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

381–390 of 502 posts

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#381

Post by boomboomsubban »

burkaman wrote: post #355
boomboomsubban wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 Unless the actual perpetrators were the US intelligence community and/or the incoming administration. Then they could both hide their tracks or have no reason to unravel this. But why sus…

What does the intelligence community have to gain by perpetrating this hack?

Billions of dollars plus whatever power comes from picking the president and presumably having a potential deepthroat if they don't behave. And remember, the intelligence community is not unified. Even though Obama has been a huge ally of the intelligence community, not all branches got the same deal.

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#382

Post by marxmarv »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #318
464192002d7fe1c wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Imaginary friends don't have legitimate interests.

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#383

Post by nukka »

Seriously!

Here is technical analysis of one of the malware used. http://researchcenter.paloaltonetworks.com/2015/07/unit-42-t...

Why does everyone thinks that only Russians can write such a malware, that too in python!

Also, does it dawns on anyone that anyone can actually take this malware up and reverse engineer it and repurpose it. All it takes is changing one JSON blob embedded in the code to point to your own servers for CNC, use your own AES IV/Key.

Also, I find it funny that they use embedded time stamps and resource locales as a proof of anything. Didn't anyone ever use Resource Hacker or 'strings' command? Is it really this hard to scrub or falsify timestamps in a DLL/EXE?

The most damning proof would have been some SSL certificate reused in a known compromised server for CnC. I heard rumors around it but nowhere in the analysis this was highlighted or discussed.

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#384

Post by epmaybe »

travmatt wrote: post #374
epmaybe wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Sand…

I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton would have won the primary regardless of the DNC "meddling" in the primary, but I do feel that they would have a more unified DNC had there not been news of the DNC backing HRC before the primaries had even finished.

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#385

Post by lern_too_spel »

elif wrote: post #333
lern_too_spel wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your "summary" leaves out the key points. The SeaDaddy, X-Agent, and X-Tunnel tools used in these attacks have only been used by two groups, using the same control servers each time, on European, American, and World Anti-Doping Agency targets that the Russians had strong motive to attack, with some of the attacks being attributed to Russia by multiple other means. If it turned out that Russia was not behind these att…

The problem with relying upon motive and established MO exclusively is that anyone is therefore capable of framing whomever they like. This is the next generation of warfare, attribution is simply impossible. Even if there existed actual forensic evidence it could not be relied upon. Reacting to purported attacks at face value will leave you like a 1-layer chess player, potentially acting on behalf of your adversary.

As I said above, the attribution does not rely solely on motive. All private security firms that analyzed the attack have attributed it to Russia, and they would not stake their reputations on such a flimsy argument.

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#386

Post by [deleted] »

elif wrote: post #333
lern_too_spel wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your "summary" leaves out the key points. The SeaDaddy, X-Agent, and X-Tunnel tools used in these attacks have only been used by two groups, using the same control servers each time, on European, American, and World Anti-Doping Agency targets that the Russians had strong motive to attack, with some of the attacks being attributed to Russia by multiple other means. If it turned out that Russia was not behind these att…

The problem with relying upon motive and established MO exclusively is that anyone is therefore capable of framing whomever they like. This is the next generation of warfare, attribution is simply impossible. Even if there existed actual forensic evidence it could not be relied upon. Reacting to purported attacks at face value will leave you like a 1-layer chess player, potentially acting on behalf of your adversary.

[deleted]

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#387

Post by Natsu »

praxulus wrote: post #307
464192002d7fe1c wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because there's absolutely no evidence that it was rigged? Just because the DNC preferred the lifelong Democrat to the lifelong independent (who could have guessed that?) doesn't mean they couldn't still have operated a fair primary.

The emails show that Sanders was more or less a token opponent kept on a leash and kept in line. Remember also how they cut Sanders out of the DNC voting data. There were no big name Democrats running against Hillary.

They also sucked all the money from the state level campaigns into Hillary's campaign, hurting the entire party when they lost after spending so much money trying to force Hillary through.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/22224

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11056

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/5477

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/24440

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/10669#efmAO0APK...

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5688

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/9999%20

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5423

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7643

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/44131

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#388

Post by oh_sigh »

praxulus wrote: post #307
464192002d7fe1c wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because there's absolutely no evidence that it was rigged? Just because the DNC preferred the lifelong Democrat to the lifelong independent (who could have guessed that?) doesn't mean they couldn't still have operated a fair primary.

"Rigging", at least as I read it, doesn't imply cheating - it can just imply that the system is unbalanced or all candidates are not on a level playing field.

For example, if I had to compete against someone in a drawing competition, and one of the judges was the parent of my competitor, and that judge has gone out of his way to train and groom his child for years for this competition, I may lament that the contest is rigged, even if the judge doesn't stuff the ballot box.

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#389

Post by lern_too_spel »

epmaybe wrote: post #384
travmatt wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Sand…

I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton would have won the primary regardless of the DNC "meddling" in the primary, but I do feel that they would have a more unified DNC had there not been news of the DNC backing HRC before the primaries had even finished.

What "meddling" did the DNC do in the primary? How were they were backing her before the primaries finished?

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#390

Post by jessaustin »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #318
464192002d7fe1c wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Here you're using a common everyday definition of the verb "rig". Observe that this definition excludes e.g. publicizing a political candidate's banal episodes of tawdriness to the scrutiny of voters, so it's not the definition in wide use in USA news media over the last month or so.
Post reply on HN