Media I saw reported that the personnel info published was all publicly available. Thus the intent was to create the impression that networks were compromised. Govt line however is that the info was not confidential. I haven't done any research however to confirm even the face validity of that.

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 3:20 PM, The Doctor <drwho@virtadpt.net> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 01/13/2015 10:46 AM, Daniel Van Wagenen wrote:
> Does anyone else find it odd that they posted personnel data on
> senior US military officials yet the US Government denies that any
> military networks were compromised?

Not at all.  It is possible (maybe even likely) that whoever wrote the
press release about it was told to omit any mention of the personnel
data in an attempt to downplay it.  People will remember what was
talked about, not what was conveniently not talked about.

- --
The Doctor [412/724/301/703/415] [ZS]
Developer, Project Byzantium: http://project-byzantium.org/

PGP: 0x807B17C1 / 7960 1CDC 85C9 0B63 8D9F  DD89 3BD8 FF2B 807B 17C1
WWW: https://drwho.virtadpt.net/

"You leave Jack Burton alone!" --Egg Shen, _Big Trouble In Little China_

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=ol4q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----