3 ms·
Exactly. I hope that additional detail is released. It's a pretty serious accusation to make. Also, I think it's worthwhile to draw the distinction between a
by grandalf 10y ago
Exactly. I hope that additional detail is released. It's a pretty serious accusation to make.
Also, I think it's worthwhile to draw the distinction between a state sponsored attack (as in Project Sauron) and state sponsored mischief (as in launching script kiddie style pen tests on unsecured systems).
Obviously Russia is doing the first kind of attack, but what would be the strategic benefit of doing the latter but not covering up the tracks well enough to prevent this sort of accusation?
- spiderxxxx 10y agoYou're probably not going to see any additional details. If you have an intelligence asset on the inside, revealing the source can jeopardize that asset. For example, if they say that the CIA is funding a vpn provider in Moldova that revealed in its logs that the source is Russia, well that wouldn't be appropriate to the continued monitoring effort. You've burned your asset.
- grandalf 10y agoOk, I don't dispute that, but why would the following happen: - The campaign led by a former secretary of state decides to essentially go rogue and start accusing a foreign government of election tampering. - The USG stays silent for a while and then rather than simply having a direct communication with Russia decides to issue an extremely vague public statement about the alleged cyber attacks.