Live data from Hacker News

Russian Invasion of Ukraine Is ‘Almost Certain,' Cyber Expert Says

spytalk.co

41–44 of 44 posts

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine Is ‘Almost Certain,' Cyber Expert Says

#41
post #39
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I gave the specifics in another answer at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29671485 .

Yeah a variety of clowns keep posting this same conspiracy theory over and over, but the fact is that the House testimony does not in any way support your claim > His company's top officers lied to the public during the campaign in 2016 (and ever since) that the DNC servers was hacked by the Russian Government The only real takeaway from your links is that crowdstrike does not have pcaps showing data exfiltration.

I gave you an answer on your other comment on what my opinion is on asking for pcaps.

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine Is ‘Almost Certain,' Cyber Expert Says

#42
post #36
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Thanks for the links Aaron Mate is a heavily pro-Kremlin voice, so it's not like those were very good sources, just an opinion of a quite biased journalist.

That is not opinion : - I linked the New York articles interviewing Crowdstrike : "The D.N.C. immediately hired CrowdStrike, [...] It made its first appearance in 2014, said Dmitri Alperovitch, CrowdStrike’s co-founder and chief technology officer.[...] Whenever someone clicked on a phishing message, the Russians would enter the network, “exfiltrate” documents of interest and stockpile them for intelligence purposes.…

[deleted]

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine Is ‘Almost Certain,' Cyber Expert Says

#43
post #40
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not opinion : - I linked the New York articles interviewing Crowdstrike : "The D.N.C. immediately hired CrowdStrike, [...] It made its first appearance in 2014, said Dmitri Alperovitch, CrowdStrike’s co-founder and chief technology officer.[...] Whenever someone clicked on a phishing message, the Russians would enter the network, “exfiltrate” documents of interest and stockpile them for intelligence purposes.…

But you’re just playing games with meanings of words. > "We did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC" They did not have pcaps of exfil traffic but did recover the compressed files that had been prepared for exfiltration. Without pcaps there can be no “concrete evidence” that those files were exfiltrated, but we do know that the intruders did prepare data for exfiltration and had nothing s…

> They did not have pcaps of exfil traffic

You are playing into Crowdstrike's own Motte and Baily argument in restricting the words "proof" and "evidence" by substitting their meaning to what amounts to a recording of the attack. That is an impossibly high threshold, but it can more easily defended if you do. They kind of had to considering their actual technical arguments were weak.

"We did not have a sensor in place", as said by Shawn Henry. Yes, Crowdstrike didn't have them, and said they relied on "circumstential evidence", but it seems the DNC did have "sensors" in place, and Crowdstrike had access to them:

From the Mueller report, p. 40 [1], "On April 25, 2016, the GRU collected and compressed PDF and Microsoft documents from folders on the DCCC’s shared file server that pertained to the 2016 election. The GRU appears to have compressed and exfiltrated over 70 gigabytes of data from this file server (See SM-2589105-GJ, serial 649. As part of its investigation, the FBI later received images of DNC servers and copies of relevant traffic logs)" - btw all of this info originally comes from Crowdstrike.

While not pcaps per se, most varieties of such logs would show a different profile for downloading 70Gb "thousands of emails", zip/compressed files, etc, than much shorter instrumentation data for their Malware.

You can't have caught one but not having had the other, X-Tunnel + VPN or not. I mean, there are ways for that to be, but you'd have to have been inept on purpose. I have some trouble believing the DNC IT would considering the general environment back then.

So it followed concerning these point that S. Henry, when pressed for what the circumstantial evidence was for 70Gb to have been exfiltrated, S. Henry said "And there might not be evidence of it being exfiltrated, but they would have knowledge of what was in the email. … There would be ways to copy it. You could take screenshots.".

I mean, c'mon man... "screenshots" ??? You basically got VNC but you "sceenshot" ??? Either Mr. Henry is a fool or takes his House Commitee for one - which the latter may very well be.

IMHO, either of us would have to look at the source code for X-Agent (available) or the Sea Daddy implant (no idea) to see if

1. not having logs of large transfers makes sense in this context, at least in its known variant and

2. are the Crowdstrike declarations coherent in that regard.

Until we do, we're kind of stuck to see whose stretching the argument between you and me.

---

On a related note, but not directly involving Crowdstrike, the Dutch cyberdefense org and the NSA seemingly did have such real-time evidence from 2015-2018.

As far as is publicly known, those particular intercepts weren't shared with the Mueller team, nor the House Commitee inquiry.

It would be interesting to know why if it was not on natsec "ways and means" grounds. If it wasn't, the FBI wouldn't have had to rely on Crowdstrike.

> games with meanings of words.

I don't believe I am.

The context I'm using in both my references above is what is understandable by the layman, not mixing technical "in-knowledge" and what said layman reading the NYT can understand :

- D.A. said to the NYT "the Russians would enter the network, “exfiltrate” documents of interest and stockpile them for intelligence purposes. Once they got into the D.N.C., they found the data valuable and decided to continue the operation". I understand "the operation" is refering to "phishing, exfiltrating, stockpiling".

- Later D.A. says to the commission "We did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC". That implies no traffic logs, at all.

But then, we're back, again, to the technical problem outlined earlier.

IMHO, a correct and honest wording to the NYT would have been "We have strong indications Russian hackers may have entered DNC servers, but nothing in logs we do have indicates they did anything with it.

[1] https://www.justice.gov/archives/sco/file/1373816/download

[2] https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/dutch-agencies-provide-... and https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2213767-dutch-intelligence-...

Re: Russian Invasion of Ukraine Is ‘Almost Certain,' Cyber Expert Says

#44

The biggest thing that puzzles me about this (and about many recent geopolitical events) is the elephant in the room. Nobody mentions it: The United Nations Why isn't this issue being discussed there, prominently? If it's not possible to even discuss the behavior of the 5 permanent Security Council members (5 of the most powerful countries in the world), then screw it! Let's just get rid of the UN entirely.

Because that's not what UN is. UN is not a world government. UN for all it's glory, is just a permanent place for countries to to talk to each other. Think of it as an expo/trade conference for governments that is always running. The issue here is that Russia doesn't seem to want to talk to anyone (except their demand for 1on1 with USA), and can veto anything on the security council, so UN has little role to play. >…

> Unless we get some kind of global government that has it's own teeth (army/police) this wont change.

Having been a part of a UN “peace-keeping” military force, under UN command authority, I find this part — and your whole comment odd.

Post reply on HN