Live data from Hacker News

Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

us-cert.gov

371–380 of 502 posts

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. But the absence of sophistication constitutes evidence neither in favor nor against the "State Actor" hypothesis.

Until a Russian name or IP address is provided, the accusations fail to hold water. An incomplete proof is equivalent to "'cause we said so"

If you are targeting a US political entity, using a staging server in Russia probably isn't the worst idea, so unless the IP address directly ties to the Russian government/intelligence services, it's still only weak evidence of Russia's involvement.

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#372
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…

So essentially someone hacked the DNC, and it's "advanced" because some custom software was written just for this particular target ?

I've written custom software (which was a lot harder to find than some python WMI hooks) for hacking a lot lower profile organisations. I've consulted for organisations that were hacked by Chinese hackers for bitcoin ransom that had custom software written too. I mean, high profile target, more effort can be expected. It does not mean the government is involved (although a lot of hacking groups seem to have government sidelines in China, though it does not appear to be their primary activity. I mean unless the Chinese government is itself into bitcoin ransoming).

But more seriously, if a component of our government that is this central to our democracy can be hacked by sending emails "open this exe", then ... I mean seriously. Sorry to say, but if that works, you deserve what happens. Is this really the level of competency in the people that are currently organising the government ?

Also the main thing this report does is validate that the information leaked to the press is indeed true (I figured as much, I mean why put so much effort into fighting fake news unless the real target information is not fake ?).

So Hillary and the DNC is in fact in the pocket of wall street. She DID use the DNC organisation to sabotage Bernie Sanders. There are in fact foreign donors to Hillary and the DNC that are illegal under rules that Hillary's government department is supposed to enforce ... this report mostly confirms that this is indeed the view that the top of the DNC has.

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#373
post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The whole "they know whats best for us and our only choice is blind faith" attitude is really disturbing. This is so, so insulting. There is no way a fair observer could read the comments here and conclude that the people who find Russia hacking the DNC credible do so because they have blind faith in Clapper or the FBI or anyone else.

> There is no way any a fair observer could read the comments here and conclude that the people who find Russia hacking the DNC credible do so because they have blind faith in Clapper or the FBI or anyone else. Isn't that what you were more or less saying here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13281736

No. I believe the official version (that the reason the intelligence agencies are accusing Russia of hacking the DNC is because believe it did) because the alternative is less plausible and there's no evidence for it. That's pure Occam's Razor, no faith involved.

The FBI has lied and will lie again, getting me to believe they lied about something is not hard, but they don't generally do it in big, obvious ways that are easy to disprove and involve a lot of co-conspirators and don't accomplish anything.

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But your facts and reasoning regretfully interrupts the circle jerk of the Bernie bros who are convinced their democratic socialist was on the brink of revolutionizing the American political system and finally delivering us to a Denmarkian utopia. Never mind the fact that Sanders was treated much more gently by the Clinton campaign than Obama was in '08, the only salient fact is that minority voters should have yield…

I'm confused by the last sentence. Are you suggesting that more minority voters went for Sanders over Clinton in the primaries? I had thought the exact opposite.

It's sarcasm... the paranoid Sanders voters screaming that the election was rigged often 'forget' (find unacceptable/truly are clueless) that minority voters are the 800lb gorilla of the Democratic Party. In 08 they wanted Obama, and that's who it got. In 16 they wanted hrc and that's who it got. They throw around Clinton's pop vote win as if it showed our system is broken, all while genuinely believing she beat Sanders by cheating, conveniently ignoring the fact that she beat him by a larger margin.

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But your facts and reasoning regretfully interrupts the circle jerk of the Bernie bros who are convinced their democratic socialist was on the brink of revolutionizing the American political system and finally delivering us to a Denmarkian utopia. Never mind the fact that Sanders was treated much more gently by the Clinton campaign than Obama was in '08, the only salient fact is that minority voters should have yield…

I'm confused by the last sentence. Are you suggesting that more minority voters went for Sanders over Clinton in the primaries? I had thought the exact opposite.

[deleted]

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But your facts and reasoning regretfully interrupts the circle jerk of the Bernie bros who are convinced their democratic socialist was on the brink of revolutionizing the American political system and finally delivering us to a Denmarkian utopia. Never mind the fact that Sanders was treated much more gently by the Clinton campaign than Obama was in '08, the only salient fact is that minority voters should have yield…

I'm confused by the last sentence. Are you suggesting that more minority voters went for Sanders over Clinton in the primaries? I had thought the exact opposite.

[deleted]

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely disagree. This isn't about Trump winning. Nobody disputes that. This is about Russia interfering with the US Election and intentionally trying to undermined western society. Russia has launched a War against the US and Europe. Sponsoring Right Wing Groups with millions in cash to Cyber warfare against Government institutions.

I disagree. All signs point to Russia wanting peace with the US, and I think they are cozying up to Trump so he will roll back the sanctions that have been choking the Russian economy since 2014 or so. Clinton was the one saber rattling against Russia during the election, not Trump. So assuming your theory is Russia hacked the DNC, their motivations seem to be to avoid war, not escalate. However, there is definitely…

[deleted]

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#378
post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Snowden is a powerful trump card for dismissive claims like "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" thaat used to work so well. We know our security agencies (and high level politicians) are not just dishonest, but actively violating the constitution. That people still mock those who distrust these agencies…

It's not that I don't think they would lie about anything, it's that I don't think they would lie about something this trivial and small. The NSA lied about the multi-year global surveillance program which serves their core mission, so that means that the NSA and also the FBI and DHS will lie about a relatively minor news story? How is this even in their interests? I'm more than willing to believe they're lying but I…

You don't think they might be a bit concerned a loose cannon like Trump might be a little more curious than normal candidates what sorts of interesting things they get up to, and where they spend their significant budgets?

> but I need something

That's how a lot of people feel about this whole "Russians rigged the election" thing, we'd like some evidence a little more substantial than "trust us", or at least we'd like to hear those words from someone we can trust, although no names come to mind. I can't think of very many public figures that I would trust these days.

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a coalition of peculiarly anti-Russian hawks who have been the most vocal in their opposition to Russia's behavior in Crimea, etc. This likely transcends party lines in the same way that support for wall street or the oil industry transcends party lines.

So, that's what I'm saying: that the "ranking members" support the conclusion doesn't dispose of all bias, but it does dispose of the Trump vs. Clinton bias. It's up to you how to weight [Trump vs. Clinton] vs. [Russia vs. US]. But my impression is that [Trump vs. Clinton] is way more powerful than any other bias right now.

> But my impression is that [Trump vs. Clinton] is way more powerful than any other bias right now.

I think this is correct, and largely why the Russia meddling has become more an article of faith than a highly concerning possibility.

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#380
post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no way any a fair observer could read the comments here and conclude that the people who find Russia hacking the DNC credible do so because they have blind faith in Clapper or the FBI or anyone else. Isn't that what you were more or less saying here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13281736

No. I believe the official version (that the reason the intelligence agencies are accusing Russia of hacking the DNC is because believe it did) because the alternative is less plausible and there's no evidence for it. That's pure Occam's Razor, no faith involved. The FBI has lied and will lie again, getting me to believe they lied about something is not hard, but they don't generally do it in big, obvious ways that a…

I don't necessarily disagree, but a guilty charge shouldn't be based on the "most plausible" explanation.
Post reply on HN