4 ms·

This article is saying its irrefutable based on the link's and origin of the attack that it was state sponsored and even suggests that you're either contrarian

This article is saying its irrefutable based on the link's and origin of the attack that it was state sponsored and even suggests that you're either contrarian or just an idiot if you think otherwise. But isn't it within the realm of possibility that traffic is being proxied through a Russian located server to make it appear like Russia? Furthermore, I know that when security researchers look at a group they look beyond just the origin of attack and at behavior patterns but couldn't you spoof those easily too? I guess my point is that there is still a possibility its not the Russian/state sponsored based on evidence I have seen.

imron 10y ago
The former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan (who has visited Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy) claims: "I can tell you with 100% certainty that it is not any Russian state actor or proxy that gave the Democratic National Committee and Podesta material to WikiLeaks. The claim is nonsense. Journalists are also publishing that these were obtained by “hacking” with no evidence that this was the method used to obtain them." https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/10/really-really-upset-foreign-office-security-services/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/10/really-reall...
eridius 10y ago
The article isn't talking about tracing traffic through Russia or any of that, so I don't understand how your comment is at all appropriate. The article is talking about how a bunch of attacks against people can all be traced back to the same group Fancy Bear (which is claimed to be a group of Russian hackers) because they all used a single bit.ly account to craft the short URLs that were used in the phishing emails. This account was found by tracking down Fancy Bear's command and control domains (so it was already known to belong to Fancy Bear before they connected it to John Podesta). So are you saying that Fancy Bear isn't actually Russian hackers? Or are you saying you think the article is lying about the fairly strong evidence tying all these attacks together?
- badmadrad 10y ago
  I'm more pointing out the possibility its not state sponsored by Russia even if the attack originated in Russia. Based on the evidence they have released do we have any idea what Fancy Bear is really comprised of and what their motivations are? For all we know there could be Americans in the group. It could be hackers sharing techniques with eachother and operating under the same flag. I still have questions in my mind and I'm not willing to pass the judgement on what I have seen but its possible the security researchers have more evidence they can't release for various reasons.
- h4nkoslo 10y ago
  Why does the "intelligence community" refuse to give this as their source of attribution?
  - eridius 10y ago
    > refuse to give this Do you mean, why doesn't the intelligence community publicly release all the info they have pointing towards Russia? Because the answer seems kind of self-evident. The intelligence community is not in the business of releasing any information it doesn't have to. In fact, its business is protecting information, and trying to get information about other people. If the intelligence community publicly released all the info about why they think it's Russia, then depending on what the info is, that could seriously damage their ability to gather more info in the future, or maybe even put people's lives at risk (e.g. if the info was provided by people in Russia).
fl0wenol 10y ago
The article mentions how the same account was used in 2014 to attack journalists outside the U.S. covering the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown over Ukraine. This lends credibility to the idea that it was Russian-sponsored actor(s) using this tool/M.O. over time.

imron 10y ago

The former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan (who has visited Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy) claims: "I can tell you with 100% certainty that it is not any Russian state actor or proxy that gave the Democratic National Committee and Podesta material to WikiLeaks. The claim is nonsense. Journalists are also publishing that these were obtained by “hacking” with no evidence that this was the method used to obtain them." https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/10/really-really-upset-foreign-office-security-services/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/10/really-reall...

eridius 10y ago

The article isn't talking about tracing traffic through Russia or any of that, so I don't understand how your comment is at all appropriate. The article is talking about how a bunch of attacks against people can all be traced back to the same group Fancy Bear (which is claimed to be a group of Russian hackers) because they all used a single bit.ly account to craft the short URLs that were used in the phishing emails. This account was found by tracking down Fancy Bear's command and control domains (so it was already known to belong to Fancy Bear before they connected it to John Podesta). So are you saying that Fancy Bear isn't actually Russian hackers? Or are you saying you think the article is lying about the fairly strong evidence tying all these attacks together?

badmadrad 10y ago
I'm more pointing out the possibility its not state sponsored by Russia even if the attack originated in Russia. Based on the evidence they have released do we have any idea what Fancy Bear is really comprised of and what their motivations are? For all we know there could be Americans in the group. It could be hackers sharing techniques with eachother and operating under the same flag. I still have questions in my mind and I'm not willing to pass the judgement on what I have seen but its possible the security researchers have more evidence they can't release for various reasons.
h4nkoslo 10y ago
Why does the "intelligence community" refuse to give this as their source of attribution?
- eridius 10y ago
  > refuse to give this Do you mean, why doesn't the intelligence community publicly release all the info they have pointing towards Russia? Because the answer seems kind of self-evident. The intelligence community is not in the business of releasing any information it doesn't have to. In fact, its business is protecting information, and trying to get information about other people. If the intelligence community publicly released all the info about why they think it's Russia, then depending on what the info is, that could seriously damage their ability to gather more info in the future, or maybe even put people's lives at risk (e.g. if the info was provided by people in Russia).

fl0wenol 10y ago

The article mentions how the same account was used in 2014 to attack journalists outside the U.S. covering the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 shootdown over Ukraine. This lends credibility to the idea that it was Russian-sponsored actor(s) using this tool/M.O. over time.