Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Dec 30, 2016, 5:44 AM UTC

md_ wrote: post #317

CountSessine wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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--i…

Post by grzm » Fri, Dec 30, 2016, 5:45 AM UTC

oh_sigh wrote: post #388

praxulus wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

Post by Natsu » Fri, Dec 30, 2016, 5:54 AM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #281

cloakandswagger wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the real absurdity of this debacle to me. Many of the whitepapers that I read about the DNC hack listed the attack's "sophistication" as proof that it came from a state actor, yet it was the most routine, simple attack conceivable. No rootkits, no 0 days, just simple phishing and social engineering.

Journalists routinely do that - underline that whatever malfeasance is done, the perpetrator is not a usual random criminal but especially heinous one and thus this story is worth your attention. With computer crime it's especially obvious because most journalists don't know enough to understand what's hard and what's not, so they take the word of law enforcement, and law enforcement has big motivation to make it sou…

Post by epmaybe » Fri, Dec 30, 2016, 5:59 AM UTC

lern_too_spel wrote: post #389

epmaybe wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Post by Natsu » Fri, Dec 30, 2016, 6:00 AM UTC

xapata wrote: post #292

CountSessine wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, why burn zero-days when you're targeting a technologically unsophisticated adversary with a huge organizational attack surface? Then how is this evidence of a 'state-sponsored actor'? And how did the narrative of this story ever get derailed from what it should have been, which was, "The DNC, and John Podesta in particular who had both his gmail and his Twitter accounts hacked, are incompetent", to "this is…

That some people are unfamiliar with computer security is not news. I have known a fair number of big-shot executives and politicians, all of whom I'd expect would click on suspicious links in their email (if they read the email) and double-click on attachments. The news is why that particular person was targeted.