9 ms·
The "evidence" boils down to: The Hackers drove a truck. Russians drive trucks. The Russians did the hacking. While its insulting that our government would
by StanislavPetrov 10y ago
The "evidence" boils down to:
The Hackers drove a truck.
Russians drive trucks.
The Russians did the hacking.
While its insulting that our government would try to pass off this drivel as "evidence", I'm much more dismayed that so many of my fellow Americans will uncritically accept it as such.
- x0x0 10y agoThis report merely points the finger at Russia; it does not purport to substantiate that allegation. Previous JARs have not attributed malicious cyber activity to specific countries or threat actors. However, public attribution of these activities to RIS is supported by technical indicators from the U.S. Intelligence Community, DHS, FBI, the private sector, and other entities. The report then discusses when the attackers did and mitigation strategies.
- StanislavPetrov 10y ago>This report merely points the finger at Russia; it does not purport to substantiate that allegation. That's the point, its just another completely baseless, unsubstantiated accusation. This report contains nothing that suggests that the Russians were any more likely to be the source of the hack then countless other entities. The problem is that these baseless claims are being presented as evidence and being consumed uncritically as such. Take for example the headline in PcMag: >Hacking Evidence in Hand, Obama Sanctions Russia http://www.pcmag.com/news/350675/hacking-evidence-in-hand-obama-sanctions-russia http://www.pcmag.com/news/350675/hacking-evidence-in-hand-ob...
- x0x0 10y agoThis report doesn't claim to substantiate those allegations. It merely repeats them.
- marxmarv 10y agoBy the Big Lie theory, what's the diff?
- xapata 10y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov Are you trying to live up to the username or using it ironically?
- ww520 10y agoThe purpose of these "reports" and the retaliation against the Russians is to undermine the legitimacy of the Trump presidency. There's no need for proof, just innuendo and allegation would do. Pretty sick of technology got dragged through the mud for political purpose.
- hourislate 10y agoI completely disagree. This isn't about Trump winning. Nobody disputes that. This is about Russia interfering with the US Election and intentionally trying to undermined western society. Russia has launched a War against the US and Europe. Sponsoring Right Wing Groups with millions in cash to Cyber warfare against Government institutions.
- programmarchy 10y agoI disagree. All signs point to Russia wanting peace with the US, and I think they are cozying up to Trump so he will roll back the sanctions that have been choking the Russian economy since 2014 or so. Clinton was the one saber rattling against Russia during the election, not Trump. So assuming your theory is Russia hacked the DNC, their motivations seem to be to avoid war, not escalate. However, there is definitely a cultural war going on within Western civilization between cultural Marxists wanting a global, totalitarian state and libertarian civic nationalists wanting a decentralized, limited state. Where Russia comes in, and what's really funny about all this, is that the "right" now finds itself aligned with former Soviet communists and the "left" finds itself aligned with the Islamic caliphate. Politics can make strange bedfellows indeed.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- mundo 10y agoThis is the least plausible conspiracy theory I've ever heard. C'mon man. Imagine you're whoever-it-is you think is behind this, and you want to discredit Trump for whatever reason. What would you do? You've got access to all of his tax returns, and all the sealed details of his divorces, and all of his medical records, and all of his business records. You've got a whole squad of spies working for you, you can fabricate evidence, whatever you want. And this is a guy a guy who has outstanding loans from Russian banks in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and who has cheated on at least two of his wives. And this is what you go with? Accuse someone unrelated to him of hacking in to someone unrelated to him? That's your big plot? And you wait to do it until after the election? Via press release?
- empath75 10y agoThe actual evidence is probably closer to 'we have moles in the kremlin and taps on their phones' but they're not exactly going to publish that are they.
- mtgx 10y agoWasn't the NSA spying on the whole Internet or something? Are you telling me the NSA saw no evidence of Russia hacking the DNC servers? They wouldn't necessarily have to reveal their "methods" that it was the Russians if it was the NSA catching them and not some Kremlin CIA spy. But who knows, maybe they are too busy spying on hundreds of millions of Regular Joes to watch out for all of the Russian attacks.
- untog 10y agoHaven't the NSA already said they believe it was the Russians? As you suggest, they would be the ones to know.
- rokosbasilisk 10y agoSource? I googled it and only found articles suggested the opposite. ex.https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/top-secret-snowden-document-reveals-what-the-nsa-knew-about-previous-russian-hacking/ https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/top-secret-snowden-docum...
- Kadin 10y agoThe NSA doesn't, in general, publicly announce anything. They exist to supply analysis to other branches of government, and only very rarely to the public directly. So the absence of commentary from them in public doesn't indicate that they haven't drawn conclusions and passed them along.
- wyager 10y agoIf they're not going to publish their (hypothetical, ostensible, theoretical, possibly entirely imaginary) evidence, then why would we put much faith into their claim? It's not like all major US intelligence agencies haven't led deception campaigns against the public before.
- mundo 10y agoThis (complaining about the lack of evidence) just seems ludicrous to me. Does the FBI have a history of declassifying stuff like this so that randos on the internet can independently verify its conclusions? When high-level intelligence people collude to lie to the American people and discredit a president, do they usually do it via press release clearly written by a PIO? The accusation that people who find this credible are uncritical is unfounded and insulting. The question is not "would someone in a government agency lie for political reasons," it is "would this many people, in a bunch of different agencies that have a history of lying to and competing with and distrusting each other, all sign on to the same lie, publicly, even though it's almost certain to be disproven in a few months." Meanwhile, here's the alternative theory: 1. Some Russian intelligence agency hacked the DNC's email servers 2. They left behind evidence 3. The FBI/NSA//DHS/etc found that evidence 4. They classified it and aren't going to put it in a press release None of those are the least bit hard to believe, and they are collectively WAY easier to swallow than this hypothetical vast, high-level conspiracy to discredit Trump or whatever it's supposed to be for.
- wyager 10y agoThe FBI has a history of political activism, to put it lightly. Here's a fun one: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–King_suicide_letter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–King_suicide_letter You're being foolish if you trust a word the FBI says without solid evidence.
- mundo 10y agoI don't! Dammit, read the post! No one on god's green earth trusts the FBI at their word, but that doesn't mean you can assume the opposite of what they said is true without evidence!
- steamer25 10y agoI suppose that depends on the expected reaction to either believing or not believing. In this case, from my perspective, I see two intended reactions to the claims of Russian subversion: 1) To delegitimize the President-elect 2) To foment war with Russia I didn't vote for the guy but I don't think he's near so bad as his political opponents try to paint him. I'd like to at least give him a chance and to whatever degree he turns out to suck, I'll still blame the Clinton campaign for promoting controlled opposition 'pied pipers' rather than promoting a robust debate in the interest of the American people. Wrt #2, I will certainly demand very strong evidence before yielding any resistance to that notion.
- ryanlol 10y agoDo you have any evidence to back up your utterly ridiculous claims? And yes, claiming that's all the evidence that exists is complete bullshit.
- dragonwriter 10y agoThis is not evidence, and it is unlikely evidence would be released. The Administration (as is usually the case for any US executive on any issue unless they are seeking action that requires legislation or a court verdict or something similar by some formal body outside of the executive branch) is not engaging in an effort to prove anything to anyone. This is an analysis report with information (including most significantly the IOCs in the accompanying files), some of which is previously released and some of which is newly declassified, for use in defending against and forensically identifying attacks by the threat groups identified. No one is passing this off as evidence of anything.
- spinlock 10y agoI think the discussion of sources will be very interesting. There is a strong national interest in restoring faith in our electoral process. This is why so many were appalled at certain accusations that the election was "rigged".
- EthanHeilman 10y agoIt is more like: 1. Hackers drove a custom built tank that has Moscow factory markings. 2. Similar versions of the tank were used in other campaigns attributed to Russian intelligence. 3. Crew in the tank has been associated with Russian intelligence operations going back ten years. 4. The tank left from a building known to be associated with Russian intelligence hacking campaign. Thus, the hackers probably take orders from Russian intelligence.
- vladimirralev 10y agoYou should mention that the tank with the crew they have inside is publicly available to anybody in the malware archives of APT28/29. Anybody can plant it. Also both the powershell and the py2exe are completely reversible so you can take it, modify it and who's creation is that now? If there is kernel-level stuff then it would be a more solid case but not by much. On top of that, it's entirely possible other completely unrelated attack is responsible for the leaks, but the malware used cleaned up after itself, leaving only the less sophisticated trail behind. Clearly if 2 groups hacked them in the easiest way possible, it's in fact suspicious why haven't they been hacked by other groups. It's almost a certainty others came after it.
- EthanHeilman 10y ago>Also both the powershell and the py2exe are completely reversible so you can take it, modify it and who's creation is that now? What about X-Agent? Seems like it would be harder to modify but I haven't looked into it. >On top of that, it's entirely possible other completely unrelated attack is responsible for the leaks, but the malware used cleaned up after itself, leaving only the less sophisticated trail behind. I like this point but it could be brought up in nearly all attributions.
- AlexCoventry 10y agoGot a link to the archive?