The premise that the attacks occurred after the announcement was made, and thus can be be blamed on the announcement itself is in error.
The article details how it can be practically impossible to tell if a site has been hacked. There is no reason to believe that your site has not been exploited prior to the announcement.
Whilst the post might have increased the volume of such attacks, I strongly doubt that this exploit was completely unknown prior to announcement.
In other words, if you run a Drupal site, that was vulnerable to this attack prior to the announcement, there is a risk that your site was exploited before the announcement.
This is a much more realistic scenario and also a more frightening one.
Yes, except that none of the major hosting providers who host on behalf of thousands of clients (pantheon, acquia, etc) were able to find any examples in their logs of an attack signature prior to the disclosure. Just like shellshock has been sitting around for 25 years until somebody found it, it is highly unlikely that this vulnerabilty has been exploited prior to that, despite the fact that it was 'possible'.
The article details how it can be practically impossible to tell if a site has been hacked. There is no reason to believe that your site has not been exploited prior to the announcement.
Whilst the post might have increased the volume of such attacks, I strongly doubt that this exploit was completely unknown prior to announcement.
In other words, if you run a Drupal site, that was vulnerable to this attack prior to the announcement, there is a risk that your site was exploited before the announcement.
This is a much more realistic scenario and also a more frightening one.