Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CIA malware and hacking tools

wikileaks.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 1001 posts

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#381

Post by bertil »

openasocket wrote: post #364
sparkling wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no hard evidence where the DNC/Podesta leaks came from. However, Julian Assange has repeatedly said that the source is not the russian goverment or a affiliated state party [1] and in a other interview has hinted that the source may be Seth Rich [2], a former DNC staff member that was murdered in Washington DC. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyCOy25GdjQ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg

> However, Julian Assange has repeatedly said that the source is not the russian goverment or a affiliated state party How would he know? Isn't wikileaks set up so that people can submit data anonymously? Is he claiming that they got the data through different channels? Why would an insider purposefully leak the data in a way that de-anonymized him to Assange and possibly others, instead of using the established chan…

Wikileaks offers that possibility, but you can always include self-identifying documents in there.

I’m a lot more puzzled by the fact that Assange would say anything about the uploader, even if it is negative. I guess denying it’s the most likely suspect re-rolls the dice in most people’s head.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#382

Post by remarkEon »

anthonybsd wrote: post #318
imron wrote: post #66

The CIA's Remote Devices Branch's UMBRAGE group collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques 'stolen' from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation. With UMBRAGE and related projects the CIA cannot only increase its total number of attack types but also misdirect attribution by leaving behind the "fingerprints" of the groups that the attack techniques were stolen from. Th…

>although I can't imagine the CIA wanting to hack the election in Trump's favour CIA is overwhelmingly republican, just like the FBI. So yes they would.

Source?

I've always understood the FBI v. CIA conflict as a classic Red vs Blue security alignment. FBI aligned with Defense and CIA aligned with State.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#383

Post by [deleted] »

roc wrote: post #274
vinhboy wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that "Russians" hacked the election That's not the claim. In fact, multiple people have said that is not the claim. The claim is that the Russians influenced the election in favor of Trump by promoting propaganda against Clinton.

Through leaks like this one. Leaks that can be partially validated or corroborated, but which (by their nature) cannot be entirely proven true. And those leaks were very transparently beneficial to a person/group who are also going to benefit from this one. I don't trust the CIA at all. But I don't trust Wikileaks either. I see way too many self-described "skeptical" types who aren't approaching any of this with any…

[deleted]

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#384

Post by bertil »

vxNsr wrote: post #321
imron wrote: post #66

The CIA's Remote Devices Branch's UMBRAGE group collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques 'stolen' from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation. With UMBRAGE and related projects the CIA cannot only increase its total number of attack types but also misdirect attribution by leaving behind the "fingerprints" of the groups that the attack techniques were stolen from. Th…

I think it's vitally important, at least in this forum where tech knowledge is fairly high to avoid saying that "Russia hacked the election" without any sort of qualifier. Because the implication is that they hacked voter booths or somehow changed votes. In reality they allegedly hacked computers of people related to a single party and brought to light the illicit activities that party was doing. tl;dr Saying Russia…

> In reality they allegedly hacked computers of people related to a single party and brought to light the illicit activities that party was doing.

My understanding was the Security professionals expected that the most likely scenario was that both parties were hacked: one side was revealed and the other one used for leverage.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#385

Post by hackinthebochs »

alasdair_ wrote: post #315
jowiar wrote: post #272

Quit with the fucking conspiracy theories. Seriously -- can we get a fucking mod in here to get rid of this shit.

What conspiracy theory? Assange, the person most likely to actually know what happened, has stated that the source for the Podesta emails was a disgruntled "washington insider" In addition, former British ambassador Craig Murray (a man with a solid reputation and little reason to lie) claims to have personally met the source and insists that the source is definitely a political insider without ties to Russia. https:/…

>What conspiracy theory? Assange, the person most likely to actually know what happened

In no way is Assange most likely to know what happened, in the same way that a Tor exit node is not most likely to know who originated a message it delivered. Those with actual intelligence assets are far more likely to know who the ultimate source is.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#386

Post by alxdistill »

Maybe this is a stupid question but how does one go about verifying the information wikileaks releases is accurate?

I assume the people who submit info are verified in some way, does wikileaks then pass on that verification info to the public or are we supposed to just trust that they are providing truthful information in an unbiased way?

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#387

Post by WillyOnWheels »

mschuster91 wrote: post #380
WillyOnWheels wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the Podesta emails (at least the ones in the Wikileaks archive that Wikileaks keep tweeting urls to searches of) were from someone sending Podesta a fake gmail password reset email? I don't think a disgruntled washington insider did that! I could be confused and there's another set of emails that you're referring to. It's impossible to keep up on everything lately.

> I don't think a disgruntled washington insider did that! Quite the contrary: If I definitely know that my target is too incompetent to check what he clicks on, or that he forgets his password every week, it's waaay easier for me to achieve my goal.

Creating a plausible site that looks like a Google password reset workflow may be a few minutes work for hackernews reading front end wizards, but it's not really the domain of disgruntled washington bureaucrats.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#388

Post by hackinthebochs »

fareesh wrote: post #337
vinhboy wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that "Russians" hacked the election That's not the claim. In fact, multiple people have said that is not the claim. The claim is that the Russians influenced the election in favor of Trump by promoting propaganda against Clinton.

There's also an argument to be made that Hillary would not have been the nominee had the DNC played fair. The leaked emails show that they actively worked to suppress Bernie, who had huge rallies, similar to Trump.

Absolutely no one intelligent thinks that. And rally size means literally nothing.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#389

Post by komali2 »

rgacote wrote: post #275

Glad to see CIA hackers are Dr. Who fans! "Weeping Angel" makes it look like a Samsung television is off while it is really on and recording the room. Precisely what the Weeping Angel does during the Dr's first encounter.

Gotta hand it to the CIA, they really know how to give things badass names.

Re: CIA malware and hacking tools

#390

Post by Nadya »

WillyOnWheels wrote: post #387
mschuster91 wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think a disgruntled washington insider did that! Quite the contrary: If I definitely know that my target is too incompetent to check what he clicks on, or that he forgets his password every week, it's waaay easier for me to achieve my goal.

Creating a plausible site that looks like a Google password reset workflow may be a few minutes work for hackernews reading front end wizards, but it's not really the domain of disgruntled washington bureaucrats.

Disgruntled Washington bureaucrats have money. Money can buy you black hat devs. A few minutes work for a chance at $[x-xx],000? Done and done. Payment upon successful phish.

There are plenty of people that value money over morals.

Post reply on HN