tl;dr - "ultra advanced cyber persistent cyber threat cyber actors" are sending phishing emails and people are still clicking on them.
Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]
81–90 of 502 posts
Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
> presented it as evidence Quite predictable, since they also considered the wild accusations of various politicians of a high level Russian conspiracy to be evidence.
If you rephrase your hysterical wording as "major bipartisan concern across every intelligence agency and nearly all ranking members of both houses of Congress, including the heads of both Intelligence Committees," then I'm not really sure what more evidence you or I could hope for from such an obviously sensitive, active topic for the time being.
Was it any different with Iraq WMD?
Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]
#83It seems unlikely that email hacking will stop in the future. If the leaked emails actually influenced the elections, it was because of their content. I've heard exactly zero credible claims that the leaked emails were falsified in any way. Perhaps if political candidates/party executives are going to do unethical/illegal things, they shouldn't discuss them over email. Edit: changed "zero claims" to "zero credible cl…
> I've heard exactly zero claims that the leaked emails were falsified in any way.
Podesta and high-ranking Dems have leveled this very charge.
The extent of the DKIM signatures all being true makes this very unlikely.
RSA1024 and SHA-1 can be beaten, but not easily and not in this volume.
It is not E2E from the people authoring the e-mails, so the server maintainer (often Google) could be forging and signing e-mails.
However, again, doing it the volume it would have had to be done is not likely.
The DNC has backed off from the forgery accusations. Besides the asinine nature of the accusations making them look bad, such accusations weaken their grand thesis: Russia hacked them. If they open up the possibility that most or all of the e-mails could have been fabricated whole cloth, then it undermines the argument that Putin pulled off an ingenuous heist of tens of thousands of e-mails.
Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you rephrase your hysterical wording as "major bipartisan concern across every intelligence agency and nearly all ranking members of both houses of Congress, including the heads of both Intelligence Committees," then I'm not really sure what more evidence you or I could hope for from such an obviously sensitive, active topic for the time being.
By mentioning that they are "ranking members" you make an argument from authority that is predicated on the legitimacy of the government alone, effectively saying "kneel and take whatever they say at face value". In my view, they are all self-serving career politicians and none have shown any particular reason they should be trusted or respected. They were the ones who urged the knee-jerk reaction in Iraq which has c…
Fine. But (assuming you extend this attitude to "the mainstream media" as well) you've created for yourself an ontology of the world in which it is impossible to claim any knowledge of anything outside your direct field of view. I'm not really sure how you intend us to accomplish much of anything without _some_ ability to trust _someone_ else. And bipartisan agreement from bitter enemies who have little or nothing to gain personally from such statements is about the lowest bar of trust I can imagine.
Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems notable that many of these comments are jumping on this for not providing proof that it was Russia, when that was not the intention of the report. The first page states- >This JAR provides technical indicators related to many of these operations, recommended mitigations, suggested actions to take in response to the indicators provided, and information on how to report such incidents to the U.S. Government.
The bloomberg article I read ( http://archive.is/j5wRd ) presented it as evidence. Maybe other publications are doing the same. >As part of the administration’s response, the FBI and Homeland Security Department also released a report with technical evidence intended to prove Russia’s military and civilian intelligence services were behind the hacking and to expose some of their most sensitive hacking infrastructure.
The "evidence" cited is not the handful of unclassified details included, it's the fact that the FBI and DHS are willing to go on record publicly accusing Russia. There are no asterisks or weasel-words or "allegedly"s. Just a clear "Russia did it."
There are only two possible explanations for that:
1) A massive conspiracy in which the leaders of practically the entirety of the US military/intelligence community are willing to go on record with a hoax that will easily be unraveled by the incoming administration in a few months
2) There is clear and damning evidence that Russia did it, but it's classified
Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]
#86Unfortunately for her, being "robbed like a Christian in the night" doesnt hold a candle of defence to DKIM signatures. Sorry Brazilenut, you gave multiple questions to the Hillary campaign and are guilty of conspiring to destroy the fairness of a democratically held election. Goto jail and dont come back.
Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
You clearly don't understand the intelligence process if this is your critique. First, the people making the DNC hack report are not the same as the analysts who worked on Iraq. The IC is not a monolith. Second, the Bush White House saw the intelligence they wanted to see. Third, burning sources and methods is a very real concern in intelligence gathering. That reality can't be ignored no matter how much you want inf…
> But there are very good reasons for why they operate the way they do. Indeed there are, and no reasonable person would say that having intelligence agencies is a bad thing. The issue in this case is that the US intelligence agencies have been leveraged politically to help convince the public to support various policies, when in fact there has not been credible evidence. A lot of people put their lives on the line t…
I'm addressing the poor thesis that "the IC has been (deliberately) wrong before, therefore they can't be trusted without an undefined amount of evidence."
The points you raise are good and worth discussing, but unrelated to what I was talking about.
Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]
#88The Sony hack had more evidence than this... Someone explain to me why this is such an issue? There have been many proven hacks from many states that are far worse (the Chinese Fighter plane that looks almost identical to the F35 come to mind) than exposing the DNC's dirty laundry. No one is denying that the emails are real. This seems like some sort of distraction.
> the Chinese Fighter plane that looks almost identical to the F35 come to mind
The good side is that at least it will probably be NATO interoperable!
Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]
#89Even if Wikileaks never published anything, She would have still lost. She had the greatest help, money and collusion from government, media, international community elites and her party and still lost against the most unpopular and unfit candidate of all time who got more than 300 electoral votes. That's how loser and corrupt she is. Just get over it.
Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
An intelligence agency won't declassify how they determined who it was. That would compromise their ability to use the same method (informant, vulnerability, etc) in the future. They are standard techniques. It doesn't say they are unique. Just that this hacker relies on these specific standard techniques as opposed to other ones.
>An intelligence agency won't declassify how they determined who it was. Yeah, just like a weapon of mass destruction in Iraq. We can't tell how we got this information, but we know for sure. Then few years later it turns out there is no WMD found. Ooops. Sorry. Give me a reason to trust them again?
I'm an ex Army bomb technician, let me help you.
You know WMDs were found in Iraq right? ..Unless we're not calling stockpiled chemical weapons WMDs anymore.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleea...