much of the argument against anonymous seems to rest on the march date. from the article:
The discovery of the theft casts serious doubt on Anonymous’ claims that the data
came from the FBI, and was pilfered in March.
"Timing-wise, (their) story doesn't make sense," he [the CIO] said.
but when you read the blog of the guy who tracked things down, he says:
While searching, I stumbled on a partial password dump for the company! And it was
dated March 14, the same week that the hackers claimed they’d hacked into the FBI
computer. Suddenly, I felt a lot more confident again, and I mentioned this
connection in the email.
He [the CIO] didn’t think the March leak (which they’d already been aware of) was
related, but that the rest of my findings were concerning.
so the only evidence against it not being march is that blue toad are saying otherwise. against that, there's the original claim plus the known password leak. and blue toad are going to look bad if this was from march and they didn't notice (not that they look so great right now in any case).
again from the blog:
I’m still not completely clear on all the technical details.
something doesn't seem right. the fact that the password dump comes from march seems like a huge coincidence, with no evidence against it, except the word of someone who may be motivated to deny that.
much of the argument against anonymous seems to rest on the march date. from the article:
but when you read the blog of the guy who tracked things down, he says: so the only evidence against it not being march is that blue toad are saying otherwise. against that, there's the original claim plus the known password leak. and blue toad are going to look bad if this was from march and they didn't notice (not that they look so great right now in any case).again from the blog:
something doesn't seem right. the fact that the password dump comes from march seems like a huge coincidence, with no evidence against it, except the word of someone who may be motivated to deny that.