by lysp on 5/9/25, 7:22 AM with 163 comments
by whacko_quacko on 5/9/25, 8:43 AM
Actually critisizing DOGE for their major gaffes (like putting up easily defaceable websites, or their incompetence when it comes to reading numbers accurately) is important, but this kind of article is just sad and diminishes the credibility of news journalism
by dev_l1x_be on 5/9/25, 8:22 AM
I like these kind of speculative articles. The click bait title states something with certanity than the first sentence clarifies that it is a speculation. I am not sure why we are falling for this click baity garbage, over and over.
by palata on 5/9/25, 10:06 AM
> [...] user names and passwords for logging in to various accounts belonging to Schutt have been published at least four times since 2023 in logs from stealer malware. Stealer malware typically infects devices through trojanized apps, phishing, or software exploits.
by ndsipa_pomu on 5/9/25, 8:08 AM
by tjpnz on 5/9/25, 11:02 AM
by sys_64738 on 5/9/25, 12:08 PM
by ChrisArchitect on 5/9/25, 2:19 PM
DOGEs K Schutt's computer infected by malware, credentials found in stealer logs
by ninalanyon on 5/9/25, 7:26 PM
by constantcrying on 5/9/25, 3:48 PM
In fact the story is that at someone point in the past at least in 2013 some credentials of his landed in multiple breaches. Some of my credentials also appear there, this of course means nothing at all about his current account security or the security of the data.
I don't even know what the allegations are. Can you not ever work for a government agency when any account of yours gets compromised? Databreaches aren't that uncommon, presumably many people here have some credentials leaked, do you think these people should be excluded from working jobs in the government?
by Incipient on 5/9/25, 1:04 PM
I don't think anyone really needs to express more at this point.
by guiambros on 5/10/25, 8:59 PM
Buried down the text, they have the plausible deniability disclaimer:
"As Lee notes, the presence of an individual’s credentials in such logs isn’t automatically an indication that the individual himself was compromised or used a weak password. In many cases, such data is exposed through database compromises that hit the service provider. The steady stream of published credentials for Schutt, however, is a clear indication that the credentials he has used over a decade or more have been publicly known at various points."
Of course "credentials have been exposed": the vast majority of sites have been hacked. It doesn't mean this person used the same credentials everywhere, AND that they didn't use 2FA, AND that the credentials matter in the first place. And, of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with malware.
Shame on you ARS for publishing purely speculative posts.
by mystified5016 on 5/9/25, 1:49 PM
by amelius on 5/9/25, 9:26 AM
Good point.
by gitroom on 5/9/25, 10:10 AM
by joejoo on 5/9/25, 8:57 AM
by epanchin on 5/9/25, 9:16 AM
I’ve logged onto secondary email accounts from PC’s that weren’t mine and could well have been infected. That’s what 2FA is for.
I wouldn’t use a PC which isn’t mine to login to anything sensitive. A password in a leak isn’t evidence of anything.