3 ms·

There is no reason for them to not source the evidence they're using to attribute it to the Russians. If it was them, they already know exactly what they left

There is no reason for them to not source the evidence they're using to attribute it to the Russians. If it was them, they already know exactly what they left behind. It's actually not that difficult to disguise sources of attacks (assuming for the sake of argument it was the Russians, it could very well have physically occurred from a Manhattan Starbucks), and based on what we know about the server setup it's not like the hack required particular technical sophistication or traceable 0-days. Conversely, there are ample reasons for the intelligence community to pin it on their historic enemy, rather than the more likely Murder on the Orient Express scenario where absolutely everyone paying attention hacked every grotesquely unsecured setup, or the insider-threat scenario. Hey, whatever happened to Seth Rich? And if the "intelligence community" isn't actively targeting insiders at least as a pure pen-testing contingency, why aren't they?

jgalt212 10y ago
> There is no reason for them to not source the evidence they're using to attribute it to the Russians. Well, what if that evidence was gathered via extra-legal means?
rfrank 10y ago
Agreed, I'm uncomfortable with the Russia allegations barring irrefutable evidence, and I haven't seen that yet. Even assuming they did do it, I'm unsure what the correct response would be. And I can definitely see incentives to just say, "Russia did it." I feel like given the amount of info necessary for security clearance & the fact most politicians live and die with their phones means the intelligence agencies have them all pretty much dead to rights.
mikeryan 10y ago
There is no reason for them to not source the evidence they're using to attribute it to the Russians What if the source is an actual human asset within the malicious organization? What if the source is a compromised server of the Russian organization? What if the source is a legal wiretap on a bad actor?
- h4nkoslo 10y ago
  Assuming it was Russia, and that they did derive it from some secret means, public announcing they discovered it but not giving the source makes that inference more likely. That's why eg in World War II, the allies only acted on Enigma intercepts if there was a plausible alternate source. So my inference is that they're lying about having sufficient evidence to definitively point at the rooskies, or they're being reckless with sourcing.

jgalt212 10y ago

> There is no reason for them to not source the evidence they're using to attribute it to the Russians. Well, what if that evidence was gathered via extra-legal means?

rfrank 10y ago

Agreed, I'm uncomfortable with the Russia allegations barring irrefutable evidence, and I haven't seen that yet. Even assuming they did do it, I'm unsure what the correct response would be. And I can definitely see incentives to just say, "Russia did it." I feel like given the amount of info necessary for security clearance & the fact most politicians live and die with their phones means the intelligence agencies have them all pretty much dead to rights.

mikeryan 10y ago

There is no reason for them to not source the evidence they're using to attribute it to the Russians What if the source is an actual human asset within the malicious organization? What if the source is a compromised server of the Russian organization? What if the source is a legal wiretap on a bad actor?

h4nkoslo 10y ago
Assuming it was Russia, and that they did derive it from some secret means, public announcing they discovered it but not giving the source makes that inference more likely. That's why eg in World War II, the allies only acted on Enigma intercepts if there was a plausible alternate source. So my inference is that they're lying about having sufficient evidence to definitively point at the rooskies, or they're being reckless with sourcing.