8 ms·

Hacker Releases More Democratic Party Documents

71 points by thyrsus 10y ago

thyrsus 10y ago
Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut: “It’s hard for me to imagine how just having a bunch of numbers, cellphones and emails would in any way affect the election,” he said. “It wasn’t totally unexpected.” “Someone could cause a lot of damage if they were able to send emails out from a member’s account, but I’m not hearing that that’s a risk at this point.” Me: I have yet to see a cryptographically signed e-mail from a politician, and without that, spoofing such a message would be almost trivial. Do they keep their cybersecurity well hidden from the public?
- rbanffy 10y ago
  Securing a politician's computer is 30% infosec and 99.9% conditioning: deliver a painful shock when the politician tries to open Facebook from the same computer they do their emails, when they download an attachment from an unsigned email, etc...
  - unfunco 10y ago
    129.9% secure.
  - ThrowMeAway314 10y ago
    Or we could just replace out politicians with urandom
chvid 10y ago
Why does the actual source: https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/08/12/guccifer-2-0-hacked-dccc/ https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/08/12/guccifer-2-0-hack... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12279977 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12279977 get flag-killed immediately where as this somewhat colored article gets on the frontpage?
- gus_massa 10y ago
  It was killed by users flags. I didn't flag it, but my guess is that it was flagged because if you don't look to carefully it seams to be a rehash of the old leaks, or a crackpot site with fake documents. The nytimes.com articles have more credibility and are better written. In this cases you can vouch for the article to unkill it, and also email the mods hn@ycombinator.com. In some cases they remove the flags and reset the time counter of the article.
  - douche 10y ago
    Anything critical of Clinton tends to get downvoted and flagged to hell.
    - Lewton 10y ago
      Any politics usually get flagged and downvoted to hell.
- DyslexicAtheist 10y ago
  ... was wondering too. The screenshots in the NYT article look like "teaser-advertisements", while the actual sources are a big taboo. Keep in mind that Guccifer2 isn't a lone hacker as initially portrayed. Guccifer2 is a cover for APT-28/APT-29 (GRU). So if anything then this leak has to be considered for what it was: A foreign nation meddling in the elections of another. Current Russian meddling fits seamlessly into Russia's bigger doctrine on Cyber Defense Strategies [0][1][2][3][4] [0] https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ... [1] https://www.blackhat.com/docs/us-16/materials/us-16-Geers-Cyber-War-In-Perspective-Analysis-From-The-Crisis-In-Ukraine-wp.pdf https://www.blackhat.com/docs/us-16/materials/us-16-Geers-Cy... [2] https://blog.valbonne-consulting.com/2016/08/06/smartcitiess-cyber-security-role-and-ethical-challenges/ https://blog.valbonne-consulting.com/2016/08/06/smartcitiess... [3] http://www.naa.mil.lv/~/media/NAA/AZPC/Publikacijas/PP%2002-2014.ashx http://www.naa.mil.lv/~/media/NAA/AZPC/Publikacijas/PP%2002-... [4] http://www.ifri.org/en/publications/enotes/proliferation-papers/cross-domain-coercion-current-russian-art-strategy http://www.ifri.org/en/publications/enotes/proliferation-pap... PS: there is now also guccifer 3.0 :-) and I'm hitting reload like crazy https://guccifer3.wordpress.com/ https://guccifer3.wordpress.com/ EDIT: anyone interested in this subject also look for 'Gerasimov Doctrine' for a thrilling read.
upofadown 10y ago
This is the interesting part: >American intelligence officials said they are virtually certain that Russian intelligence officials were behind the attack. ... but there there isn't anything in the article to back it up. Why do these unnamed officials think this?
- fisherjeff 10y ago
  Motherboard has a great summary: https://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-signs-point-to-russia-being-behind-the-dnc-hack https://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-signs-point-to-russia-...
- jlgaddis 10y ago
  I'm guessing they have intelligence, likely captured via their global surveillance infrastructure, that points to them as the culprits... but they can't publicly admit to that, of course, due to "national security concerns". We're just supposed to trust them.
difftest 10y ago
Muh Russia... I to my girlfriend- how dare you cheat on me. You are texting Sam since a year. My gf to me: How dare you breach my trust by looking at my phone? This doesn't count.
- pbz 10y ago
  Yeah, let's talk about foreign intervention, Assange and his vendetta, how some private information was not censored, possible geopolitical implications, or how Trump may be implicated. Did I forget any other diversion tactic? The efficacy of such methods is worrisome; even smart people are unable to look behind these curtains.
- akhilcacharya 10y ago
  If you violate multiple laws in looking at this hypothetical person's phone, then yes, you're more in the wrong.
difftest 10y ago
I already commented but Ill say it again- Trump is a wild card who will likely do little for the country but little to the country and the world. Hillay will do a bit more for the country but much worse _to_ it. See my past comments for proof about literal oligarchy. She is already attacking the very backbone of internet- free speech by spending 6m per quarter hiring trolls
- givinguflac 10y ago
  Not saying I agree or disagree, but this really isn't the place for that type of discussion.
bertil 10y ago
I was surprised to see how WikiLeaks is not mentioned until late, as a passing mention in the context for the leaks. I’m not sure what having leakers not going through WikiLeaks means: do we have to trust them on leaking everything? Is Assange personality getting in the way of the leaks? Are people who think they are savvy enough to hide their trace trying to go direct? Why would they take that risk?
vermontdevil 10y ago
Maybe now Diane Feinstein will see the value of end to end encryption? Doubt it. She'll probably advocate that only for herself and her Senate colleagues.
- threeseed 10y ago
  Nobody disputes the value of end to end encryption. That's not the issue. The problem of encryption is that it changes the relationship between government and individual in a way that has never been seen before. If a person is suspected of committing a crime the police have always had the ability to intercept mail, record calls, search property etc and obtain evidence. They can't do that now. You can argue the pros/cons of this new world order. What you can't argue against is the natural inclination of many people to simply maintain the status quo.
  - whamlastxmas 10y ago
    They can intercept my encrypted emails just like they've always been able to intercept encrypted hand written letters.
    - berkeleynerd 10y ago
      This precisely.
  - michaelt 10y ago
    Well, technology has changed the status quo in two ways. The first is, as you say, previously you could intercept a suspect's mail and search their papers; with proper encryption that isn't possible. The second is in the past the search process wouldn't scale to searching every citizen all the time. With e-mail, web traffic and smartphones, it becomes possible. We can restore the status quo from 30 years ago for either one of those changes, but not for both.
  - meows 10y ago
    Police can still intercept communications, including mail, phone calls, etc., with classic investigative techniques like bugging a person's home. Then you can see all their passwords, all their emails, their off-line conversations, and so on. Bugging somebody probably reveals more information than security backdoors. The one big difference between bugging someone's home vs. encryption backdoor is one of scale, and I don't think citizens should so substantially yield their security so that the state can save money. I think the natural inclination of voters isn't relevant just yet because privacy and encryption are so far down the list of topics of national salience, or topics to organize voters, that it doesn't register on anyone's political radar. If encryption or security backdoors are mentioned on the national stage, it will be entirely as a subtopic of only terrorism.
ting_bu_dung 10y ago
So it looks like Trump might have solid ties with Russia, and through some connections might be triggering all the Russian hacking of only the democratic party. Doesn't bode well for American democracy when Russian dictator can sneak in a candidate for president. - Trump's manager, Paul Manafort, has done multimillion-dollar business deals with pro-Russian oligarchs and was a longtime adviser to the Russia-aligned Ukrainian president whose 2014 ouster triggered Russia’s intervention in Ukraine, a major source of tension between Russia and the United States as well as its NATO allies. - On the campaign trail, Trump has called for a new partnership with Moscow, overhauling NATO, the allied military force seen as the chief protector of pro-Western nations near Russia - Since the 1980s, Trump and his family members have made numerous trips to Moscow in search of business opportunities https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps-financial-ties-to-russia-and-his-unusual-flattery-of-vladimir-putin/2016/06/17/dbdcaac8-31a6-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps-financ...
- threeseed 10y ago
  I doubt that Trump or his campaign would be actively lobbying the Russian government. There is plenty of motivation elsewhere to do so. Russia would be a major loser given that Hillary would far more decisive and bold with her foreign policy decisions. Assange benefits because a Trump government would be more amenable to immunity negotiations. And Wikileaks benefits from all the publicity.
  - ting_bu_dung 10y ago
    Trump publically called on Russia to hack on Hillary http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-clinton-emails.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-trump-r...
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      I'm going to be honest here, I'm non-partisan and I agree with some of his comments here and so does this lawyer who specializes[0] in cases like this. If I had that data in my possession it would already be on wikileaks, the American people deserve to know what their leaders say when they don't think they are listening. Edit: People will down vote but not reply because they don't have a leg to stand on. It's not like Hillary is a privacy hawk[1], turnabout is fair play where I'm from. [0]https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/im-a-lawyer-specializing-in-security-clearance-cases-hillary-clinton-got-off-easy/2016/07/07/38b10f3c-4480-11e6-bc99-7d269f8719b1_story.html?utm_term=.7cdc66cf5ee5 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/im-a-lawyer-speciali... [1]http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/hillary-clinton-wants-manhattan-like-project-to-break-encryption/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/hillary-clinton-w...
meeper16 10y ago
This should read: "A hacker votes for Donald Trump"
mark_l_watson 10y ago
Is Wikileaks announcement that the recently murdered DNC staff member was the source of the leaks, not Russian hackers, credible? I don't know, and in anycase I consider the source of the leaks to be much less important than the contents of the leaks. When we watch a good magician, they entertain us by using misdirection. Unfortunately, when the deep state and the media they control use misdirection it is not fun or entertaining, it is about getting the population to go along with policies against the public's interests, against the interests of peace and prosperity, etc.
- spenvo 10y ago
  If you listen to Assange's interview, he says nothing of substance, just insinuates the connection.
ourmandave 10y ago
Another incremental release to keep it in the news cycle. Do they have anything career ending or prosecutable, or do "the Russians" just enjoy watching Hillary dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge?
ZoeZoeBee 10y ago
I posted the leak on here yesterday and yeah, it was flagged immediately. Hate to have to say it but when it comes to information critical of a certain candidate this place is an echo chamber, looks like 13 people have now submitted the site and it is no longer flagged. Still concerning about the overall censorship in regards to a topic this site should find interesting no matter your political views https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12279977 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12279977
- difftest 10y ago
  It's okay to discuss absolutely anything but not politics. But if you are discussing politics, you better discuss pro queen.

71 points by thyrsus 10y ago

Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut: “It’s hard for me to imagine how just having a bunch of numbers, cellphones and emails would in any way affect the election,” he said. “It wasn’t totally unexpected.” “Someone could cause a lot of damage if they were able to send emails out from a member’s account, but I’m not hearing that that’s a risk at this point.” Me: I have yet to see a cryptographically signed e-mail from a politician, and without that, spoofing such a message would be almost trivial. Do they keep their cybersecurity well hidden from the public?

rbanffy 10y ago
Securing a politician's computer is 30% infosec and 99.9% conditioning: deliver a painful shock when the politician tries to open Facebook from the same computer they do their emails, when they download an attachment from an unsigned email, etc...
- unfunco 10y ago
  129.9% secure.
- ThrowMeAway314 10y ago
  Or we could just replace out politicians with urandom

chvid 10y ago

Why does the actual source: https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/08/12/guccifer-2-0-hacked-dccc/ https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/08/12/guccifer-2-0-hack... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12279977 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12279977 get flag-killed immediately where as this somewhat colored article gets on the frontpage?

gus_massa 10y ago
It was killed by users flags. I didn't flag it, but my guess is that it was flagged because if you don't look to carefully it seams to be a rehash of the old leaks, or a crackpot site with fake documents. The nytimes.com articles have more credibility and are better written. In this cases you can vouch for the article to unkill it, and also email the mods hn@ycombinator.com. In some cases they remove the flags and reset the time counter of the article.
- douche 10y ago
  Anything critical of Clinton tends to get downvoted and flagged to hell.
  - Lewton 10y ago
    Any politics usually get flagged and downvoted to hell.
DyslexicAtheist 10y ago
... was wondering too. The screenshots in the NYT article look like "teaser-advertisements", while the actual sources are a big taboo. Keep in mind that Guccifer2 isn't a lone hacker as initially portrayed. Guccifer2 is a cover for APT-28/APT-29 (GRU). So if anything then this leak has to be considered for what it was: A foreign nation meddling in the elections of another. Current Russian meddling fits seamlessly into Russia's bigger doctrine on Cyber Defense Strategies [0][1][2][3][4] [0] https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ... [1] https://www.blackhat.com/docs/us-16/materials/us-16-Geers-Cyber-War-In-Perspective-Analysis-From-The-Crisis-In-Ukraine-wp.pdf https://www.blackhat.com/docs/us-16/materials/us-16-Geers-Cy... [2] https://blog.valbonne-consulting.com/2016/08/06/smartcitiess-cyber-security-role-and-ethical-challenges/ https://blog.valbonne-consulting.com/2016/08/06/smartcitiess... [3] http://www.naa.mil.lv/~/media/NAA/AZPC/Publikacijas/PP%2002-2014.ashx http://www.naa.mil.lv/~/media/NAA/AZPC/Publikacijas/PP%2002-... [4] http://www.ifri.org/en/publications/enotes/proliferation-papers/cross-domain-coercion-current-russian-art-strategy http://www.ifri.org/en/publications/enotes/proliferation-pap... PS: there is now also guccifer 3.0 :-) and I'm hitting reload like crazy https://guccifer3.wordpress.com/ https://guccifer3.wordpress.com/ EDIT: anyone interested in this subject also look for 'Gerasimov Doctrine' for a thrilling read.

upofadown 10y ago

This is the interesting part: >American intelligence officials said they are virtually certain that Russian intelligence officials were behind the attack. ... but there there isn't anything in the article to back it up. Why do these unnamed officials think this?

fisherjeff 10y ago
Motherboard has a great summary: https://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-signs-point-to-russia-being-behind-the-dnc-hack https://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-signs-point-to-russia-...
jlgaddis 10y ago
I'm guessing they have intelligence, likely captured via their global surveillance infrastructure, that points to them as the culprits... but they can't publicly admit to that, of course, due to "national security concerns". We're just supposed to trust them.

difftest 10y ago

Muh Russia... I to my girlfriend- how dare you cheat on me. You are texting Sam since a year. My gf to me: How dare you breach my trust by looking at my phone? This doesn't count.

pbz 10y ago
Yeah, let's talk about foreign intervention, Assange and his vendetta, how some private information was not censored, possible geopolitical implications, or how Trump may be implicated. Did I forget any other diversion tactic? The efficacy of such methods is worrisome; even smart people are unable to look behind these curtains.
akhilcacharya 10y ago
If you violate multiple laws in looking at this hypothetical person's phone, then yes, you're more in the wrong.

difftest 10y ago

I already commented but Ill say it again- Trump is a wild card who will likely do little for the country but little to the country and the world. Hillay will do a bit more for the country but much worse _to_ it. See my past comments for proof about literal oligarchy. She is already attacking the very backbone of internet- free speech by spending 6m per quarter hiring trolls

givinguflac 10y ago
Not saying I agree or disagree, but this really isn't the place for that type of discussion.

bertil 10y ago

I was surprised to see how WikiLeaks is not mentioned until late, as a passing mention in the context for the leaks. I’m not sure what having leakers not going through WikiLeaks means: do we have to trust them on leaking everything? Is Assange personality getting in the way of the leaks? Are people who think they are savvy enough to hide their trace trying to go direct? Why would they take that risk?

vermontdevil 10y ago

Maybe now Diane Feinstein will see the value of end to end encryption? Doubt it. She'll probably advocate that only for herself and her Senate colleagues.

threeseed 10y ago
Nobody disputes the value of end to end encryption. That's not the issue. The problem of encryption is that it changes the relationship between government and individual in a way that has never been seen before. If a person is suspected of committing a crime the police have always had the ability to intercept mail, record calls, search property etc and obtain evidence. They can't do that now. You can argue the pros/cons of this new world order. What you can't argue against is the natural inclination of many people to simply maintain the status quo.
- whamlastxmas 10y ago
  They can intercept my encrypted emails just like they've always been able to intercept encrypted hand written letters.
  - berkeleynerd 10y ago
    This precisely.
- michaelt 10y ago
  Well, technology has changed the status quo in two ways. The first is, as you say, previously you could intercept a suspect's mail and search their papers; with proper encryption that isn't possible. The second is in the past the search process wouldn't scale to searching every citizen all the time. With e-mail, web traffic and smartphones, it becomes possible. We can restore the status quo from 30 years ago for either one of those changes, but not for both.
- meows 10y ago
  Police can still intercept communications, including mail, phone calls, etc., with classic investigative techniques like bugging a person's home. Then you can see all their passwords, all their emails, their off-line conversations, and so on. Bugging somebody probably reveals more information than security backdoors. The one big difference between bugging someone's home vs. encryption backdoor is one of scale, and I don't think citizens should so substantially yield their security so that the state can save money. I think the natural inclination of voters isn't relevant just yet because privacy and encryption are so far down the list of topics of national salience, or topics to organize voters, that it doesn't register on anyone's political radar. If encryption or security backdoors are mentioned on the national stage, it will be entirely as a subtopic of only terrorism.

ting_bu_dung 10y ago

So it looks like Trump might have solid ties with Russia, and through some connections might be triggering all the Russian hacking of only the democratic party. Doesn't bode well for American democracy when Russian dictator can sneak in a candidate for president. - Trump's manager, Paul Manafort, has done multimillion-dollar business deals with pro-Russian oligarchs and was a longtime adviser to the Russia-aligned Ukrainian president whose 2014 ouster triggered Russia’s intervention in Ukraine, a major source of tension between Russia and the United States as well as its NATO allies. - On the campaign trail, Trump has called for a new partnership with Moscow, overhauling NATO, the allied military force seen as the chief protector of pro-Western nations near Russia - Since the 1980s, Trump and his family members have made numerous trips to Moscow in search of business opportunities https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps-financial-ties-to-russia-and-his-unusual-flattery-of-vladimir-putin/2016/06/17/dbdcaac8-31a6-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/inside-trumps-financ...

threeseed 10y ago
I doubt that Trump or his campaign would be actively lobbying the Russian government. There is plenty of motivation elsewhere to do so. Russia would be a major loser given that Hillary would far more decisive and bold with her foreign policy decisions. Assange benefits because a Trump government would be more amenable to immunity negotiations. And Wikileaks benefits from all the publicity.
- ting_bu_dung 10y ago
  Trump publically called on Russia to hack on Hillary http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-clinton-emails.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-trump-r...
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    I'm going to be honest here, I'm non-partisan and I agree with some of his comments here and so does this lawyer who specializes[0] in cases like this. If I had that data in my possession it would already be on wikileaks, the American people deserve to know what their leaders say when they don't think they are listening. Edit: People will down vote but not reply because they don't have a leg to stand on. It's not like Hillary is a privacy hawk[1], turnabout is fair play where I'm from. [0]https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/im-a-lawyer-specializing-in-security-clearance-cases-hillary-clinton-got-off-easy/2016/07/07/38b10f3c-4480-11e6-bc99-7d269f8719b1_story.html?utm_term=.7cdc66cf5ee5 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/im-a-lawyer-speciali... [1]http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/hillary-clinton-wants-manhattan-like-project-to-break-encryption/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/hillary-clinton-w...

meeper16 10y ago

This should read: "A hacker votes for Donald Trump"

mark_l_watson 10y ago

Is Wikileaks announcement that the recently murdered DNC staff member was the source of the leaks, not Russian hackers, credible? I don't know, and in anycase I consider the source of the leaks to be much less important than the contents of the leaks. When we watch a good magician, they entertain us by using misdirection. Unfortunately, when the deep state and the media they control use misdirection it is not fun or entertaining, it is about getting the population to go along with policies against the public's interests, against the interests of peace and prosperity, etc.

spenvo 10y ago
If you listen to Assange's interview, he says nothing of substance, just insinuates the connection.

ourmandave 10y ago

Another incremental release to keep it in the news cycle. Do they have anything career ending or prosecutable, or do "the Russians" just enjoy watching Hillary dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge?

ZoeZoeBee 10y ago

I posted the leak on here yesterday and yeah, it was flagged immediately. Hate to have to say it but when it comes to information critical of a certain candidate this place is an echo chamber, looks like 13 people have now submitted the site and it is no longer flagged. Still concerning about the overall censorship in regards to a topic this site should find interesting no matter your political views https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12279977 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12279977

difftest 10y ago
It's okay to discuss absolutely anything but not politics. But if you are discussing politics, you better discuss pro queen.