Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

Post by mistermann » Fri, Dec 30, 2016, 7:31 AM UTC

mundo wrote: post #361

mistermann wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 w…

Post by zo1 » Fri, Dec 30, 2016, 8:30 AM UTC

empath75 wrote: post #217

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "evidence" boils down to: The Hackers drove a truck. Russians drive trucks. The Russians did the hacking. While its insulting that our government would try to pass off this drivel as "evidence", I'm much more dismayed that so many of my fellow Americans will uncritically accept it as such.

The actual evidence is probably closer to 'we have moles in the kremlin and taps on their phones' but they're not exactly going to publish that are they.

Post by AlexCoventry » Fri, Dec 30, 2016, 8:38 AM UTC

vladimirralev wrote: post #301

EthanHeilman wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is more like: 1. Hackers drove a custom built tank that has Moscow factory markings. 2. Similar versions of the tank were used in other campaigns attributed to Russian intelligence. 3. Crew in the tank has been associated with Russian intelligence operations going back ten years. 4. The tank left from a building known to be associated with Russian intelligence hacking campaign. Thus, the hackers probably take orde…

You should mention that the tank with the crew they have inside is publicly available to anybody in the malware archives of APT28/29. Anybody can plant it. Also both the powershell and the py2exe are completely reversible so you can take it, modify it and who's creation is that now? If there is kernel-level stuff then it would be a more solid case but not by much. On top of that, it's entirely possible other complete…

Post by peter_retief » Fri, Dec 30, 2016, 9:57 AM UTC

Abishek_Muthian wrote: post #294

"At least one targeted individual activated links to malware hosted on operational infrastructure of opened attachments containing malware" - I pity that individual, like I'm sure he's getting blamed in the party like 'Hey, aren't you the piece of work who clicked a link'

Post by marxmarv » Fri, Dec 30, 2016, 10:33 AM UTC

md_ wrote: post #317

CountSessine wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point 7 is the one you're supposed to be trying to explain Except that point 7 isn't at all controversial. EVERYONE hacks EVERYONE ELSE in cyber-espionage; even Canada was probably hacking the lame-ass security DNC email server, if only to fill a dossier. Remember that Clinton was set to be the next president of the United States; it is very much in Russia's (and anyone else's) best interest to know as much about her…

Er, the parent was replying to a poster who implied he did not believe "point 7." >Frankly, I find the suggestion that telling voters more about their candidate constitutes 'interference' to be repugnant Really? By this argument, I take it you believe political candidates' email (or cough tax returns) should automatically be made public? Much as I agree with transparency, I think we need to recognize that everyone--i…