![Avatar](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Flemm.ee%2Fapi%2Fv3%2Fimage_proxy%3Furl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Flemmy.ca%252Fpictrs%252Fimage%252Fb3f6089b-4bf3-42fc-beaf-4494b0ae134e.jpeg&w=3840&q=75)
![Avatar](/_next/image?url=%2Flemmy-icon-96x96.webp&w=3840&q=75)
girlfreddy
girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
Joined
1.4K posts • 2.6K comments
they had previously studied this attack
I don’t see that stated in the article. All I can find is this …
- For its third, the board investigated a separate 2023 attack, in which Chinese state hackers exploited an array of Microsoft security shortcomings to access the email inboxes of top federal officials.
So DHS decided to rely on that info which never looked at SolarWinds …
- Silvers told ProPublica that DHS decided the board didn’t need to do its own review of SolarWinds as directed by the White House because the attack had already been “closely studied” by the public and private sectors.
“Our microbiome biomarker panel has a high performance in children under the age of four, which may help facilitate an early diagnosis.”
“Under the age of four” would indicate this test would be completed before dietary restrictions were put in place (except for those on far end of the spectrum who can often be diagnosed that young).