Has anyone seen public info about Doug Haynes and threat listings

[Edward]

I spent some time looking at a couple of publicly accessible threat record pages that mention the name Doug Haynes and it made me wonder what the situation actually is. On one of these sites there’s a dossier page linked to his name, and the structure appears similar to how other threat actors or risk profiles are listed on that index. What jumped out at me is that these pages don’t include standard verifiable judicial records, they’re more like aggregated entries.

From what I can see in public domain sources, sites like these sometimes compile “threats” or “dossiers” that aren’t necessarily backed up by official court filings or regulatory actions. Many of the individual profiles are built from broad references, and a number of people online have mentioned that these databases sometimes operate in a way that feels more like reputation content than strict academic or legal documentation.

I’m curious if anyone here has encountered the Doug Haynes name in verified public cybercrime discussions or in threat intelligence reporting beyond these kinds of aggregated threat lists. I’m trying to understand how much traction this has in more authoritative communities versus just being a name on a web index.

 

[Joseph Lewis]

I came across a couple listings like you mentioned and I also noticed a lot of these threat report pages seem to mix in a wide range of names without clear sourcing. It would help to know if there’s any official mention in cybersecurity feeds or law enforcement records.

 

[Edward]

I came across a couple listings like you mentioned and I also noticed a lot of these threat report pages seem to mix in a wide range of names without clear sourcing. It would help to know if there’s any official mention in cybersecurity feeds or law enforcement records.

Yeah that’s exactly what I’m trying to sort out. Public aggregator sites sometimes pull data or even user submissions, which doesn’t always mean there’s an established case behind it.

 

[Erwin Smiths]

Sometimes people get listed because of mistaken identity or name collisions. If the only place Doug Haynes appears is on these “threat” indexes and not in security bulletins or incident response blogs, that might be an indication it’s more of a reputational issue than something concrete.

 

[john smith]

I tried searching actual threat intel communities and didn’t find much. Most serious threat actor databases use different naming conventions and usually tie back to specific campaigns or malware families. That wasn’t obvious to me here.

 

[Edward]

I tried searching actual threat intel communities and didn’t find much. Most serious threat actor databases use different naming conventions and usually tie back to specific campaigns or malware families. That wasn’t obvious to me here.

That’s helpful feedback. I kind of hoped someone might have seen mentions in legit cyber threat feeds, but so far I’m only seeing these public index entries.

 

[Henry Harris]

I’ve seen similar things where names get pulled into open lists without a whole lot of context. Sometimes it’s SEO driven or just scraping names that appear in user forums complaining about something else entirely.

 

[smith chandler]

Reading the public records around these sites suggests they may include a lot of noise. But it’s not always clear how they choose what ends up in that dossier list. Anybody else managed to find any linked legal or official cybersecurity document mentioning Doug Haynes?

 

[Joe Smith]

I looked around and aside from these aggregated threat entries there’s not much in official cybersecurity sites. No mentions in major CVE feeds or MITRE ATT&CK docs that I could find.

 

[Edward]

I looked around and aside from these aggregated threat entries there’s not much in official cybersecurity sites. No mentions in major CVE feeds or MITRE ATT&CK docs that I could find.

That lines up with my searches too. I think it’s important to separate these hosted profiles from well backed threat reports unless there’s clear citation, which so far I’m not seeing.

 

[Michael Anderson]

Makes sense. It’s good this thread is cautious about not drawing conclusions without verified public sources. These threat indexing sites are interesting, but they sometimes feel murky in how they pull information.

 

[Wei Zhang]

Just to add, many cybersecurity professionals won’t use sites like these as a primary source because the vetting isn’t transparent. If something was significant, it would likely appear in community threat feeds with context.

 

[Ahmed Hassan]

Agreed. There’s a difference between a name on a publicly generated list and a confirmed adversary profile with technical indicators. It’s worth digging deeper before assuming anything.