What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

DNC Leaks...official thread (1 Viewer)

Sand said:
So the joint report that was issued as the smoking gun has been found to be devoid of any proof that the Russians were responsible for hacking.  

Looks like the petty revenge tour (Putin, Netenyahu, western state Republicans) continues.
Click to expand...
Sh!tty JAR report that doesn't offer new proof isn't the same as *any* proof. Again they regurgitated reports from the private sector that strongly suggest Russian involvement: From the Guardian:

The government report follows several from the private sector, notably a lengthy section in a Microsoft report from 2015 on a hacking team referred to as “advanced persistent threat 28” (APT 28), which the company’s internal nomenclature calls Strontium and others have called Fancy Bear. Also mentioned in the government document is another group called APT 29 or Cozy Bear.

Before the government report, other security researchers tracked “the bears” to breaches including the summer 2016 attack on the World Anti-Doping Agency, apparently an act of revenge against whistleblowing Russian athlete Yuliya Stepanova. Other attacks attributed to the same set of apparently Russian actors include an attack on Georgian elections in 2008, the hack of French news channel TV5Monde, and a Twitter account and blog supposedly operated by a hacker calling himself Guccifer 2.0 but more likely an instrument of Fancy Bear.

The Microsoft report contains a history of the groups’ operation; a report by security analysts ThreatConnect describes the team’s modus operandi; and competing firm CrowdStrike detailed the attack on the Democratic National Committee shortly before subsequent breaches of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign were discovered.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxThreshold said:
Wow. So will this stop the hyper-ventilating and high drama currently going on in the forums on how Putin is going to take over the US?
Click to expand...
Putin does not want to take over the US - who would?  We are a miserable lot collectively.  The cynic in me thinks Russia would like to see us struggle financially - as they did following the Cold War  

Also, Putin would not mind seeing a reversal of fortunes when it comes to world influence. I expect Putin to continue to exercise greater influence over Eastern Europe, and the Middle East. I expect Trump to walk back any checks and balances in either region - declaring it is not in our best interests. 

 
Sinn Fein said:
Putin does not want to take over the US - who would?  We are a miserable lot collectively.  The cynic in me thinks Russia would like to see us struggle financially - as they did following the Cold War  
Click to expand...
Right now the opposite is true.  Russia is well overextended running 2 wars.  We'll see how long they can keep this up.

 
There still seems to be some conflation of/confusion about Clinton's server and the "alleged" Russian hacks on the DNC. They aren't the same issue. The former has nothing to do with the latter.

Also not sure if I understand the rationale of, if the US got hacked, it is the fault of the US on the security end, not the hackers. If a country assassinates a leader from another country in part due to poor security, just blame it 100% completely on the poor security and not the country that conducted the assassination? That doesn't make a lot of sense.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand said:
So the joint report that was issued as the smoking gun has been found to be devoid of any proof that the Russians were responsible for hacking.  

Looks like the petty revenge tour (Putin, Netenyahu, western state Republicans) continues.
Click to expand...
Ars Technica is a good site and a great example of the kind of thing people should be posting to instead of just dreaming what they wish the facts were.

A couple things to point out:

"It is my opinion and speculation that there were some really good government analysts and operators contributing to this data and then report reviews, leadership approval processes, and sanitation processes stripped out most of the value and left behind a very confusing report trying to cover too much while saying too little."
Click to expand...


The intelligence community has found itself in this position before, including in attributing a highly destructive attack on Sony Pictures Entertainment in 2014 to North Korea. In fairness, the reticence in both cases is likely justified by the interest in protecting sources and methods used to detect such attacks. And as Lee was quick to note, strong technical evidence is likely to be included in reports to Congress that later may be declassified.
Click to expand...
- It was said when the report was released that this would be a likely criticism, that the most important details forming 'proof' were not included because they were classified.

I do think the report as issued was worthwhile, perhaps most importantly because it is a statement by the IC (FBI, DNI & CIA) that they jointly support the administration's conclusions.

 
Bob Magaw said:
There still seems to be some conflation of/confusion about Clinton's server and the "alleged" Russian hacks on the DNC. They aren't the same issue. The former has nothing to do with the latter.

Also not sure if I understand the rationale of, if the US got hacked, it is the fault of the US on the security end, not the hackers. If a country assassinates a leader from another country in part due to poor security, just blame it 100% completely on the poor security and not the country that conducted the assassination? That doesn't make a lot of sense.  
Click to expand...
It's the mental gymnastics one must go thru really

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I do think the report as issued was worthwhile, perhaps most importantly because it is a statement by the IC (FBI, DNI & CIA) that they jointly support the administration's conclusions.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear on this, I think it was the administration's conclusion BECAUSE it was what the FBI, DHS, CIA, etc found.  It's not as if the administration lead this effort.  Obama was listening to his intelligence agencies, as a president should, and went with their conclusions.

 
adonis said:
Just to be clear on this, I think it was the administration's conclusion BECAUSE it was what the FBI, DHS, CIA, etc found.  It's not as if the administration lead this effort.  Obama was listening to his intelligence agencies, as a president should, and went with their conclusions.
Click to expand...
It's an important point, I agree.

 
Sand said:
So the joint report that was issued as the smoking gun has been found to be devoid of any proof that the Russians were responsible for hacking.  

Looks like the petty revenge tour (Putin, Netenyahu, western state Republicans) continues.
Click to expand...
:lmao:

So what do we do now, try the recount thing again?

 
Bob Magaw said:
if the US got hacked, it is the fault of the US on the security end, not the hackers. If a country assassinates a leader from another country in part due to poor security, just blame it 100% completely on the poor security and not the country that conducted the assassination?
Click to expand...
She had it coming!

 
Quez said:
Another story about the Non-evidence that got released,

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/02/the-us-has-yet-to-provide-evidence-russia-directed-a-hacking-operation-to-undermine-election/?utm_campaign=atdailycaller&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social

This is what I have been saying since the conspiracy theory began,

cybersecurity expert Jeffrey Carr has said that “it’s almost impossible to confirm attribution in cyberspace.”
Click to expand...
@Quez I'm going to reply to this here because the 'Russian' thread is getting a little crowded with side issues.

A few things about Carr's statement:

- it was from July, which was when the earliest reports of RIS involvement in the DNC hacks were raised.

I'm guessing I posted here some of the same links he has in his blog post.

- A good deal of what Carr was saying, if not the entirety, was based not on the assumption that no one can trace cyber attacks - which after all is the basis of Carr's way of life - but rather that the Russians would not have been so obvious about it.

IMO I don't think it's a given conclusion that the Russians wanted to conceal the derivation of the attacks.

- The Russians have been after Cold War 2.0 for a couple years now.

- And part of their motivation has been (IMO) to rebuke Obama for trying to marginalize them on teh world stage, dating at least to his debate with Romney in 2012 but possibly even back to his criticisms of George Bush in 2008-09.

At any rate, here is one good summary of why and how they would be yes just that obvious:

Russia Wanted to be Caught, Says Company Waging War on the DNC Hackers


...

Case in point: a July 2015 incident in which a security firm published a blog post about how APT 28 was using a specific zero-day exploit. The group updated the hack the next day, as FireEye focused reporting team manager Kristen Dennesen told the RSA conference this year.

Porter thinks that’s one piece of evidence that both groups have state sponsorship. You need more than than coding chops to pull off a stunt like that; it helps to have an international intelligence collection network you can work with.

“If these state-backed actors have professional military or intelligence operators overseeing the operation, any change you can make, they’re going to try and find a counter to that,” he said. “They seem to know that certain white papers are going to be public and they make the changes the day before they come out. We’ve seen evidence that they’ve known in advance that someone is going to reveal that they were going to be discovered and they make changes so that they continue uninterrupted.”

Over the past week, U.S. intelligence community officials have said that they have “high confidence” that the Russian government was behind the theft of emails from the DNC. That’s an unusually bold statement for the IC to make about a data breach that’s currently moving the news cycle. By contrast, the intelligence community still hasn’t made a formal declaration of attribution about the OPM hack. Months after the intrusion was revealed, Clapper acknowledged only that China was the “leading suspect.”

Porter believes that part of the reason that the IC and multiple cyber security researchers were able to implicate Russia is that Russia was showing off. Consider that on June 15, one day after Crowdstrike fingered APT 28 and APT 29, a figure named Guccifer 2.0 claimed to have done the hack, alone. But Twitter users quickly found metadata in Guccifer 2.0’s files that undermined that claim. The docs contained a tag reading “Феликс Эдмундович,” a reference to to the founder of the Soviet Secret Police.

But security expert Jeff Carr thought the smoke off this smoking-gun was a bit too thick. In his minority report, he asks: what kind of spy ring tags their stolen docs before releasing them under a cover?

“Raise your hand if you think that a GRU or FSB officer would add Iron Felix’s name to the metadata of a stolen document before he released it to the world while pretending to be a Romanian hacker. Someone clearly had a wicked sense of humor,” he wrote.

You’ll Never Get 100% Certainty in Cyberwar

This shows the effectiveness of information warfare at this moment in history: a malware attack is fundamentally different from a missile strike that can be seen from space and immediately attributed to a party, a unit, a fixed position on earth, and a piece of machinery (if not an individual operator). One hundred percent certainty in any information attack will always be next to impossible, and that makes it hard to shape policy, legislation, or retribution.

“For U.S. policy makers and a lot of private-sector companies, they tend to be dismissive. They say, ‘Oh, we had a thousand spearphish attacks today.’ The fact that there’s such a huge background noise level in fairly sophisticated cyber crime across so many targets around the world, it allows APT groups to blend in if they want to,” Porter said. “It’s death by a thousand cuts from the perspective of U.S. policy. Any individual cyber criminal act is not a national security concern, but taken in the aggregate, having a high level of cyber crime in general should be a very high-level concern.”

That plays into Russia’s hands. State actors can use headlines about persistent criminal cyber threats to make geopolitical activity look merely criminal.

“If you were to reduce the very high level of cybercrime, states wouldn’t be able to carry out these attacks. They would lose this plausible deniability and it would become a more straightforward attack. I think they want to make it difficult for leaders to have the kind of unambiguous statement that drives policy in a democracy,” Porter said. “They want to make it hard to respond. But they probably don’t mind getting caught, in the sense that they want to send a message.”

Crowdstrike president Shawn Henry is dubious. “I don’t know what kind of foreign intelligence service conducting a covert operation wants to be found,” he said on Thursday, but added that CrowdStrike picked up the DNC hack within 48 hours and that it “wasn’t difficult.”

If you buy Porter’s theory, the question becomes: what kind of message could the Russians mean to send? The FireEye employee guesses that these sorts of breaches are likely a demonstration of capability, or perhaps a reprisal against the West for sanctions against Russian leaders. It’s an idea that he’s sharing with his private-sector customers.

“I view their activities as, they want to muddy the political response in democracies by making it seem like a complicated and ambiguous issue,” Porter said. If they’re willing to do A, B, and C then you need to understand that it’s not difficult for them to target an individual. That’s what cyber gives them. From Russia, they can pick an individual that they want to bully, using the full resources of a state organization. And that’s unprecedented. So if they decide that they want to pick on a certain corporate executive, maybe they could do a particular, hacktivist style leak. Activists go after companies all the time…it’s hard for a the company to prove that their loss was caused by a state and not by a criminal. So the policy is still complicated. That’s a nice place to be in if you’re Russia.”...
Click to expand...
http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/07/Russia-wanted-to-be-caught/130312/

- So Russia here gets to whack the US 4X:

  • The actual hack and disinformation leak/dox campaign.
  • They send a message to Obama, the US and others that they can reach into the US system and thus are relevant and global, while also reprising for sanctions.
  • They cause political dissension in the US.
  • They separate Trump from his intelligence and political apparatus.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wonder if the Russians decided to not release the RNC files because they have plans like:

Make first act of new Republican-led congress be to strip independent ethics oversight on a holiday-night vote with no advance notice

and they figured it was so ridiculous everyone would assume the leaks were fakes?

 
Ha. On TV, NBC covers Hillary speaking at the Irish Society of Women yesterday but nothing about this. What do they gain by ignoring it? It confirms they're all a bunch of hacks?

 
avoiding injuries said:
It's quoted in the article, but I remember how adamant she was in her denial to Megyn Kelly. I wonder how much press this will get? 
Click to expand...
Can you imagine if Trump had gotten questions ahead of time?  Rachel Maddow would be calling for impeachment.  Hillary cheats, and it's ok as long as it was to beat the evil Donald Trump. 

 
However it was always ludicrous that CNN or ABC had this woman on as a pundit. Absolutely journalistically inappropriate to have a party official on as some sort of independent opiner as opposed to being presented as a guest or not having an equivalent RNC member on the other side.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Quez said:
Can you imagine if Trump had gotten questions ahead of time?  Rachel Maddow would be calling for impeachment.  Hillary cheats, and it's ok as long as it was to beat the evil Donald Trump. 
Click to expand...
Didn't Trump get a question in the Fox debate ahead of time? 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
OP/ED: GEKKO WAS WRONG, 2016 POTUS Results Were Clearly Not The Product Of A "Free And Fair" Election (10/6/22 02:43 PST)
Replies
9
Views
468
The Dude
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top