Anonymity is de facto, not de jure. It's also a privilege for many collaboration networks and not a right. If abused, it will simply be removed.
Given what the Linux kernel runs these days, that would probably be advisable. (I'm a strong proponent of anonymity, but I also have a preference that my devices not be actively sabotaged.)
> we're entering the territory of fraud and cybercrime
So what? The fact that it's illegal doesn't nullify the threat. For that matter, it's not even a crime if a state agency is the perpetrator. These researchers drew attention to a huge (IMO) security issue. They should be thanked and the attack vector carefully examined.
If you want to talk about a state level actor, I hate to break it to you, but they have significantly more powerful and stealthier 0-day exploits that are a lot easier to exploit than a tactic like this. Guess what's the last thing you want to have happen when you commit cybercrime? Do it in public with where there's an immutable record that can be traced back to you, and cause a giant public hubbub, maybe? So, I can't imagine how someone could think there's anything noteworthy about this unless they were unaware of that.
That's somewhat the unintentional humor and irony of this situation -- all the researchers accomplished was proving that they were not just unethical but incompetent.
