Which is great for mega corporations who are always innocent of any robber-baroning or impulse to make security a secondary consideration to profit.

>>Regardless, the other points still stand.

On feeble legs.

>>It's incredibly hard to defend yourself if your head of security decides to extort you. They are the ones that design the protections to keep insider attacks from working. Luckily for Ubiquiti - the attacker screwed up his network configuration (VPN leak failure) which is also somewhat ironic.

I tend to think if you have that problem, you are probably hiring people that are much like your company. To put it differently, a known liar telling a story doesn't automatically make it a lie. I suspect we will soon be seeing later how much Ubiquiti cares about its customer base. When that time happens, I will return to this post and ask you some follow up questions.

Says who? The FBI? Says Ubiquiti? I bet BOTH of those places have a reason to say that, and it is green and smells of dead presidents.

Krebs reporting comes from a potential conflict of interest in that the person who might have been trying to blackmail was also the source. Defamation is not really the issue then because the source was pointing at a security problem which they happened to also be the cause of. The entity that hired this person was...Ubiquiti! Hence, it is not really defamation AS SUCH. Rather, if anything, it was true but maybe blown out of proportion to get a larger sum of money from Ubiquiti. We don't know how much info the person got their hands on, because Ubiquiti would be to blame for that, wouldn't they?

So, ultimately I think taking down the articles is a mistake in the sense that they reported on a problem either way with Ubiquiti and security. Take off the ad revenue from those articles, and issue a modified retraction on the conflicted interest the source held as a correction. Use it as a cautionary tale on "Sensationalism" and "not always knowing what the hell someone is doing when they report a leak" and move on.