> The stage 0 shell snippet looks at first glance like a plausible part of > the poorly readable autoconf/automake tooling.
If there was one commit with a stray period that disabled the sandbox, sure, might be a typo.
But the other stuff where they're unpacking specific byte ranges from multiple places in the test files, that's not an accident.
Viewed as a whole, it would be extremely hard to view this as "adequately explained by neglect, ignorance or incompetence"
In fact, malice and incompetence are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
This very incident shows several instances where "Jia Tan" is being arguably incompetent, in addition to being clearly malicious: unintended breakage by adding extra space between "return" and "is_arch_extension_supported"; several redundant checks for `uname` == "Linux"; botched payload, so "test files" had to be replaced, with pretty fishy explanation; rather inefficient/slow GOT parsing, list goes on...
Even if this weren't the case, your claim would remain specious. "Establish intent" and "justify attribution to malice" are the same thing said two ways.