6 ms·

Recall who had access to these servers: * Platte River Networks -- the entire staff had access to the servers, which were unencrypted * Datto -- Platte River

by trendia 10y ago

Recall who had access to these servers: * Platte River Networks -- the entire staff had access to the servers, which were unencrypted * Datto -- Platte River backed up to cloud service Datto, unencrypted. All Datto employees had access to the documents * FBI -- the FBI recovered tens of thousands of documents. Many agents were not happy with the Comey's decision * Employees of the Foundation -- you cannot work in a corporate environment without access to necessary documents It is entirely possible that one of the above released the documents, but tried to blame it on Russia so that they would not be suspected.

tptacek 10y ago
That's "motive". You need "means", too. Attribution isn't simply based on "these people have a reason not to like HRC". In Crowdstrike's case, they've instrumented a decent fraction of all the desktops deployed in companies around the world and used them to hoover up malware and exploit toolkit samples. So, to give this argument legs, you have to conjure up an employee of "Platte River Networks" who not only wants to leak Clinton Foundation files, but also knows the precise IOC's that three different threat intelligence firms associate with Russia. (Different firms, different IOCs, by the way --- here we're speculating that some random "managed IT services" company in Denver has faked out all of them). About the closest you come to that is by suggesting that it's the FBI leaking Clinton Foundation files. At that point, I think Occam is starting to bind on your argument a bit.
- trendia 10y ago
  It is entirely possible that the Russians were behind some or all of the hacks. However, we don't have sufficient evidence to prove that. For one, Cloudstrike was referring to DC Leaks, not Guccifer 2.0 (nor Wikileaks). Further, it is very, very rare for intelligence services to release private documents to affect an election in another country. It is far more common to use that intelligence to affect diplomatic relations between leaders (i.e. to get policy outcomes), not to affect the populace of a country. Finally, I'd argue that just because the Russians hacked into one or more servers does not mean that an American didn't leak the documents. It is possible (though I will admit less likely) that both occurred: the Russians hacked the DCCC, but a lone FBI agent leaked documents to e.g. Wikileaks.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    First, it's Crowdstrike, not Cloudstrike. Second, no, the attribution was specifically about "Guccifer 2.0". Third, I'm not sure any of us can speak to the motives and objectives of any intelligence service, so the notion of what is or isn't "rare" isn't helpful. With regards to Russia hacking the DNC and then the FBI separately hacking the Clinton Foundation and then sending the documents to Wikileaks(!), I refer you back to Occam.
  - alphonsegaston 10y ago
    We have pretty good evidence: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-signs-point-to-russia-being-behind-the-dnc-hack http://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-signs-point-to-russia-b...

by trendia 10y ago

tptacek 10y ago

That's "motive". You need "means", too. Attribution isn't simply based on "these people have a reason not to like HRC". In Crowdstrike's case, they've instrumented a decent fraction of all the desktops deployed in companies around the world and used them to hoover up malware and exploit toolkit samples. So, to give this argument legs, you have to conjure up an employee of "Platte River Networks" who not only wants to leak Clinton Foundation files, but also knows the precise IOC's that three different threat intelligence firms associate with Russia. (Different firms, different IOCs, by the way --- here we're speculating that some random "managed IT services" company in Denver has faked out all of them). About the closest you come to that is by suggesting that it's the FBI leaking Clinton Foundation files. At that point, I think Occam is starting to bind on your argument a bit.

trendia 10y ago
It is entirely possible that the Russians were behind some or all of the hacks. However, we don't have sufficient evidence to prove that. For one, Cloudstrike was referring to DC Leaks, not Guccifer 2.0 (nor Wikileaks). Further, it is very, very rare for intelligence services to release private documents to affect an election in another country. It is far more common to use that intelligence to affect diplomatic relations between leaders (i.e. to get policy outcomes), not to affect the populace of a country. Finally, I'd argue that just because the Russians hacked into one or more servers does not mean that an American didn't leak the documents. It is possible (though I will admit less likely) that both occurred: the Russians hacked the DCCC, but a lone FBI agent leaked documents to e.g. Wikileaks.
- tptacek 10y ago
  First, it's Crowdstrike, not Cloudstrike. Second, no, the attribution was specifically about "Guccifer 2.0". Third, I'm not sure any of us can speak to the motives and objectives of any intelligence service, so the notion of what is or isn't "rare" isn't helpful. With regards to Russia hacking the DNC and then the FBI separately hacking the Clinton Foundation and then sending the documents to Wikileaks(!), I refer you back to Occam.
- alphonsegaston 10y ago
  We have pretty good evidence: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-signs-point-to-russia-being-behind-the-dnc-hack http://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-signs-point-to-russia-b...