eh. From a threat analytics perspective there is value in reviewing commonalities in attacks to determine what your threat vectors are.
To me the piece highlights that's been done and one clear set of commonalities is being largely ignored, when it could be argued that set of commonalities is a more clear and present danger.
Threat analytics is part of my job, so maybe I am seeing it a bit different. I don't think it's trying to say all of any one group is bad or pitting group v group. To me it seems to state facts about threats and ask why the more immediate danger isn't being looked at as sharply. That's what I got out of it.
Like if you are a bank, and most hackers are attacking you through your ATM software to steal money. It's counter productive to spend most of your efforts protecting your HVAC system software. Not that you shouldn't protect it at all, just spend effort where the threat is more likely to surface.
I guess agree to disagree on this one.
edit: I should be clear that I see your point, and agree that too much us vs them is very counterproductive. It's just that is not what I got from this is all.
