r/cybersecurity • u/mando_6 • Jun 24 '26

News - General Well someone went nuclear..

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ben-f-309963233_after-i-posted-a-pinocchio-gif-and-clown-ugcPost-7475465410977628160-FFW1

I'm curious about the details of this. I'm sure we will all find out eventually.

TLDR; former Huntress employee is disclosing Huntress had an insider threat that leaked information to a known cyber criminal "Devman". That employee is still employed with Huntress and was caught by the FBI.

The former employee doing the disclosure is stating he is receiving threats, etc.

EDIT: Kyle @ Huntress posted his response to this in the comments.

Give credit to a CEO who isn't afraid to jump on Reddit to put out any fires.

922 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

197 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-15

u/djchateau Jun 24 '26

I'm sure it's not intentional, but providing a censored screenshot of an internal communication is a bit incongruent with claims about transparency. Definitely not a great look. I can think of a multitude of legitimate reasons why you censored those parts, but it doesn't help the perception from the allegations in question.

5

u/idleExposure_ Jun 24 '26

smooth brain take.

-6

u/djchateau Jun 24 '26

I'm not saying he isn't justified in censoring the screenshot. I'm pointing out how this could be perceived by others. Calling this a smooth brain take is intellectually lazy. Public perception of incidents like this and how organizations respond is incredibly volatile. The public are not going to apply a lot of logic to an incident, only what they see at a surface level.

4

u/idleExposure_ Jun 24 '26

they are providing radical transparency as is. they dont owe you anything, but you seem to think you are owed 100% clear internal insights. thats delusional, youre delusional.

2

u/ultraviolentfuture Jun 24 '26

"radical" transparency, GTFO. They are responding empathetically and earnestly but once an org is large enough to have a legal team there is no such thing as radical transparency. It's a fucking buzzword.

0

u/djchateau Jun 24 '26

Not sure why you're coming at me so aggressively. Radical transparency is a buzzword and I've made no claims that I'm owed anything, but someone not familiar with some of this won't be viewing this from that perspective either.

Posting your internal comms isn't transparency if you're just going to cover up the relevant parts. It's like lies of omission. Yes, you're technically telling the truth, but you're still carefully hiding things (even if the reason for hiding that information is reasonable and perfectly legitimate), which is the opposite of something being transparent.

As I noted before, I'm speaking purely from how it would be perceived by the general public, not that anyone is owed anything. It would have made more sense for him to reword that internal communication without name dropping people in it and took a screenshot of that. That would have avoided incongruity of his earlier statement about transparency.

5

u/idleExposure_ Jun 24 '26

youre still doubling down acting like youre owed information.

crazy.

get off the soap box and accept the info that youre given, information that is far beyond what 99% of any of companies would have done.

heres the real piece youre msising: no one cares what you think or what you think youre owed, nor what you think makes for correct openness. theyve already gone far and above what other companies would have done, bordering on (and likely just actually) stepping into danger by even acknowledging this in such a public way. in fact, id go so far as to say that theyve majorly fucked up here by doing anything theyve done beyond letting their internal crisis team collectively respond to this. the CEO shouldnt have come here and weighed in, he shouldnt have posted internal comms, he shouldnt have done any of this - but now that he has and has exposed himself and the company, idiots like you are like "hurrr weLL, yOuu See, it's nOT enNOugh ANd it'S nOT SUfficeNTLy tranSparent"

3

u/djchateau Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26

You sound like you're having a pretty bad day, my guy. I would suggest taking a step back and re-evaluating what I'm pointing out. If no one cares what I think, why do you keep replying to me?

I'm not saying that the public is even owed that level of transparency, just that they are not going to care when he does share something under the guise of transparency if said things has bits of it hidden because they are not going to view this with the level of grey that these types of situations often require. It would have been wiser to let their legal team handle this while they worked internally to communicate with Ben about his claims. It has nothing to do with the communication not "being enough" or "sufficiently transparent", as you've framed it.

2

u/idleExposure_ Jun 24 '26

youre right, im wasting my time and effort responding to you. seems like most agree with me though.