I haven't yet, because all I have to go by is claims by FireEye and the FBI. I already said why I take what FireEye says with a grain of salt, and frankly, I also take what the FBI says with more than a grain of salt. The FBI is inherently political, and even when they are not, they are known to make up stuff when it suits them (e.g. "parallel construction").
That may be a rather untrusting/paranoid mindset that I employ, but it worked for me so far.
Asking sincerely: is there some particular reason it should matter to the rest of us whether your perspective on attack attribution has "worked for you so far"? What would the consequences to you have been had your intuition not "worked"?
Replying sincerely: It matters the same way as your own opinion matters to the rest of us.
And consequences? In this case, probably none. We're here for news and entertainment, and reasoning about topics such as this one is enjoyable to me. But lively discussions and their takeaways can inform future arguments and decisions.
But in more general terms, I am a member of the electorate in my country, and misattributions and/or bad or even fake evidence quite often have direct influence on policy. E.g. I was quite happy that I, along with a majority of my fellow citizens, did not believe the "conclusive" "evidence" of WMDs in Iraq the US had put forth, and stayed out of that war.
