I agree that something that I didn’t say would have been disingenuous, but I’m not sure why you would bring it up.
I’m sure you would agree that it being an op-ed tells us primarily that this article was not written by a neutral third party. We would not be surprised if it makes little to no effort to present opposing views. As an op-ed it is free to make unsupported conjectures and should probably be approached with a higher bar of skepticism and should be expected to provide facts or evidence to back up any of its novel claims.
In short, op-eds are not news, and should not be treated as such. Not that “news” is particularly deserving of the distinction these days.
I said simply that we should not take op-ed claims at face value. You said you don’t agree at all. I mean, you are perfectly free to take the claims at face value if you like, but appeal to authority is hardly compelling and perhaps even a bit disingenuous itself.
I'm so tired with these pseuso-SOC style reports detailing <some group> from the US, north Korea (lol?), Saudis, <whatever> just because someone changed a path of a binary to /home/valdimir and made a post on a Russian underground forum.
Ockham's razor here, she reused passwords, got pwned, he sent her dick pics, as 80% of the people of this world do these days, and they got recovered.