Re:Trump's Twitter account was hacked, Dutch ministry confirms
by treesprite82 on Friday December 18, 2020 @12:17PM
(#25469330)
Seems too perfect that the same person supposedly guessed the password twice (first "yourefired", and then "maga2020!"). Especially if it was just by 5 manual attempts, and not some sophisticated setup.
Since the hacking is an "admission" by Gevers, my assumption is that neither side in the case were challenging whether a hack actually happened - instead focusing on whether it was ethical.
The White House and Twitter "strenuously denied reports that the account had been hacked". While they have incentive to do so, I'm still leaning on their side unless there's further evidence.
Re:Trump's Twitter account was hacked, Dutch ministry confirms
by dragonwriter on Thursday December 17, 2020 @07:49PM
(#25462479)
> I don't get it, if Twitter denied it what information could the Dutch police have to prove otherwise?
Anything that would establish the hack occurred even if Twitter didn't deny it, such as network logs of the attack.
They are saying essentially that they had evidence to prosecute for the hack except that they also had sufficient evidence that the attacker met the requirements to be exempt from prosecution under an ethical hacking rule. It seems a lot less likely that they’d lie than Twitter, perhaps at the behest of the Office of the President regarding security of an account that has legally been deemed an official outlet of the Presidency, would lie to cover up a breach of the account’s security.
Since the hacking is an "admission" by Gevers, my assumption is that neither side in the case were challenging whether a hack actually happened - instead focusing on whether it was ethical.
The White House and Twitter "strenuously denied reports that the account had been hacked". While they have incentive to do so, I'm still leaning on their side unless there's further evidence.
Anything that would establish the hack occurred even if Twitter didn't deny it, such as network logs of the attack.
They are saying essentially that they had evidence to prosecute for the hack except that they also had sufficient evidence that the attacker met the requirements to be exempt from prosecution under an ethical hacking rule. It seems a lot less likely that they’d lie than Twitter, perhaps at the behest of the Office of the President regarding security of an account that has legally been deemed an official outlet of the Presidency, would lie to cover up a breach of the account’s security.