<story><title>Who rooted kernel.org servers two years ago?</title><url>http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/09/who-rooted-kernel-org-servers-two-years-ago-how-did-it-happen-and-why/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>idupree</author><text>From the 2011 kernel summit, &amp;quot;The attack turns out to have been part of a widespread credential-stealing network that has been operating for some years now; it is clear that the site had been owned by this network for some time before it was discovered. What also seems to be clear is that this was not a targeted attack; kernel.org was just another on a long list of broken machines.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;- Jon Corbet reporting on a talk by H. Peter Anvin,
&lt;a href=&quot;https://lwn.net/Articles/464233/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;lwn.net&amp;#x2F;Articles&amp;#x2F;464233&amp;#x2F;&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>Who rooted kernel.org servers two years ago?</title><url>http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/09/who-rooted-kernel-org-servers-two-years-ago-how-did-it-happen-and-why/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>nlh</author><text>So let&amp;#x27;s speculate about what the article almost-but-doesn&amp;#x27;t-quite propose:&lt;p&gt;The NSA, or related parties, was responsible for the breach. There was an investigation and postmortem, but because of an NSL or other gag-type order, they couldn&amp;#x27;t accurately publish what they discovered. So they figured that not releasing a report was better than releasing a report that either intentionally misled or pretended not to have figured out what happened.&lt;p&gt;I know, this is a pretty big leap. But regardless -- what does it mean?  What are the ramifications if this &lt;i&gt;is&lt;/i&gt; what happened?</text></comment>