Agreed, the evidence is solely, “according to at least two sources with direct knowledge of the situation, who asked to remain anonymous.”
That is still consistent with them working at NIST
I think the argument is that if they did work at NIST then the article would have included that, so we can infer the very likely don’t?
Perhaps I am overestimating how worried a source might be that their organisation traces a leak back to them if it’s known that someone from within the organisation provided it.
Agreed, the evidence is solely, “according to at least two sources with direct knowledge of the situation, who asked to remain anonymous.”
That is still consistent with them working at NIST
I think the argument is that if they did work at NIST then the article would have included that, so we can infer the very likely don’t?
Perhaps I am overestimating how worried a source might be that their organisation traces a leak back to them if it’s known that someone from within the organisation provided it.