What part of that update is incorrect? Naming that update is not going to help their case, at all.
This lawsuit is likely doing the exact opposite of what Ubiquiti expected.
Before the lawsuit, I had some sympathy that they got jerked around by an ex-employee with major access and took it in the shins. I'm kind of in the glass houses and stones camp ... I doubt very many companies could withstand a high-level technical person going rogue. They found the problem. Now they're pursuing charges against him and that's rattling through the legal system. Sure, there's lots of reputational damage, but that's the kind of thing that happens when you centralize management of things--it makes them a high profile target (see: Solarwinds).
However, the lawsuit against a reporter is causing me to pause and think "Wow. Maybe they're actually institutionally incapable of recovering from this, worried that something else might get exposed and really do suck."
The lawsuit moved me from slightly sympathetic to Ubiquiti into "What kind of idiots think this is a good idea?" and looking for alternatives.
There's valid criticism to be said about the corporate structure and culture which allowed this all to happen, we're all in agreement on that, but the lawsuit (while probably not accomplishing exactly what they'd hoped for) is legit if you ask me, in the sense that a journalist must take responsibility for the stories they put out and the informants they trust.
I'm not a journalist so I don't know how these things are supposed to go, but shouldn't Krebs have verified his sources identity before publishing? Isn't that a thing journalists are supposed to do?
That said I think Krebs was right to publish the story at the time, but when it became clear that Adam actually was Sharp the story should have been retracted. Perhaps Krebs should even issue an apology at that time?
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2021/12/ubiquiti-developer-charg...
What part of that update is incorrect? Naming that update is not going to help their case, at all.
This lawsuit is likely doing the exact opposite of what Ubiquiti expected.
Before the lawsuit, I had some sympathy that they got jerked around by an ex-employee with major access and took it in the shins. I'm kind of in the glass houses and stones camp ... I doubt very many companies could withstand a high-level technical person going rogue. They found the problem. Now they're pursuing charges against him and that's rattling through the legal system. Sure, there's lots of reputational damage, but that's the kind of thing that happens when you centralize management of things--it makes them a high profile target (see: Solarwinds).
However, the lawsuit against a reporter is causing me to pause and think "Wow. Maybe they're actually institutionally incapable of recovering from this, worried that something else might get exposed and really do suck."
The lawsuit moved me from slightly sympathetic to Ubiquiti into "What kind of idiots think this is a good idea?" and looking for alternatives.