But the article says they publicly posted about being "valued partners" with DiamondCDN. That seems to be more than just some criminals signing up and using the CDN. At the very least it creates more questions than answers, no?
Is a public post from a cybercrime ring credible evidence?
I get that the potential connection may warrant more investigation. But I don't see any real evidence of anything in this article other than they were a customer of DiamondCDN for an unknown amount of time.
Emphasis on they (the cybercriminals) posting about it, right? Does it seem reasonable to take the word of the cybercriminals at face value? Usually a lot of this stuff is tongue in cheek anyway.
e.g. if a cybercrime group puts out a public statement saying "thanks FBI for making your systems so easy to hack", a reasonable headline derived from that would be "FBI aids cybercriminals with hacking"?
I don't know why you'd put your provider on blast like that unless you knew they'd resist any pressure or just not care about shady activities. It would just cause more issues for you (the criminal) if they cut service.
