Except that according to the article, Cyberbunker admits to being the perpetrator of the attacks. They also brag about fending off SWAT teams in the past (which does seems unlikely).
The key part in the article which would imply this is not a direct quote nor can I find this online message they refer to. Both of which smell of potentially dodgy journalism to me and in any case is pure speculation without an official statement from cyberbunker.
My initial reaction to your comment was to say that it was an article form the NYT and should be reliable. But to be completely honest, it seemed like kind of shady journalism to me too, based more on rumor then anything substantial. It does reflect sadly on the state of the media these days though when even the NYT can't be generally trusted.
