Does anyone have the Zron leaks?

🚨 WHO IS EMPERADOR'S NEXT TARGET? They claim 1M+ records stolen. 💰 An 8-figure ransom demand. 🌎 A globally known, multibillion-dollar company. 🤝 Its partners affected, too. Their hint? “SUPER BIG.” Drop your predictions. Who are we talking about? #CyberSecurity #InfoSec

What ransomware group piques your interest at the moment?

If you have any further information about Wallstreet, please reach out!

Overall, the strongest info in this exchange is the boundary they draw around information. They will discuss Wallstreet's claimed product, motivation and business positioning. They won't discuss its people or history.

Wallstreet seem to want a public-facing narrative: * Financial motivation * 
Non-political. * Ransomware from the beginning * New York company * Inbound partners * 
Non-exclusive partners. * “Best” software/services. That looks like controlled disclosure.

Another potentially useful linguistic distinction is between “group” and “company.” “Group” is used for Wallstreet's identity. “Company” appears when discussing establishment in New York.

That makes “we” an organizational voice rather than an identified individual voice. The speaker is presenting themselves as authorized to speak for Wallstreet, but has refused to say whether they're a founder or what their role is.

The speaker's pronoun use is conventional but worth tracking. They consistently use “we” when describing Wallstreet: * “We have...”
 * “We provide...”
 * “Our company...” But they never clarify who “we” actually encompasses.

Wallstreets "Ask them" response may suggest one of these things: 1. They genuinely don't care about exclusivity. 2. They don't want to discuss internal oversight. 3. The person speaking doesn't know.

The phrase “Ask them” is also notable because it concerned a relationship involving Wallstreet. Rather than explaining the organization's policy, the speaker redirects the question to the partners. Then, when directly asked whether Wallstreet monitors this, they answer “No.”

“They find us” and “Ask them” are especially terse. Both shift agency or responsibility away from Wallstreet. “They find us” makes partners the active party in recruitment. “Ask them” makes the partners responsible for explaining their outside relationships.

Not trying to sound sophisticated is not saying Wallstreet lacks technical expertise. Just saying they do not feel the need to "prove" themselves constantly.

Linguistically, the Wallstreet speaker didn't appear to be trying to sound sophisticated. There is almost no technical jargon, ideological rhetoric, elaborate justification or corporate language. The communication style is terse and transactional.

Of course, Wallstreet asking for my X page may indicate they wanted to assess the context. Many groups ask for my page. Possible explanations include credibility checking, audience assessment, curiosity, or operational caution.

One thing that was funny: Wallstreet only asked where the interview would be posted after the discussion of their partner-monitoring practices.

Wallstreet's response about X is also categorical. They requested my X page; after giving it, I asked: * “Are you on x?” They answered: * “No.” 🤣

Wallstreet was asked whether there were groups they respected or learned from. They answered simply: * “No.” That's a categorical rejection. Seems rather too strong.

Wallstreet's “No comment” responses are also linguistically distinct from “No.” They used “No comment” for sensitive biographical/organizational questions. But “No” when asked whether they respect other groups and whether they're on X.