5 ms·
This whole article smacks of the NY Times reporting surrounding WMDs in Iraq. Yet again we have some very alarming assertions made by top officials and being p
by mi100hael 10y ago
This whole article smacks of the NY Times reporting surrounding WMDs in Iraq. Yet again we have some very alarming assertions made by top officials and being parroted by the paper without any actual concrete evidence being produced and displayed to the public. If anything, it's worse because the NY Times is taking the assertions as gospel and jumping to their own conclusions.
> In the meantime, the hackers moved on to targets outside the D.N.C., including Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, John D. Podesta, whose private email account was hacked months later.
> Even Mr. Podesta, a savvy Washington insider who had written a 2014 report on cyberprivacy for President Obama, did not truly understand the gravity of the hacking.
This is the first I'm hearing of any ties to Podesta's emails and Russians. If anything, I always assumed that particular attack was some teenager in Tennessee[0].
In this case the CIA & co absolutely need to publish all the evidence they have linking Russia to the intrusions. The evidence they are claiming could be anything from something as tenuous as "превед"[1] in a log file to something as concrete as a CIA mole participating in the attacks from within the walls of the Kremlin. Right now we the people are being bombarded from all sides with 100% unhelpful bullshit.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin_email_hack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin_email_hack
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preved https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preved
- tdb7893 10y agoAt the very least do you believe that the American election was targeted by hackers in Russia? That part seems to be pretty well agreed upon by multiple agencies inside and outside the government.
- alexmingoia 10y agoI'll believe evidence - not authority.
- tdb7893 10y agoIs it just a matter of not trusting who has investigated? It would be weird to just reject whatever you haven't seen yourself as false. People have been wrong before but I think that there is a large line between scepticism and outright denial in these situations.
- alexmingoia 10y agoThe white house, CIA, and FBI have a history of intentionally misleading and lying to the public. The white house has used classified reports to publicly justify a conclusion that isn't in the original reports. WMDs in Iraq is a perfect example of this. They did this with Hillary's emails too. For all we know the evidence is nothing but a Russian IP address in an access log.
- linkregister 10y agoThat's a good sentiment to have. The evidence has been released by both Crowdstrike and FireEye. They both have fairly detailed writeups of them. Attribution is an important part of computer security. FireEye has a similar reputation for attribution and forensics as Kaspersky.
- pjmorris 10y agoThe NYT article mentions that the Russian groups Crowdstrike identified ('Cozy Bear', 'Fancy Bear') were working independently of each other. If two groups gained access independently, how is anyone sure that one or more other groups or individuals didn't also gain access? And the article never makes the link to how Wikipedia came to receive the information, only assumes it was one of the two Russian groups Crowdstrike identified.
- linkregister 10y agoThese are good questions to ask. The right thing for you to do is study how a computer intrusion campaign works and how attribution is done. Everyone has their own limit of when they trust expert advice. For example, I refuse to trust my doctor's advice fully and pull up studies at home to verify what she tells me. It's good to learn more about computer security if it interests you. It is extremely difficult, maybe impossible, to completely conceal one's pivots, implants, and exfiltration in a computer network. True, it is possible that an attacker that is more capable than GRU/Cozy Bear and FSB/Fancy Bear did just that and exfiltrated the emails and documents. But this is going beyond what the evidence suggests.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]