Read point 2: "On September 21, the IT Policy was applied and your network and portal accesses were suspended."
Read point 3: "On September 22, you admitted to these attacks in writing."
Compare the dates. According to the letter, his disclosure came after the account was suspended. Implying that they did detect the attack before he admitted to it.
An admission in writing is not the same thing as a disclosure.
You're using uncorroborated dates in a document that's clearly worded to paint the student in the worst light possible to infer a 'detection' which it doesn't mention and for which there is no evidence. You're then sharing your inference as documented fact. That's a smear.
I was merely communicating the content of the letter. Whether its claim or the contradicting ones of the student are true, I don't know. What I do know is that mrtron's "translation" of the letter conveniently leaves out the actual exploitation of the SQL injection and the blocking of the account that are claimed to have happened in the letter, and is therefore completely unfit as a summary of the letter.
