NYTimes and Twitter are lame targets? In the US, at least, you don't get a much higher profile non-government target than the NY Times. I mean, if this were a false flag operation -- and I'm not convinced it is -- then the three-letter guys wouldn't very likely chose to target themselves, or other government, would they? They would portray them as being inept at defending themselves.

The target was one registrar and the disruption wasn't anything that's going to be talked bout tomorrow morning. Fairly lame for a sophisticated false flag operation.

No, the attack target was almost certainly sites like the NY Times and Twitter. The attack vector was the domain registrar you refer to. It seems very unlikely that the target was Melbourne IT per se. You see how many of us hadn't even heard of them -- hardly a high-impact target.

Another way of looking at it: target one decently sized registrar and you'll get a handful of important sites. This isn't big news.

>NYTimes and Twitter are lame targets?

Yes. A declining media/entertainment company and an advertising firm?

>In the US, at least, you don't get a much higher profile non-government target than the NY Times.

Google, Academi/Blackwater, any number of our oil companies?

Attacking the NYT tells me you just want attention. There are many much higher-value non-government targets who hacking would seriously worry me.

See this is why it's a great conspiracy theory. Parts of the attack that are well executed are used as proof that the powerful US Gov't is behind it. Parts that are poorly executed are obviously put there on purpose and thus also proof that the powerful US Gov't is behind it.