News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re: by woooooo on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @02:49PM (#34713838)
He has the code name of the operation and a ton of alleged operational details, attributed to his sources in the Intel community.
Re: by The_Colonel on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @02:57PM (#34713964)
I, too, can make up a code name and operational details. Still no evidence.
Re: by hef19898 on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @03:03PM (#34714063)
The code name was "Gouda", it was established that it was the Swiss Vatican guard. Ementaler would have been too much into the face and the Vatican wanted to avoid problems with the Italians, so Parmesan was of the table.
Re: by JTbane on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @10:10PM (#34719301)
The name "Wallace" kept coming up, supposedly connected to MI6.
Re: by hef19898 on Thursday February 09, 2023 @07:22AM (#34722906)
And the support operation was called "Gromit"?
Re: by PonySoldier on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @03:09PM (#34714163)
As someone else noted in another thread, Hersh's reputation and the source are absolutely evidence. What he hasn't provided is hard proof for the claims.

I can't find any proof whatsoever as to who actually did it from the western authorities claiming to investigate it either though. In fact, there's been little to no news or updates at all since the incident.

Re: by The_Colonel on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @03:44PM (#34714779)
> Hersh's reputation

Not an evidence.

> the source

Remains anonymous. Also, not an evidence.

Re: by JumpCrisscross on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @03:52PM (#34714907)
> Hersh's reputation and the source are absolutely evidence

It’s a signal to pay attention to the issue. To keep an eye out for evidence. It’s not evidence per se.