Why does Google even need to mention North Korea in the title?
A vulnerability is a vulnerability. Why bring politics in, right in the title? It would feel much more OK if simply said in the text, that a NK hacker group is currently known for exploiting it.
Imagine it was a vulnerability being exploited by a TLA of the US of A. What would Google say? Or would they have received a gag order to not talk about it at all? But then what happens if some third-party researcher discovers the vulnerability independently and reports it? What would Google say?
Because they believe it is a state sponsored attack. It isn't politics, it is called attribution which is a threat intelligence product. Identifying and tracking specific threat actors is esentially the entire point of the post which is a threat intel post, means little without the threat part (threat actors not tools).
Because more people will click on it and read it. Call it "Countering CVE-0284-b" and 50 people will read it. Go with a political catalyst title and you get thousands if hits, even if they then close the tab immediately.
It means more random user-agent/referrer data for them and I'm guessing more domain authority or whatever that crap is.
It's marketing. The article concludes with how the Google Chrome safe browsing list was updated bla bla bla.
It's all just marketing. That's how Google operates. Everything is a shop window. Everything you say, do and make. Google is the market research company.
Except they've repeatedly created products that no one wanted and killed them.
But that's a form of market research when you have a lot of money.
I feel like Google collects so much information it probably doesn't get much sense out of it. Who knows
A vulnerability is a vulnerability. Why bring politics in, right in the title? It would feel much more OK if simply said in the text, that a NK hacker group is currently known for exploiting it.
Imagine it was a vulnerability being exploited by a TLA of the US of A. What would Google say? Or would they have received a gag order to not talk about it at all? But then what happens if some third-party researcher discovers the vulnerability independently and reports it? What would Google say?