Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

us-cert.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 502 posts

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#311

Post by [deleted] »

mundo wrote: post #244
StanislavPetrov wrote: post #169

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.

This (complaining about the lack of evidence) just seems ludicrous to me. Does the FBI have a history of declassifying stuff like this so that randos on the internet can independently verify its conclusions? When high-level intelligence people collude to lie to the American people and discredit a president, do they usually do it via press release clearly written by a PIO? The accusation that people who find this cred…

[deleted]

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#312

Post by EthanHeilman »

vladimirralev wrote: post #301
EthanHeilman wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You should mention that the tank with the crew they have inside is publicly available to anybody in the malware archives of APT28/29. Anybody can plant it. Also both the powershell and the py2exe are completely reversible so you can take it, modify it and who's creation is that now? If there is kernel-level stuff then it would be a more solid case but not by much. On top of that, it's entirely possible other complete…

>Also both the powershell and the py2exe are completely reversible so you can take it, modify it and who's creation is that now?

What about X-Agent? Seems like it would be harder to modify but I haven't looked into it.

>On top of that, it's entirely possible other completely unrelated attack is responsible for the leaks, but the malware used cleaned up after itself, leaving only the less sophisticated trail behind.

I like this point but it could be brought up in nearly all attributions.

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#313

Post by [deleted] »

EthanHeilman wrote: post #300
smsm42 wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't one just buy a RAT? Also, the WMI think they describe doesn't look like rootkit, more like cron analogue for Windows. I.e. on Unix it would be like installing a command inside crontab. That's not what is usually called a rootkit - a tool that is designed to conceals its presence (and other tools presence) from regular OS tools.

You can buy RATs. The several RATs used in this campaign were never for sale. For example the RAT named X-Agent was one of several used in the DNC hack. It has never been put up for sale and it was used in previous Russian intelligence operations (for example tracking Ukraine artillery[0]). >That's not what is usually called a rootkit It doesn't appear that anyone has reverse engineered the PC version of X-Agent but…

[deleted]

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#314

Post by SomeStupidPoint »

avn2109 wrote: post #267
mundo wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the least plausible conspiracy theory I've ever heard. C'mon man. Imagine you're whoever-it-is you think is behind this, and you want to discredit Trump for whatever reason. What would you do? You've got access to all of his tax returns, and all the sealed details of his divorces, and all of his medical records, and all of his business records. You've got a whole squad of spies working for you, you can fabric…

The Democrats (of whom I am one since birth) are using "The Reds did it!" as a tried and true excuse to explain the utter failure of their muddled, ineffective ideology on the national stage. It's face saving through and through. And it makes a better story than "Trump beat us because we half-assed this election."

To be fair, I think three things:

1. The Democrats ran a crap campaign based (in part) on racism and sexism. The probably would've lost by a wider margin to a ham sandwich than they did to Trump.

2. Russia probably is behind the DNC hacks and definitely tried to meddle in the election.

3. Russia definitely took hints on what would be useful from Trump and Trump probably actively collaborated with them.

Just because I think Russia meddled in the election doesn't mean that either domestic party ran a good campaign, or that Russia was ultimately able to sway the election.

The only question I want the intel community to weigh in on is the politically charged one they're avoiding: did Trump actively collaborate with a foreign power during the election?

That question is of pressing import (and disqualifies him from being president if he did). The rest of it is just details.

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#315

Post by rieter »

mundo wrote: post #244
StanislavPetrov wrote: post #169

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.

This (complaining about the lack of evidence) just seems ludicrous to me. Does the FBI have a history of declassifying stuff like this so that randos on the internet can independently verify its conclusions? When high-level intelligence people collude to lie to the American people and discredit a president, do they usually do it via press release clearly written by a PIO? The accusation that people who find this cred…

Do the intelligence agencies actually agree on this as unanimously as you're saying? Here's a quote from the testimony of James Clapper on Russia/Wikileaks connection:

"The evidence there is not strong" https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4631568/clapper-wikileaks-con...

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#316

Post by cwkoss »

LargeCompanies wrote: post #269

Ummm what piece of information in the leak caused Clinton to lose? Reality check nothing because there were no bombshells found like James Coomey re-opening the FBI's investigation against that woman. A woman who nationally especially compared to Obama is highly unlikeable with a horrible public image. Though we're stuck with that crazy man... losing game either way!

- HRC campaign got debate question before debate.

- HRC campaign dictating what language journalists should use

- DNC colluded with HRC campaign to attack Sanders before primary was finished (or had even began in some cases)

- Evidence of DNC "Pied Piper" strategy to make the RNC nominate a 'crazy' candidate like Trump.

- Discussing how to paint the Sanders campaign as sexist.

I don't know if leaks were the deciding factor, but I think a handful of leaked things contributed.

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#317

Post by md_ »

CountSessine wrote: post #302
mundo wrote: post #298

Earlier 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…

Er, the parent was replying to a poster who implied he did not believe "point 7."

>Frankly, I find the suggestion that telling voters more about their candidate constitutes 'interference' to be repugnant

Really? By this argument, I take it you believe political candidates' email (or cough tax returns) should automatically be made public?

Much as I agree with transparency, I think we need to recognize that everyone--including political candidates--has some right to private communications.

> but assuming that we are going to engineer a scandal about this, we need to ask whether the Russians released that information to Wikileaks?

The publicly released circumstantial evidence about Russian backing of "Guccifer 2.0" is fairly convincing, I would say. But (contrary to your claim above) the media have not "jumped to the conclusion" that the Russians were the ones who released the leaked emails; the FBI claimed* Russia was not merely behind the attacks but behind the leaks.

You all can debate the merits of trusting intelligence agencies or not, but the situation you described--in which the IC only suggested Russia was behind some intrusions but not the leaks--is not in fact the world we live in.

* http://www.wsj.com/articles/top-russian-officials-shift-away...

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#318

Post by lern_too_spel »

464192002d7fe1c wrote: post #296
lern_too_spel wrote: post #260

Earlier 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.

Biased? Yes, the DNC would obviously prefer a Democrat to an independent. Rigged? There was no evidence of any rigging outside of fake news.

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#319

Post by debaserab2 »

cmdrfred wrote: post #283
jocro wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> TIL I'm as good as a state level intelligence team. Not to totally ignore the pithiness, but I feel like your comment touches on something I see a ton here (and elsewhere): an offhand dismissal of the 'state level' intelligence capacity. At the end of the day, the systems were exploited. That more sophisticated methods went unused should be a measure of efficiency and not necessarily execution. Why break out the tr…

>hat more sophisticated methods went unused should be a measure of efficiency and not necessarily execution. Why break out the trick play if your opponent can't keep from you running it up the middle? I question how efficient it is to get caught red handed in the cookie jar of the worlds only super power. Sure Vladimir Putin could invite President Obama to a state dinner and then proceed to blow his head off with an…

Publicly assassinating the president of a country is slightly different then pilfering clumsily guarded emails of campaigning politicians. One starts world wars. The other doesn't.

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#320

Post by tootie »

ep103 wrote: post #155
codedokode wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If an organization is working with sensitive data maybe they should invest some resources into security. I understand it is not easy because companies like Microsoft have been releasing poorly designed software (with things like autorun for USB drives) for 20 years and it still is the leader. But we have to advance step by step. For every single person needing executable attacments there are maybe million users who c…

I mean, you're talking about the campaign of a person who was running while being investigated for circumventing security procedures. Regardless of what you think about those topics or their validity, is it that surprising that the campaign wasn't up to par on the security front?

You're conflating 2 different stories. HRC had no say over how the DNC ran their email nor were they subject to any special regulation as a private organization. Although it's been widely speculated there's yet no proof that HRC's private email server was ever hacked.
Post reply on HN