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

401–410 of 502 posts

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#401

Post by oh_sigh »

grzm wrote: post #393
oh_sigh wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Rigging implies fraud, deception, or dishonesty, not just unbalanced. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rigged See sense 3 1. to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means 2. to fix in advance for a desired result Editted to add second part of sense 3.

Why did you skip the second part of sense 3, which is "to fix in advance for a desired result"?

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#402

Post by Natsu »

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…

You're assuming this is true and coming up with speculation. Meanwhile, we can look up the names of many of the reporters spreading these rumors and find that they coordinate with the DNC.

Also, you think it's a conspiracy theory that the DNC would attack Trump? So... you don't seriously think that the RNC's media allies attacked Clinton? That's, uhh, just not how it works.

The DNC has very good reasons to deflect this one. They funneled all the state-level money to Hillary and made their losses worse. They helped promote Trump and the other "pied piper" candidates in the media early on. Their token opponent, Sanders, got far more enthusiasm than Hillary and both candidates under-performed past ones, with Trump edging her out based on smaller losses and working the electoral college to his advantage--a failure reminiscent of how Obama beat Hillary by focusing on delegates. They have to pin the failure on someone else for their own survival. If the average voter saw the actual emails and realized just how much the DNC orchestrated just to shoot itself in the foot here, they'd demand their replacement.

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#403

Post by oh_sigh »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #394
oh_sigh wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

Why is there both a judge and a ballot box in your analogy? In the primaries, there were only ballot boxes, and Clinton got almost 30% more ballots from normal people outside of the DNC than Sanders. It was a landslide so large that the media had to construct a horse race story just to try to keep it interesting. The DNC had "groomed" Clinton insofar as she had run in the primaries before and was familiar with the ru…

Because the judges put their votes in a ballot box. Or because stuffing a ballot box is an idiomatic phrase.

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#404

Post by Natsu »

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…

> Except that point 7 isn't at all controversial. EVERYONE hacks EVERYONE ELSE in cyber-espionage

It's like in Germany where they're up in arms against this and seem to have forgotten the revelation that the USA was tapping Merkel's phone...

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#405

Post by jessaustin »

mistermann wrote: post #378
mundo wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lik…

...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?

It is perhaps significant that the "further analysis" leakfest started after Trump had already disappointed the spooks by bagging their special briefings, rather than back when all of the actual underlying facts were publicized well before election day. They always think they've got a thick enough profile of the incoming executive to bend him as far as they want. For example, Obama never closed their favorite EST Caribbean vacation-and-torture resort, even though doing so was a major campaign plank the first time around. Who knows what incriminating documents proved so persuasive? Maybe this time we've somehow elected someone who won't be in their pocket from Day One?

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#406

Post by Natsu »

ryanlol wrote: post #16

~ grep IPV4 JAR-16-20296.csv|awk -F ',' '{print $1}'|sed 's/[][]//g'|sort -u|grep -f exits -c 191 ~ grep IPV4 JAR-16-20296.csv|awk -F ',' '{print $1}'|sed 's/[][]//g'|sort -u|wc -l 876 At least 191 of the IOC IPs are (probably random) Tor exit nodes :) The actual number may very well be higher, I just grabbed current exit node list from https://check.torproject.org/exit-addresses Here's the PHP backdoor the YARA rule…

Fascinating stuff, thank you for sharing.

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#407

Post by Natsu »

mundo wrote: post #28
Dolores12 wrote: post #8

This report is a joke. I didn't find any reasoning about attribution. Here is the only valuable part: " rule PAS_TOOL_PHP_WEB_KIT { meta: description = "PAS TOOL PHP WEB KIT FOUND" strings: $php = " 20KB and filesize < 22KB) and #cookie == 2 and #isset == 3 and all of them } "

Is your prior for "The FBI would publicly make an accusation like this without any conclusive technical evidence" really higher than your prior for "The FBI would not include all of the evidence they based the accusation on in the public report"?

The burden of proof is put on the one making claims. There is no other rational way to do things.

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#408

Post by grzm »

oh_sigh wrote: post #401
grzm wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rigging implies fraud, deception, or dishonesty, not just unbalanced. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rigged See sense 3 1. to manipulate or control usually by deceptive or dishonest means 2. to fix in advance for a desired result Editted to add second part of sense 3.

Why did you skip the second part of sense 3, which is "to fix in advance for a desired result"?

I don't see that it adds anything to contradict the idea that rigging is only something "unbalanced" and not connoting deceit. "Fix in advance" is an example of fraud. I have no issue with including it in my comment, and have updated it to do so.

I'm not sure why you would think otherwise, though if you're implying that the example of extra, specialized training you provided above is an example of "fix in advance", I disagree. To "fix in advance" would mean that the outcome is predetermined, such as by bribes. This sense of fix is here:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fix

7b. to influence the actions, outcome, or effect of by improper or illegal methods

If you have some other meaning implied by your comment, please explain. I find I'm a terrible mind reader.

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#409

Post by Redoubts »

candiodari wrote: post #372
EthanHeilman wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tar…

> Is this really the level of competency in the people that are currently organizing the government ?

  Garrett Graff 
  ... Hillary seems to actually be a very persnickety technology user. She is 
  not very comfortable with most technology, only liked to use a BlackBerry and,
  more specifically, only liked to use a specific type of increasingly older and
  more out-of-date BlackBerry.

  She doesn't know how to use a desktop computer. She--

  Sean Cole 
  Wait, wait, wait. Back up. Back up. She doesn't know how to use a
  desktop computer.

  Garrett Graff 
  Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2016,
  does not know how to use a desktop computer, according to multiple sources
  interviewed by the FBI.

  Sean Cole 
  How is that possible?

  Garrett Graff 
  The short answer is, I don't know...
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/601/...

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#410

Post by Natsu »

cwkoss wrote: post #316
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…

All of which are odd things to be mad at Russia about.
Post reply on HN