Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "evidence" boils down to: The Hackers drove a truck. Russians drive trucks. The Russians did the hacking. While its insulting that our government would try to pass off this drivel as "evidence", I'm much more dismayed that so many of my fellow Americans will uncritically accept it as such.
It is more like: 1. Hackers drove a custom built tank that has Moscow factory markings. 2. Similar versions of the tank were used in other campaigns attributed to Russian intelligence. 3. Crew in the tank has been associated with Russian intelligence operations going back ten years. 4. The tank left from a building known to be associated with Russian intelligence hacking campaign. Thus, the hackers probably take orde…
Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]
301–310 of 502 posts
Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that this is a sort of exclusion of the middle; you say " here's the alternative theory ", but there are other even more likely possibilities. Here's one: 1. The DNC and their members are generally ignorant of good security policy and had an easily hacked system. 2. Some Russian intelligence agency hacked the DNC's email servers. 3. A bunch of other people/hackers/groups hacked the DNC's email servers, as it w…
Point 7 is the one you're supposed to be trying to explain. The FBI, CIA, DHS and NSA have all said, in plain language, no anonymous sources, just regular old press releases, that Russia hacked the DNC. The reasons they might say this are a) they believe it due to some evidence they are not releasing, and b) ???. Theory a) seems pretty believable, and I haven't heard a b) that sounds remotely plausible yet. Whether s…
Except that point 7 isn't at all controversial. EVERYONE hacks EVERYONE ELSE in cyber-espionage; even Canada was probably hacking the lame-ass security DNC email server, if only to fill a dossier. Remember that Clinton was set to be the next president of the United States; it is very much in Russia's (and anyone else's) best interest to know as much about her and her team as they can learn. It's the job of American spooks to prevent this, and they completely fucked it up.
Frankly, I find the suggestion that telling voters more about their candidate constitutes 'interference' to be repugnant; but assuming that we are going to engineer a scandal about this, we need to ask whether the Russians released that information to Wikileaks? All of the evidence (ie what Wikileaks says) says otherwise.
Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]
#303The 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 Sony hack had more evidence than this... Where? The FBI handled the investigation and didn't cite its sources. https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/update-on-s... > "While the need to protect sensitive sources and methods precludes us from sharing all of this information, our conclusion is based, in part, on the following"
That report does not specifically attribute the Sony hacks to a particular nation-state. It does demonstrate the hack was not the result of a disgruntled employee, but rather an APT group the report refers to as "The Lazarus Group."
In the interests of full disclosure, I worked with the people involved in that operation.
Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 w…
If the 2 were true, there would be also some conspiration to keep those important infomations classified.
Also, I can't help thinking about Snowden and the blown whistle of the NSA spying scheme.
Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was it any different with Iraq WMD?
Yes. Many, many parts of the intelligence community produced reports contradicting any claims of WMD evidence, and were summarily ignored by a very not-bipartisan administration. There is basically total consensus among every intelligence agency that the evidence points to Russia.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/05/12/selective-intel...
Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]
#306https://googleblog.blogspot.com.au/2015/04/protect-your-goog...
I think it's quite possible that this sort of warning actually may have increased phishing attempts because it made malware authors aware of increased possibilities.
From the report ... > In summer 2015, an APT29 spearphishing campaign directed emails [ .. ]
PS. please don't seasons instead of dates in reports, specify the quarter of the year.
Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don't spread fake news about primary rigging, even if tongue-in-cheek. Stick to discussing the article.
How is primary rigging fake news? Its very obvious from reading the wiki leaks emails that the DNC was brazenly biased towards Hillary and against Sanders.
Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]
#308Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
Point 7 is the one you're supposed to be trying to explain. The FBI, CIA, DHS and NSA have all said, in plain language, no anonymous sources, just regular old press releases, that Russia hacked the DNC. The reasons they might say this are a) they believe it due to some evidence they are not releasing, and b) ???. Theory a) seems pretty believable, and I haven't heard a b) that sounds remotely plausible yet. Whether s…
Point 7 is the one you're supposed to be trying to explain Except that point 7 isn't at all controversial. EVERYONE hacks EVERYONE ELSE in cyber-espionage; even Canada was probably hacking the lame-ass security DNC email server, if only to fill a dossier. Remember that Clinton was set to be the next president of the United States; it is very much in Russia's (and anyone else's) best interest to know as much about her…
Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
RNC got hacked but nothing was leaked.
Source?