Brian Krebs: This Administration Is Completely Compromised
infosec.exchange
infosec.exchange
But it seems to be about Russia. It's a security researcher posting about politics. He may be out of his element and this would be equivalent to posts from any citizen.
Otoh, another possibility is that his insight from the cybersecurity aspect might reflect on a bigger trend.
I'm going with the former interpretation (out of his element) cyber is only one aspect of the US-Rus relations and a cybersecurity specialist might overweigh it. There's other concerns, including actual proxy wars going on. We don't know what the priorities are.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/28/trump-russia...
My take from reading the more neutral guardian article is that the Americans don't see russia as a threat, probably because they have faith in their public and private cyber defense. And possibly also because they do similar cyber attacks, so they don't hold it against them.
It's good to see US Rus relations improving, I don't know what to tell ya.
Seriously? Those Americans should remove their rose colored glasses. Even if you don't see Putin as a threat it is still important to spy on him.
If the govmt says Russia is not a threat, then Russia is not a threat as far as I'm concerned. I will always hold the official line (barring extreme circumstances).
But I will not compromise trade relations with the US by taking any line different than the incumbent state. Not even if an eminence like krebs does. In the end he is a guy not in the military hierarchy, without official information, posting about national defense matters on social media for foreigners to see. And even if it is backed by similarly biased commenters on a forum ran by a dem aligned state. Who should I trust ad an outsider? It's an easy choice for me. I do try to stay away from your politics, but sometimes you gotta make a call.
Do with that as you will. I get that as a citizen you have more freedom to question your govmt, and I have to tread a fine line between not getting into the politics of a foreign country in public and doing it out of nature. But in my defense, you guys sure like getting into the politics of other states.
But man, let's hope I'm right, no? like it or not, neither of us have control over the line taken by your militaries.
Going on a limb here, but are republicans concerned about Russia atm? If this is a bipartisan matter I'd be more inclined to be weary. Otherwise it might be dems conflating internal political enemies for external nation enemies. Happens around elections, hopefully it stabilizes.
I personally would be much more concerned about the 5m visa things if I were you guys. I thought reps were anti inmigration! I guess it's ok when it's extracting the elite and wealthy from other countries.
P.s: will probably delet this later. Robots.txt deny
Clearly there can be huge differences, especially in matters where transparency is not possible due to sensitive nature.
"We spy on them so them spying on us is not a threat" does not make sense.
... in spite of the many continuing active attacks coming out of Russia. Credibly with state support. As part of a longstanding pattern.
> probably because they have faith in their public and private cyber defense.
What they're shutting down is (a meaningful part of) "their public and private cyber defense".
> And possibly also because they do similar cyber attacks, so they don't hold it against them.
That is a shockingly stupid thing to say. "Don't hold it against them"? None of this is about the feels.
This is were you are in the wrong, the decision is on dropping counter-offenses, not on turning off defenses, whatever that means, are they disabling firewalls?
If you want to think military, suppose somebody's been shelling my assets, so I return fire and try to knock out their guns. Is that defense or offense? I'm destroying their stuff, remember. Physically, there is no difference between their actions and mine. So should I just put up an earthen berm and forget about trying to disrupt the attack itself?
There isn't some absolute line between defense and offense.
I get that this is a metaphor, and what I say might be obvious. But there's several actual wars in which Russia is actively involved in right now. It is both tactless and confusing to talk about weapons as a metaphor for cybersecurity.
I know that we software devs like to think of cyber as a battlefield, we are attacked all the time, and yes there are real consequences.
But cyber attacks are not powder attacks. And there is no necessity that whatever happens in the cyber field occurs in the same directions and magnitudes as it does on the actual battlefields.
Would you be concerned if the state of russia considers mcdonalds not to be a threat to russia? Would you be concerned if they decided it was? Or would petty quarrels in the business domain have no bearing on the war domain?
Not an expert on this, but I'm pretty sure there is and there's geneva conventions and stuff, not comfortable at all with the implication, borders on incitation to violence.
Also we don't know if they are, we know they said so. Which may be counterintelligence. If you were an enemy would you believe that? No
If I'm playing poker and my opponent tells me he has aces, I ignore it, what my opponent/enemy says gives me no information.
If my opponent says he has aces, and a friend tells him not to say that or whatever. I ignore that as well. He is not in the hand.
Sure, there are other things that are happening in this conflict that may or may not be worse, but he didn't say there wasn't. All he said is that he believes that the cybersecurity stuff is already enough to prove malice. If you believe there are even worse things, then you should be even more worried!
Consider wikipedia's take on the subject of self published sources:
" Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work *in the relevant field* has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-p...
Of thr people mentioned here, we have one of the world's foremost security experts, and a fox news host making a decision about cyber security. There is no evidence that the fox news host's experience is more relevant to this domain.
That was just a low shot.
I get that cybersecurity is his domain. But this is about national defense and international politics no? He is taking a jab at a different (bigger) topic based on his domain.
In my experience when people do this, it doesn't play out, people get overconfident and explore the limits of their competence. But he might be on to something, who knows, time will tell. It's just not statistically likely for me
And in Krebs defense, the topics are interrelated, it's not like he just gave his opinion on a completely unrelated manner like covid (remember when everyone had an opinion on that?)
We are so getting cut out of intel sharing agreements by our allies over this. I mean, if they have a brain. Anyone with intel training 101 (that isn't Israel) will conclude that the US cannot be a trusted intel sharing partner anymore.
Depending on how this order is implemented, it's not just a political thing, but an opening of the door to actual robbers and thieves.
Somehow, this line of reasoning flies, despite its absurdity.
Krebs is an expert in cyber security, not diplomacy. On the latter, he's an armchair quarterback. This isn't some purely technical cyber security matter. It's obviously a "let's minimize poking Russia during trying to negotiate a peace deal" action.
So no, he's not an expert "in this".