- Oct 22, 2008
Well, that was almost civil.UrKnightErrant said:I understand there's a difference between server access and server decryption. I'm inclined to believe them for three reasons.
It wasn't a "we have encrypted material that we need to decode, and thus require more time/money", it was a "we got into the database, but could only get a fraction of it because we are underfunded and it would take several more weeks."
They were quite explicit in their explanation of the situation.
That explanation, however, doesn't entirely jive with the claim that the hack was ridiculously easy. We also know that they're pursuing a personal agenda against Sony, and not simply wreaking havoc for the sake of wreaking havoc. They hacked Nintendo recently as well, and did... nothing in particular. Just left a little proof so that Nintendo would know that they'd done it.
At this juncture, if you wanted to discredit Sony (and LulzSec obviously does), the clear path would be to claim that whatever damage you managed to do, or access you managed to gain, was accomplished with considerable ease. It's difficult to prove you wrong, after all; even if you post the method you supposedly used, if someone tries and it doesn't work, you simply say that Sony closed the vulnerability and it's impossible to dispute your word on the matter, unless Sony themselves comes out and says precisely how the hack was accomplished.
And that is, shall we say, rather unlikely?
Your stance regarding the hackers having unreleased data and lying about why they need time/money inherently undermines your related stance about the hackers being more trustworthy than Sony, you realize. If they're lying, they're not trustworthy.