4 ms·

Spy Agency Consensus Grows That Russia Hacked D.N.C

31 points by tlrobinson 10y ago

my_first_acct 10y ago
Excerpt from the article: The Crowdstrike report ... concludes that the Federal Security Service, known as the F.S.B., entered the committee’s networks last summer. The G.R.U., a competing, military intelligence unit, was a later arrival. Investigators believe it is the G.R.U. that has played a bigger role in releasing the emails. (end of quote) One has to wonder: who else was wandering through the DNC's computers?
- fleitz 10y ago
  The emails only confirm what everyone already knew. It was like Snowden, a shock only to those who weren't paying attention.
- DefaultUserHN 10y ago
  >One has to wonder: who else was wandering through the DNC's computers? China. Saudi Arabia. Turkey. North Korea.
client4 10y ago
Stop with the Hillary spam.
- Analemma_ 10y ago
  Yes, every single person reporting news you find inconvenient is a Hillary shill.
deftnerd 10y ago
I can easily imagine that state hackers in Russia would want to penetrate the DNC. It's full of great political information on one of their rivals. Releasing it? I'm not sure if that is traditional spy craft. Julian Assange has hinted that the WikiLeaks dump was originally sourced from an insider. It's not impossible that BOTH narratives are true. Conspiracy theories: I'm not entirely convinced that it was Russia. They point to an IP address that is a proxy server in Russia. If it was Russia, wouldn't they put the proxy server in another jurisdiction to throw people off the trail?
- krapp 10y ago
  > If it was Russia, wouldn't they put the proxy server in another jurisdiction to throw people off the trail? Maybe. Or maybe they don't care, because they expect a Trump administration would be lenient on them for some reason.
- wallace_f 10y ago
  What other evidence was there besides the IP address of the proxy in Russia? The NYTimes articles provides sources but no actual evidence in their articule.
- planck01 10y ago
  > Releasing it? Why not. Governments hack each other to get an edge. Sometimes to just know what is going on, sometimes for silent diplomatic 'cheating'. And if they think they would benefit, I am quite sure its not above Putin to release it for propaganda reasons.
wallace_f 10y ago
>But intelligence officials have cautioned that they are uncertain whether the electronic break-in at the committee’s computer systems was intended as fairly routine cyberespionage — of the kind the United States also conducts around the world — or as part of an effort to manipulate the 2016 presidential election. Does this bother anyone else? I appreciate that the NYTimes is willing to print an admission that the US also plays rough in cyberspace, but only probably because public awareness of this already exists. It appears as an attempt to setup the possibility that this hack was not "fairly routine cyberespionage which the US also does" which is apparently OK, according to the NYTimes, but as possibly some other type of malicious hacking. So what they're saying is: Nation state hacking is OK, as long as it abides by some untold, arbitrary guidelines, but we're not sure yet as journalists yet how to spin this any further.

31 points by tlrobinson 10y ago

Excerpt from the article: The Crowdstrike report ... concludes that the Federal Security Service, known as the F.S.B., entered the committee’s networks last summer. The G.R.U., a competing, military intelligence unit, was a later arrival. Investigators believe it is the G.R.U. that has played a bigger role in releasing the emails. (end of quote) One has to wonder: who else was wandering through the DNC's computers?

fleitz 10y ago
The emails only confirm what everyone already knew. It was like Snowden, a shock only to those who weren't paying attention.
DefaultUserHN 10y ago
>One has to wonder: who else was wandering through the DNC's computers? China. Saudi Arabia. Turkey. North Korea.

client4 10y ago

Stop with the Hillary spam.

Analemma_ 10y ago
Yes, every single person reporting news you find inconvenient is a Hillary shill.

deftnerd 10y ago

I can easily imagine that state hackers in Russia would want to penetrate the DNC. It's full of great political information on one of their rivals. Releasing it? I'm not sure if that is traditional spy craft. Julian Assange has hinted that the WikiLeaks dump was originally sourced from an insider. It's not impossible that BOTH narratives are true. Conspiracy theories: I'm not entirely convinced that it was Russia. They point to an IP address that is a proxy server in Russia. If it was Russia, wouldn't they put the proxy server in another jurisdiction to throw people off the trail?

krapp 10y ago
> If it was Russia, wouldn't they put the proxy server in another jurisdiction to throw people off the trail? Maybe. Or maybe they don't care, because they expect a Trump administration would be lenient on them for some reason.
wallace_f 10y ago
What other evidence was there besides the IP address of the proxy in Russia? The NYTimes articles provides sources but no actual evidence in their articule.
planck01 10y ago
> Releasing it? Why not. Governments hack each other to get an edge. Sometimes to just know what is going on, sometimes for silent diplomatic 'cheating'. And if they think they would benefit, I am quite sure its not above Putin to release it for propaganda reasons.

wallace_f 10y ago

>But intelligence officials have cautioned that they are uncertain whether the electronic break-in at the committee’s computer systems was intended as fairly routine cyberespionage — of the kind the United States also conducts around the world — or as part of an effort to manipulate the 2016 presidential election. Does this bother anyone else? I appreciate that the NYTimes is willing to print an admission that the US also plays rough in cyberspace, but only probably because public awareness of this already exists. It appears as an attempt to setup the possibility that this hack was not "fairly routine cyberespionage which the US also does" which is apparently OK, according to the NYTimes, but as possibly some other type of malicious hacking. So what they're saying is: Nation state hacking is OK, as long as it abides by some untold, arbitrary guidelines, but we're not sure yet as journalists yet how to spin this any further.