Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

Post by wyager » Sat, Dec 31, 2016, 6:43 AM UTC

mundo wrote: post #470

wyager wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Please stop accusing people of being 100% confident. To quote you: > No. I believe the official version > What is the alternate hypothesis that's "marginally less likely"? That Russia didn't hack the DNC. I think it's actually marginally more likely than that Russia didn't hack the DNC than that they did, but I was humoring you.

I repeat: > "Why are US intelligence agencies saying they have proof that Russia hacked the DNC?" The base hypothesis is "Because they do." The alternate hypothesis is what you're supplying.

Post by stefantalpalaru » Sat, Dec 31, 2016, 8:46 AM UTC

lern_too_spel wrote: post #273

cloakandswagger wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can read about the backdoors they used here: https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ... The summary: One used Powershell modules and Windows Scheduler to run scripts. Another used a combination of Twitter and public sites like Github/Dropbox for command and control. In my opinion, neither is impressively sophisticated, and a skilled application developer could whip up something similar in a w…

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…

Post by mundo » Sat, Dec 31, 2016, 4:31 PM UTC

wyager wrote: post #481

mundo wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I repeat: > "Why are US intelligence agencies saying they have proof that Russia hacked the DNC?" The base hypothesis is "Because they do." The alternate hypothesis is what you're supplying.

What do you mean by "base hypothesis" or "alternate hypothesis"? Those aren't real terms in hypothesis testing. I think you might want to do some reading on Bayesian reasoning, and its relationship to Occam's razor.

Post by lern_too_spel » Sat, Dec 31, 2016, 4:44 PM UTC

astronautjones wrote: post #482

lern_too_spel wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Donna Brazille wasn't DNC chair until after the primaries were over, so how would she be an example of the DNC rigging the primaries for Clinton? Wasserman-Schultz resigned to get out of the spotlight, which she believed would put more attention on Clinton for the general election. We have the DNC's full email history here. Surely if they rigged the primary for Clinton, there would be at least one email showing it.

Donna Brazille was fired for leaking debate questions to the HRC campaign

Post by jessaustin » Sat, Dec 31, 2016, 11:12 PM UTC

lern_too_spel wrote: post #488

jessaustin wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you've missed the last month of news media output; congratulations! There has been a great deal of innuendo about hackers rigging our election under V. Putin's direct command. Here's the top of Google News just now when I checked: [0] This fine polemic starts with a lamentation of Podesta's email security, mumbles through some baseless speculation about fake news and voting machine hacks, then admits to that…

I haven't missed that at all. It just has absolutely nothing to do with fleitz's claim that the DNC rigged the primaries. Maybe you are not an American. Do you know what the primaries are?