5 ms·
Exactly, why burn zero-days when you're targeting a technologically unsophisticated adversary with a huge organizational attack surface? Then how is this evide
by CountSessine 10y ago
Exactly, why burn zero-days when you're targeting a technologically unsophisticated adversary with a huge organizational attack surface?
Then how is this evidence of a 'state-sponsored actor'?
And how did the narrative of this story ever get derailed from what it should have been, which was, "The DNC, and John Podesta in particular who had both his gmail and his Twitter accounts hacked, are incompetent", to "this is Russian interference in a US election"?
- smsm42 10y agoThere are a lot of people who would benefit from the latter conclusion and not a lot of people who would benefit from the former.
- xapata 10y ago> not a lot of people There are many Republicans.
- xapata 10y agoThat some people are unfamiliar with computer security is not news. I have known a fair number of big-shot executives and politicians, all of whom I'd expect would click on suspicious links in their email (if they read the email) and double-click on attachments. The news is why that particular person was targeted.
- Natsu 10y ago> The news is why that particular person was targeted. For which no proof is being presented. Lots of stuff about hacking tools, nothing really about identifying hackers. Lots of anonymous high level sources offering vague assurances and excuses for why we can't present info...
- xapata 10y agoI can think of two general possibilities. Either (1) there is a conspiracy to mislead the public or (2) showing the proof would reduce our security in some way. I find the latter explanation more plausible.
- ethbro 10y agoIt's not evidence of a state sponsored actor. But it's also not evidence against a state sponsored actor. Given that it's neutral, you can look at outcomes. Trump wins the election. That was probably best for Russia, Israel, or China. It very well could have been a random hack. But the release seems to have been politically timed and motivated (though someone could absolutely have just bought the data) which would suggest looking closely at those with something to gain for involvement.
- cloakandswagger 10y agoI'd prefer something a bit sturdier than circumstantial evidence if we're going to accuse a nuclear superpower of cyber warfare.
- ethbro 10y agoAnd sometimes defectors drink polonium-210 and die from radiation poisoning. The world doesn't come with nice "I did it" notes. You make the best decisions you can with the information you have.
- CWuestefeld 10y agothis is Russian interference in a US election Although the media and many in politics are saying this, it's plainly false. There is no serious claim that the Russians interfered in our election. The claims are that the Russians interfered in a presidential campaign. There's a huge difference between the process of campaigning, versus the election process of casting and counting votes. Sowing this confusion is useful on at least two levels. Most obviously, it serves to undermine the legitimacy of the incoming President. But it's also useful in setting stage for future debate about campaign finance laws. It's important in that debate to keep separate the ideas of election - which the government must protect to ensure its faithfulness to the voters - versus the idea of campaigning, which the government may never interfere with, which is the primary purpose of the First Amendment.
- couchand 10y agoIt requires some serious mental gymnastics to split those hairs.