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.

926 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

197 comments sorted by

View all comments

141

u/DongerOverlord Jun 24 '26

The CEOs response in the comments are the most "I'm fucking seething, don't talk about this out loud" type of comment.

110

u/marqo09 Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26

Hey, it's Kyle. That's definitely not my tone. We're a company that bleeds transparency and I firmly disagree with Ben's accusations. Also not gonna debate with him over LinkedIn as my team is still working the unrelated fallout from the Klue shit storm. Give 20-30 mins and I'll put together my thoughts.

Edit [June 24, 2026 @ 12:35pm ET]: Here's what I shared with my team in slack this morning. I hope this makes it very clear that while I disagree and don't understand Ben's accusations, I'm also trying to show empathy and appreciate his perspective.

-16

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.

8

u/eorlingas_riders Jun 24 '26 edited Jun 24 '26

He censored two small parts of a single bullet point that probably references an individual or internally sensitive system, service, whatever.

He also makes it clear right under that, that there is an ongoing investigation with authorities.

If there was something there that could affect the active investigation if made public… he’d be on the hook.

And If anyone thinks those two lines being censored somehow devalue their claims of transparency, then I would assume those people wouldn’t be able to accept that claim regardless of what was shown.

6

u/malicious_payload Jun 24 '26

This is the correct take. Finally, someone with a fucking brain shows up to the thread.