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

331–340 of 502 posts

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#331

Post by LargeCompanies »

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…

oh shocker it shows her public image to be true.

Trump's tape on the bus was more of a bombshell yet she couldn't even beat him nationally. The DNC chose and did everything in their power to back a dog as a candidate vs. begging someone classy and likeable such as Biden to run. Obama if he could have ran a third term would have won and we wouldnt have this embarrassing ego maniac for our next president.

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#332

Post by ericlavigne »

c4mden wrote: post #310
leesalminen wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source?

“We now have high confidence that they hacked the D.N.C. and the R.N.C., and conspicuously released no documents” from the Republican organization, one senior administration official said, referring to the Russians. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-h...

The article is very unclear. Here's another quote in the same article that says the hacks against the RNC failed. The NY Times is basically telling us that they received conflicting reports from different anonymous and similarly credible sources.

"One senior government official, who had been briefed on an F.B.I. investigation into the matter, said that while there were attempts to penetrate the Republican committee’s systems, they were not successful."

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#333

Post by elif »

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…

The problem with relying upon motive and established MO exclusively is that anyone is therefore capable of framing whomever they like.

This is the next generation of warfare, attribution is simply impossible. Even if there existed actual forensic evidence it could not be relied upon.

Reacting to purported attacks at face value will leave you like a 1-layer chess player, potentially acting on behalf of your adversary.

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#334

Post by mistermann »

coldcode wrote: post #148

Jeez people, read the report, it isn't any kind of justification of anything, its just a fairly generic don't do this, like I see 100 times a week at work. The real details were likely shown to congress and the senate (or at least a portion of it). Those are the only people who can say if the actual attack was real or imagined. Do you think the British and Americans were going to publish stories about Enigma back in…

> While we technical folks would love to see all the details that's not how intelligence works. Some things have to be secret even though these days everything becomes a conspiracy and a political controversy and a tweet storm.

That's perfectly fair, so why can't they say "The Russians did it but we can't say why we know."? Instead we get "The Russians did it." and "Here is some evidence of the attack." This way, they are not directly saying it is evidence of the Russian attack, they just leave people to form that conclusion themselves. Pardon me if I'm a little suspicious at the "accidentally" confusing communication.

> That said I doubt anyone in either party committee had any idea how security works; even worse is that much of the US government is (and will be) lead by political benefactors with an axe to grind and not people with a real clue about modern security either so expect nothing much different in the future until someone hacks the nuclear "football".

Or the media. And yet, they know, with absolute certainty, despite no evidence or knowledge in the field, that the Russians are responsible for the attack.

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#335

Post by ethbro »

CountSessine wrote: post #271
ethbro wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, why burn zero-days when you're targeting a technologically unsophisticated adversary with a huge organizational attack surface? Sure, HDD firmware hacks are cool, but in terms of R&D time far less efficient if you're willing to spam attempts to get in the front door. And I'd say they chose the appropriate level of sophistication given the success of the penetration. The DNC isn't exactly an air-gapped Irania…

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…

It's not evidence of a state sponsored actor. But it's also not evidence against a state sponsored actor.

Given that it's neutral, you can look at outcomes. Trump wins the election.

That was probably best for Russia, Israel, or China. It very well could have been a random hack. But the release seems to have been politically timed and motivated (though someone could absolutely have just bought the data) which would suggest looking closely at those with something to gain for involvement.

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#336

Post by cmdrfred »

empath75 wrote: post #328
billions wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until a Russian name or IP address is provided, the accusations fail to hold water. An incomplete proof is equivalent to "'cause we said so"

Spoofing ips is absurdly easy.

I agree that IP addresses aren't good evidence but it isn't really possible to spoof TCP in practice.

http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/55279/how-easy-i...

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#337

Post by ww520 »

mundo wrote: post #252
ww520 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purpose of these "reports" and the retaliation against the Russians is to undermine the legitimacy of the Trump presidency. There's no need for proof, just innuendo and allegation would do. Pretty sick of technology got dragged through the mud for political purpose.

This is the least plausible conspiracy theory I've ever heard. C'mon man. Imagine you're whoever-it-is you think is behind this, and you want to discredit Trump for whatever reason. What would you do? You've got access to all of his tax returns, and all the sealed details of his divorces, and all of his medical records, and all of his business records. You've got a whole squad of spies working for you, you can fabric…

All those you mentioned don't interfere with the election process. The last couple weeks all I have heard were Russians rigging the election process to help elect Trump, i.e. the election result is not what is should be, i.e. Trump's presidency is not completely legitimate.

It has been couple weeks of non-stopped Russian blaming from the news. So far there's not much direct evidence beyond a unnamed CIA source. Now this lackbuster report and Obama expelling Russians happen on the same day. It really smacks an orchestrated political propaganda campaign.

Mind you I am not a blue dog Republican. I've voted 16 years straight for Democratic tickets including twice for Obama. Democratic Party has been a real disappointment this year, and Obama making this last partisan political act really tarnishes his legacy.

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#338

Post by necessity »

billjings wrote: post #60
sschueller wrote: post #26

The Sony hack had more evidence than this... Someone explain to me why this is such an issue? There have been many proven hacks from many states that are far worse (the Chinese Fighter plane that looks almost identical to the F35 come to mind) than exposing the DNC's dirty laundry. No one is denying that the emails are real. This seems like some sort of distraction.

The Chinese Fighter plane probably was a bigger deal on the merits. I don't know how seriously our national security apparatus takes that versus this attack. As an attack, though, it didn't rise to a major domestic political issue because there just isn't anything up for debate. It happened, it's clearly bad — where was our response lacking? Maybe it was lacking, but apparently our two parties don't disagree enough t…

>If both parties agreed that it's wrong for foreign governments to hack the DNC's

1. There is no proof that this happened

2. Who said they did not agree?

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#340

Post by cloakandswagger »

ethbro wrote: post #335
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…

It's not evidence of a state sponsored actor. But it's also not evidence against a state sponsored actor. Given that it's neutral, you can look at outcomes. Trump wins the election. That was probably best for Russia, Israel, or China. It very well could have been a random hack. But the release seems to have been politically timed and motivated (though someone could absolutely have just bought the data) which would su…

I'd prefer something a bit sturdier than circumstantial evidence if we're going to accuse a nuclear superpower of cyber warfare.
Post reply on HN