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

361–370 of 502 posts

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#361

Post by mundo »

mistermann wrote: post #321
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…

> b) ??? How about the FBI/CIA/DHS/NSA don't like people who don't play by the accepted rules sticking their nose into their business, so they tell a little white lie to try to avoid that? The three letter agencies have had plenty of people killed before, so "they'd never do that" isn't going to get you very far.

Think this through. Multiple people in the FBI, CIA, DHS, and NSA all decided this? Together? Did they have meetings? And no one is spilling the beans, even though there are maybe dozens or hundreds of people in on it? Not one of them has more to gain by revealing the conspiracy than by keeping silent? And they're all so confident that no one will squeal that they're having press releases now? And the point of this whole treasonous conspiracy was to cause a minor inconvenience for their soon-to-be boss?

That's more believable than "Russia hacked the DNC and the FBI was honest about it"?

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#362

Post by x0x0 »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #190
x0x0 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This report merely points the finger at Russia; it does not purport to substantiate that allegation. Previous JARs have not attributed malicious cyber activity to specific countries or threat actors. However, public attribution of these activities to RIS is supported by technical indicators from the U.S. Intelligence Community, DHS, FBI, the private sector, and other entities. The report then discusses when the attac…

>This report merely points the finger at Russia; it does not purport to substantiate that allegation. That's the point, its just another completely baseless, unsubstantiated accusation. This report contains nothing that suggests that the Russians were any more likely to be the source of the hack then countless other entities. The problem is that these baseless claims are being presented as evidence and being consumed…

This report doesn't claim to substantiate those allegations. It merely repeats them.

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#363

Post by mundo »

rieter wrote: post #315
mundo wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Do the intelligence agencies actually agree on this as unanimously as you're saying? Here's a quote from the testimony of James Clapper on Russia/Wikileaks connection: "The evidence there is not strong" https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4631568/clapper-wikileaks-con...

That was from a month and a half ago. It seems more likely that he's changed his mind or seen new information than that the DHS and FBI are putting out joint press releases that contradict the beliefs of the DNI, but who knows, maybe the DHS/FBI leadership is involved in some kind of squabble with Clapper or something....?

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#364

Post by mSparks »

makomk wrote: post #240
koube wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Belief in this will likely depend on who someone trusts more, spokespersons for the RNC, or the New York Times and the Washington Post.

From the New York Times article: "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." From the WaPo: "U.S. officials said the Republican National Committee’s computer systems were also probed and possibly penetrated by hackers tied to Russian intelligence service…

My other post is flagged and downvoted by well, yeah, I'll keep it civil despite them.

But the point was, The russian hacker forums are orders of magnitude better than anything offered in English, and virtually every single one has made no secret (other than you need to read Russian) that they were working hard all year to get Trump "elected". From spreading rumours, distributing any dirt they could elicit, to boots on the ground playing with the voting machines. There was even talk of cash incentives from George Soros and Peter Thiel.

WaPo and NYT undoubtably have journalists that both read Russian and Frequent such forums. But it will be a while before they get the courage to go public with just how much US infrastructure is now completely pwned by the Ruskies. RNC and DNC only made headlines because some of the haul got sent to wikileaks aka FVEY.

My personal opinion is "America" deserves it for all the effort they put into making systems insecure.

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#365

Post by xapata »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #190
x0x0 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This report merely points the finger at Russia; it does not purport to substantiate that allegation. Previous JARs have not attributed malicious cyber activity to specific countries or threat actors. However, public attribution of these activities to RIS is supported by technical indicators from the U.S. Intelligence Community, DHS, FBI, the private sector, and other entities. The report then discusses when the attac…

>This report merely points the finger at Russia; it does not purport to substantiate that allegation. That's the point, its just another completely baseless, unsubstantiated accusation. This report contains nothing that suggests that the Russians were any more likely to be the source of the hack then countless other entities. The problem is that these baseless claims are being presented as evidence and being consumed…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

Are you trying to live up to the username or using it ironically?

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#366

Post by sroerick »

mundo wrote: post #298
CountSessine wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that this is a sort of exclusion of the middle; you say " here's the alternative theory ", but there are other even more likely possibilities. Here's one: 1. The DNC and their members are generally ignorant of good security policy and had an easily hacked system. 2. Some Russian intelligence agency hacked the DNC's email servers. 3. A bunch of other people/hackers/groups hacked the DNC's email servers, as it w…

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…

Could you please link to these press releases?

It's been very difficult for me to wade through the muck on this one.

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#367

Post by mundo »

mistermann wrote: post #329
rogerthis wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the 1 hypothesis were true, then the conspirator would be betting there will be no "incoming administration", not very soon, i'd say. If the 2 were true, there would be also some conspiration to keep those important infomations classified. Also, I can't help thinking about Snowden and the blown whistle of the NSA spying scheme.

Snowden is a powerful trump card for dismissive claims like "massive conspiracy in which the leaders of practically the entirety of the US military/intelligence community are willing to go on record with a hoax" thaat used to work so well. We know our security agencies (and high level politicians) are not just dishonest, but actively violating the constitution. That people still mock those who distrust these agencies…

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 need something. Some evidence, a credible motive, a plausible story. You can't just say, "Well the FBI says so, and they lie all the time, so we can be sure it isn't so." That's the road that leads to disbelieving the moon landing.

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#368

Post by mundo »

sroerick wrote: post #366
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…

Could you please link to these press releases? It's been very difficult for me to wade through the muck on this one.

I'm referring to parent of this whole thread, which (briefly) is a press release that says, "Here are some ways you can protect yourself from the kind of attack the Russians did on the DNC" and then goes on to describe spear-phishing.

The reason this is unusual is because the intelligence agencies are being so matter-of-fact about this. They're not trying to convince anyone, like they did with Iraq's WMDs. They're not giving out pointed leaks and then officially denying them. They - meaning multiple agencies - are jut saying, "Yeah, it was Russia", as if it's a settled issue.

The conclusion I draw from this is that there must be very strong evidence. Could that evidence be forged? Sure! (Another reason why the "show me the evidence or I won't believe it!" people sound nutso - why would they think it wasn't forged?) But to believe it's forged we need at least a plausible theory as to who would forge it and why. Right now, I'm drawing a blank.

Re: Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

#370

Post by epmaybe »

travmatt wrote: post #348
praxulus wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there's absolutely no evidence that it was rigged? Just because the DNC preferred the lifelong Democrat to the lifelong independent (who could have guessed that?) doesn't mean they couldn't still have operated a fair primary.

But your facts and reasoning regretfully interrupts the circle jerk of the Bernie bros who are convinced their democratic socialist was on the brink of revolutionizing the American political system and finally delivering us to a Denmarkian utopia. Never mind the fact that Sanders was treated much more gently by the Clinton campaign than Obama was in '08, the only salient fact is that minority voters should have yield…

I'm confused by the last sentence. Are you suggesting that more minority voters went for Sanders over Clinton in the primaries? I had thought the exact opposite.
Post reply on HN