and there's a possibility that it was just incompetence/ignorance/whatever, but we should probably treat it as an attempted attack even if it wasn't.

[srdjanr]

We should treat it as attempted attack in the sense of preparing for the next one, but I don't see why we should call it "attack" without any evidence

[account42]

We can call it an attack because the operator is responsible for the automation no matter what it does.

[marcus_holmes]

If it looks like a duck...