3 ms·

The "Democrats hacked themselves" is not a very good theory. I can't fathom what they would have to gain from it and, regardless, I'm certain the Clinton campai

by eli 10y ago

The "Democrats hacked themselves" is not a very good theory. I can't fathom what they would have to gain from it and, regardless, I'm certain the Clinton campaign does not want to remind people how easy it is to hack private servers.

protomyth 10y ago
The theory[1] is that the DNC wants to release all the bad stuff they have on Trump but don't want to do it themselves[2]. Reminding people about how many corps have been hacked actually doesn't hurt Clinton's e-mail argument that much[3] and it gets a whole lot of juicy stuff out against a candidate that isn't really an expert at political maneuvers. When protestors can beat up your supporters, and its your fault, you really don't know what you are doing[4]. Throwing a little more hate in the media works. 1) which I am explaining, not advocating 2) It actually follows a The West Wing episode (without the hacking, just using the mail, same process - different parts) 3) polling shows people who believe she did something wrong weren't going to vote for her anyway 4) as we see Trump's personnel changes this week // my person got beat and I hate all of the above
- tptacek 10y ago
  Zero is the number of security people I know, including many who sincerely loathe HRC, who believe the DNC staged this. CrowdStrike's CEO (an acquaintance) is... uh... not exactly a Democratic partisan.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    I wasn't talking about security people (I would assume they would have actual information). I was just explaining the reason some believe it was an inside job. Its not entirely off the wall given some of the other, damn near psychotic things that have happened during political campaigns.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Sorry, yeah, I'm not trying to rebut you, just adding the color that: * People who follow this stuff uniformly don't believe the DNC staged it. * If you were crazy enough to stage a hack of the DNC, George Kurtz's company is probably not the one you'd pick to collaborate with. (Also: we're on opposite ends of the political spectrum, me and GK, but I would bet all the money I have against a claim that he'd done something shady here. CrowdStrike might be wrong about the Russian attribution, but they aren't making it all up.)
      - protomyth 10y ago
        [edit: didn't figure you were going for the rebut, but I reread mine and thought I needed to really clarify] On a side question, I know a lot of groups that have side channels where they discuss "inside baseball" type stuff away from non-insiders. Do security experts have a "hey did you hear about ...?" network or is it more of an I have other friends in the business type thing?
        tptacek 10y ago
        In this case, you could get pretty up-to-date on the zeitgeist of this stuff just by subscribing to DailyDave.
        protomyth 10y ago
        Thanks for the info, didn't really want to join, just wanted to know if security function like some other communities with sensitive information.

by eli 10y ago

protomyth 10y ago

The theory[1] is that the DNC wants to release all the bad stuff they have on Trump but don't want to do it themselves[2]. Reminding people about how many corps have been hacked actually doesn't hurt Clinton's e-mail argument that much[3] and it gets a whole lot of juicy stuff out against a candidate that isn't really an expert at political maneuvers. When protestors can beat up your supporters, and its your fault, you really don't know what you are doing[4]. Throwing a little more hate in the media works. 1) which I am explaining, not advocating 2) It actually follows a The West Wing episode (without the hacking, just using the mail, same process - different parts) 3) polling shows people who believe she did something wrong weren't going to vote for her anyway 4) as we see Trump's personnel changes this week // my person got beat and I hate all of the above

tptacek 10y ago
Zero is the number of security people I know, including many who sincerely loathe HRC, who believe the DNC staged this. CrowdStrike's CEO (an acquaintance) is... uh... not exactly a Democratic partisan.
- protomyth 10y ago
  I wasn't talking about security people (I would assume they would have actual information). I was just explaining the reason some believe it was an inside job. Its not entirely off the wall given some of the other, damn near psychotic things that have happened during political campaigns.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Sorry, yeah, I'm not trying to rebut you, just adding the color that: * People who follow this stuff uniformly don't believe the DNC staged it. * If you were crazy enough to stage a hack of the DNC, George Kurtz's company is probably not the one you'd pick to collaborate with. (Also: we're on opposite ends of the political spectrum, me and GK, but I would bet all the money I have against a claim that he'd done something shady here. CrowdStrike might be wrong about the Russian attribution, but they aren't making it all up.)
    - protomyth 10y ago
      [edit: didn't figure you were going for the rebut, but I reread mine and thought I needed to really clarify] On a side question, I know a lot of groups that have side channels where they discuss "inside baseball" type stuff away from non-insiders. Do security experts have a "hey did you hear about ...?" network or is it more of an I have other friends in the business type thing?
      - tptacek 10y ago
        In this case, you could get pretty up-to-date on the zeitgeist of this stuff just by subscribing to DailyDave.
        protomyth 10y ago
        Thanks for the info, didn't really want to join, just wanted to know if security function like some other communities with sensitive information.