11 ms·

That's the conclusion anyone working in the security/network area was bound to arrive at. It's really interesting FBI/DHS would make those claims publicly when

That's the conclusion anyone working in the security/network area was bound to arrive at. It's really interesting FBI/DHS would make those claims publicly when the chance of having any hard evidence of that would be minimal. But they still did it. Why?

Gustomaximus 10y ago
To me the ongoing 'Russia rigged elections' smells like propaganda from the other side. And maybe russia did release the DNC emails, but Assange said that wasn't the case and I feel he's more likely to be telling the truth than state players. And even if they did release these emails it's hardly rigging an election. Comneys email announcement at the 11th hour about reopening email investigation was probably a deciding variable and that was hardly Russian lead. Your question of 'why' seems to be the scariest. US lead activities have been encircling Russia and pressing influence right to their borders for some time. For me I feel its too far and they are cornering the bear. Probably there is too much resource in the 'spy' world and they have to do something to justify their position, hence the older generation keep the pressure on Russia from their cold war agenda or they are looking to pick a fight. The latter being very scary. ...but really I'm no expert and just wonder why countries can put more effort to looking after their own populations needs. All this spy/military expenditure seems so wasteful.
- threeseed 10y ago
  Nobody said Russia rigged the election. The issue was the attempts to influence the election which Russia has a long, documented history of doing so. And the US had an obligation to respond which they did with minimal effect. So claiming all of this was about propaganda really makes no sense given the facts on the ground. And please remember why Russia's relations with almost all of the world deteriorated in the first place. It's because they annexed Crimea (unprecedented for our generation) and allowed soldiers and weapons to flood into Ukraine which then resulted in Flight 117 being shot down. Nobody is looking for a fight with Russia but capitulating and doing nothing is not an answer either. Diplomatic sanctions have been the correct response and I don't see anyone asking for an escalation of that.
  - Natsu 10y ago
    > Nobody said Russia rigged the election. Nobody sensible said that, but I've seen more than a few comments along those lines on various sites, enough to believe that general sentiment is commonplace. As for Comey, I'd say he let her off easy. Take a look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC1Mc6-RDyQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC1Mc6-RDyQ Then look at the PDF attached here of an email between Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton and ask whether this looks intentional or not: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324 https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324
    - lern_too_spel 10y ago
      How did Comey let her off easy if she didn't break any laws?
      - Natsu 10y ago
        Comey claimed not to have charged Clinton because there was a lack of intent. Gowdy is calling him on that, saying that this makes zero sense and going over all the ways they have to prove intent. His point at the end about "negligence" underscores the fact that the entire line of reasoning is nonsensical: intentional negligence is a contradiction in terms. That which is intentional cannot be negligent and vice versa. The law in question is against negligence (which does not require any intent whatsoever). Just to underscore that, I just linked to a document where Colin Powell describes in detail how they're subverting the law: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324 https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324 "However, there is a real danger. If it is public that you have a BlackBerry and it [is] government and you are using it, government or not, to do business, it may become an official record and be subject to the law. Reading about the President's BB rules this morning, it sounds like it won't be as useful as it used to be. Be very careful. I got around it all by not saying much and not using systems that captured the data." I don't think it's reasonable to let our politicians get away with this. Inasmuch as people are worried about Russian influence, it seems strange to me that there's no worry about the very leaders to jeopardize our OPSEC with their hubris. Here is Colin Powell, again, saying things that should make HN readers cringe: "Now, the real issue had to do with PDAs, as we called them a few years ago before BlackBerry became a noun. And the issue was DS would not allow them into the secure spaces, especially up your way. When I asked why not they gave me all kinds of nonsense about how they gave out signals that could be read by spies, etc. Same reason they tried to keep mobile phones out of the suite. I had numerous meetings with them. We even opened one up for them to try to explain to me why it was more dangerous than say, a remote control for one of the many tvs in the suite. Or something embedded in my shoe heel. They never satisfied me and NSA/CIA wouldn't back off. So, we just went about our business and stopped asking. I had an ancient version of a PDA and used it. In general, the suite was so sealed that it is hard to get signals in or out wirelessly." If the law is so toothless that high ranking people of either party (Powell is a Republican) can deliberately subvert them, then we're always going to be at the mercy of every country with half-decent spies. This is a problem in its own right, independent from whatever partisan considerations we have here. === Note: The square brackets in the quote are me fixing typos in the original.
- SixSigma 10y ago
  Using Mind Control to make Donna Brazile get fired from CNN for giving HRC Debate Questions was genius hacking. Using Mind Control to make Debbie Wasserman Schultz quit as DNC chair for rigging thr Primaries and then same day get a new job with HRC was genius hacking. It's like poeple think the only thing shady was Comey the Weasel!
- knz 10y ago
  This is too sinple. Russia is actively pushing an agenda as well - the invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea were not a response to US/NATO aggression. A new cold war has also been pushed domestically for the political benefit of Putin et al. If Trump had done basic things like released his tax returns (to show no massive conflict of interest with Russian loans etc) or stopped praising Putin on a regular basis then it would be a lot easier to dismiss concerns about his relationship with Putin and whether they stand to benefit by Trump's election. Russia/Putin has a history of crushing domestic political dissent (including assassinations) and exploiting xenophobia for political gain. There is NOTHING for the US or any NATO member to admire about Putin or the Russian political system. Edit. I forgot to mention the proxy war in Syria! Russia has everything to gain by tipping the scales in favour of a politician that upsets that status quo in the US.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - ZoeZoeBee 10y ago
    The invasion of Crimea was a direct response to US/NATO aggression. 1) The US helped plot to overthrow the Ukranian government in 2014. 2) Russia was not keen on NATO pushing for Ukraine to become a member, which would literally put the Russians major warm naval port under NATO hands. 3) Crimea has been a part of Russia for centuries, the only reason Crimea became a part of Ukraine after the breakup of the Soviet Union is because the SSR transferred Crimea from the Russian state to the Ukraine state in 1954 to celebrate the 300th Anniversary of the Ukraine as part of Russia. 4) The vast majority of the population of Crimea has been for hundreds of years of Russian ethnicity and language. 5) Crimea voted to rejoin Russia The State of Politics are much deeper than you seem to admit. Edit: Russia's support for Syria has more to do with the strategic location of Syria and the transportation of Russia's Natural Resources through that territory.
    - sgc 10y ago
      Many of your points are valid. However pointing to an "election" with no real choice while occupied by a foreign power undermines your position significantly.
- AJ007 10y ago
  Trying to avoid all political topics here - If there were security holes in such a high profile organization, I would assume multiple intelligence agencies may have made interceptions of the data. The US intercepts communications of even friendly foreign governments, it certainly should be expected that a hostile government is going to try to intercept communications of the US government and related private organizations. If Julian Assange is to be believed, which I think is fair, my guess is Russia hacked the DNC and RNC, yet the DNC dump came from someone else, internal or external. Everything about the Russia stories are reminding me of a few years ago when ever hack was caused by China. Of course, because hackers are routing traffic through China and thats where the trail ended! I've written this here before, but while there is the appearance that the United States Government is unified and trying to do one thing, this is not the case. There are specific individuals, within places such as the State Department and Central Intelligence Agency, who have very intentional strategies and agendas which in some cases are totally at odds with the Department of Defense or the Department of Justice. They have done enough to keep long, multi-Presidential administration careers and gain influence in those organizations while avoid being ousted, but they are wielding outsized influence on US foreign policy. If one tries to explain what the US is doing without acknowledging or understanding the strong opposing forces within the US government, things start sounding really wacky. Most certainly others within the US government including elected officials are guilty of this too, at least in their public statements (which like propaganda can have long term destructive counter-effect of eventually causing the majority of your supporters to fight for made up stories rather than what you were originally intending to do.)
- lern_too_spel 10y ago
  How would Assange know who released the DNC emails? They were publicly released by Guccifer 2.0. Assange merely downloaded the public dump and indexed it on WikiLeaks.
  - Toe-Rag 10y ago
    Guccifer 2.0 released different material from Wikileaks. He/she/it did not release emails.
- normaljoe 10y ago
  > but Assange said that wasn't the case and I feel he's more likely to be telling the truth than state players. Why? He already has a distain against the US and Clinton. He has no more reason to tell the truth the the state players do. > Comneys email announcement at the 11th hour about reopening email investigation was probably a deciding variable and that was hardly Russian lead. This I completely agree with. I think the DNC leaks may have impacted a hundredth of a percent, but Comney contributed in a tenth of a precent. Why would he not intervene? He was almost certainly aware that he would have been job hunting shortly after a Clinton win. He already has shown us his true nature in the whole Apple phone mess which really was more a litmus test then trying to gather real intelligence. Still at the same time if indeed we had foreign actors engaged in election manipulation that is something we, nor any nation, should not tolerate. And yes we should also look inward as I am fairly certain that we have been guilty of this in the past. Maybe, although I doubt this is enough, we and others can quit this ongoing manipulation. The US has proved it backfires multiple times in the middle east. Other nations can hopefully learn from our mistakes. I almost hate to bring it up, but.. "Why can't we all just get along". The answer is simple in that folks want to keep jobs and power. > I'm no expert and just wonder why countries can put more effort to looking after their own populations needs. If they did then that reduces the fear of those against us. That fear seems to be the driving force of politics in 2016 globally.
threeseed 10y ago
a) Anyone who thinks this document is the sole source of evidence is deluding themselves. The intelligence agencies are not going to document their capabilities to the world. Which I am sure would include compromised Tor nodes and DPI (including SSL/encrypted traffic) across many of the key sites/switches/cables. b) It has been claimed that this document is more a guide for other companies and government agencies about the type of techniques that Russia allegedly used. General education about security is still pretty low and the US government et al are going to need to more in this area.
- Natsu 10y ago
  The problem with a line of reasoning that includes secret evidence we'll never get to see is that it can be used to support any conclusion whatsoever. Inasmuch as it's a guide for other agencies, they'd be better served by OWASP recommendations. It's not clear what anyone could do with a report like this. I don't see any great takeaways that one could add to the next revision of their STIG. There are no 0-days for an IAVA. As long as we're going for pure speculation, I think that Kim Dotcom hired Ukranian hackers and I could potentially find weak circumstantial evidence by going through a timeline of his Tweets. I seem to remember that he had foreknowledge of some of the items to be leaked, though that could've been pure BS and I didn't really investigate it at the time. He also has motive based on this administration's treatment of him. EDIT: Found it - https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-14/kim-dotcom-julian-assange-will-be-hillary-clinton-s-worst-nightmare-in-2016 https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-14/kim-d...
  - Toe-Rag 10y ago
    Interesting theory about Dotcom. He knew something. I also think that Wikileaks has more material than they released and that Dotcom knows it. His tweets during October suggest that he was expecting something more to drop. It could have been BS, as you say, but I think he knew something.
gozur88 10y ago
>It's really interesting FBI/DHS would make those claims publicly when the chance of having any hard evidence of that would be minimal. But they still did it. Why? Occam's razor says it's what the DNC wanted them to say. Politically it's a lot easier cop to being penetrated by a state actor than a group like Anonymous, and it allows the Democrats to deflect the conversation from the content of the emails. Well, to make the attempt, anyway. I'll be curious to see what Trump does with this once he takes office. If there's no compelling evidence of Russian state involvement I suspect he'll direct the relevant agencies to release everything. If he doesn't do that it's going to be difficult for him to cast doubt on the Russian angle.
- grzm 10y ago
  the DNC Just an observation: I don't recall until very recently the DNC or the RNC to refer to the parties, as opposed to the Democratic Party or Republican Party. I wonder why the shift? The focus on the Podesta/DNC emails? Makes sense during the election, and now it seems to have transferred over to referring to the party as part of the government (e.g., in reference to the FBI or DHS). Last time I remember the DNC being mentioned so much by name was during the Bill Clinton campaigns, in contrast to the Democratic Leadership Council. My memory can be faulty and selective, so I'm wondering if anyone else has noticed this as well. (Anyone else remember Sinbad in Shazam?)
  - nickff 10y ago
    I think people are using 'DNC' and 'RNC' to make it clear that they are referring to the party leadership, not rank-and-file members.

Gustomaximus 10y ago

To me the ongoing 'Russia rigged elections' smells like propaganda from the other side. And maybe russia did release the DNC emails, but Assange said that wasn't the case and I feel he's more likely to be telling the truth than state players. And even if they did release these emails it's hardly rigging an election. Comneys email announcement at the 11th hour about reopening email investigation was probably a deciding variable and that was hardly Russian lead. Your question of 'why' seems to be the scariest. US lead activities have been encircling Russia and pressing influence right to their borders for some time. For me I feel its too far and they are cornering the bear. Probably there is too much resource in the 'spy' world and they have to do something to justify their position, hence the older generation keep the pressure on Russia from their cold war agenda or they are looking to pick a fight. The latter being very scary. ...but really I'm no expert and just wonder why countries can put more effort to looking after their own populations needs. All this spy/military expenditure seems so wasteful.

threeseed 10y ago
Nobody said Russia rigged the election. The issue was the attempts to influence the election which Russia has a long, documented history of doing so. And the US had an obligation to respond which they did with minimal effect. So claiming all of this was about propaganda really makes no sense given the facts on the ground. And please remember why Russia's relations with almost all of the world deteriorated in the first place. It's because they annexed Crimea (unprecedented for our generation) and allowed soldiers and weapons to flood into Ukraine which then resulted in Flight 117 being shot down. Nobody is looking for a fight with Russia but capitulating and doing nothing is not an answer either. Diplomatic sanctions have been the correct response and I don't see anyone asking for an escalation of that.
- Natsu 10y ago
  > Nobody said Russia rigged the election. Nobody sensible said that, but I've seen more than a few comments along those lines on various sites, enough to believe that general sentiment is commonplace. As for Comey, I'd say he let her off easy. Take a look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC1Mc6-RDyQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC1Mc6-RDyQ Then look at the PDF attached here of an email between Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton and ask whether this looks intentional or not: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324 https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324
  - lern_too_spel 10y ago
    How did Comey let her off easy if she didn't break any laws?
    - Natsu 10y ago
      Comey claimed not to have charged Clinton because there was a lack of intent. Gowdy is calling him on that, saying that this makes zero sense and going over all the ways they have to prove intent. His point at the end about "negligence" underscores the fact that the entire line of reasoning is nonsensical: intentional negligence is a contradiction in terms. That which is intentional cannot be negligent and vice versa. The law in question is against negligence (which does not require any intent whatsoever). Just to underscore that, I just linked to a document where Colin Powell describes in detail how they're subverting the law: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324 https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324 "However, there is a real danger. If it is public that you have a BlackBerry and it [is] government and you are using it, government or not, to do business, it may become an official record and be subject to the law. Reading about the President's BB rules this morning, it sounds like it won't be as useful as it used to be. Be very careful. I got around it all by not saying much and not using systems that captured the data." I don't think it's reasonable to let our politicians get away with this. Inasmuch as people are worried about Russian influence, it seems strange to me that there's no worry about the very leaders to jeopardize our OPSEC with their hubris. Here is Colin Powell, again, saying things that should make HN readers cringe: "Now, the real issue had to do with PDAs, as we called them a few years ago before BlackBerry became a noun. And the issue was DS would not allow them into the secure spaces, especially up your way. When I asked why not they gave me all kinds of nonsense about how they gave out signals that could be read by spies, etc. Same reason they tried to keep mobile phones out of the suite. I had numerous meetings with them. We even opened one up for them to try to explain to me why it was more dangerous than say, a remote control for one of the many tvs in the suite. Or something embedded in my shoe heel. They never satisfied me and NSA/CIA wouldn't back off. So, we just went about our business and stopped asking. I had an ancient version of a PDA and used it. In general, the suite was so sealed that it is hard to get signals in or out wirelessly." If the law is so toothless that high ranking people of either party (Powell is a Republican) can deliberately subvert them, then we're always going to be at the mercy of every country with half-decent spies. This is a problem in its own right, independent from whatever partisan considerations we have here. === Note: The square brackets in the quote are me fixing typos in the original.
SixSigma 10y ago
Using Mind Control to make Donna Brazile get fired from CNN for giving HRC Debate Questions was genius hacking. Using Mind Control to make Debbie Wasserman Schultz quit as DNC chair for rigging thr Primaries and then same day get a new job with HRC was genius hacking. It's like poeple think the only thing shady was Comey the Weasel!
knz 10y ago
This is too sinple. Russia is actively pushing an agenda as well - the invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea were not a response to US/NATO aggression. A new cold war has also been pushed domestically for the political benefit of Putin et al. If Trump had done basic things like released his tax returns (to show no massive conflict of interest with Russian loans etc) or stopped praising Putin on a regular basis then it would be a lot easier to dismiss concerns about his relationship with Putin and whether they stand to benefit by Trump's election. Russia/Putin has a history of crushing domestic political dissent (including assassinations) and exploiting xenophobia for political gain. There is NOTHING for the US or any NATO member to admire about Putin or the Russian political system. Edit. I forgot to mention the proxy war in Syria! Russia has everything to gain by tipping the scales in favour of a politician that upsets that status quo in the US.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ZoeZoeBee 10y ago
  The invasion of Crimea was a direct response to US/NATO aggression. 1) The US helped plot to overthrow the Ukranian government in 2014. 2) Russia was not keen on NATO pushing for Ukraine to become a member, which would literally put the Russians major warm naval port under NATO hands. 3) Crimea has been a part of Russia for centuries, the only reason Crimea became a part of Ukraine after the breakup of the Soviet Union is because the SSR transferred Crimea from the Russian state to the Ukraine state in 1954 to celebrate the 300th Anniversary of the Ukraine as part of Russia. 4) The vast majority of the population of Crimea has been for hundreds of years of Russian ethnicity and language. 5) Crimea voted to rejoin Russia The State of Politics are much deeper than you seem to admit. Edit: Russia's support for Syria has more to do with the strategic location of Syria and the transportation of Russia's Natural Resources through that territory.
  - sgc 10y ago
    Many of your points are valid. However pointing to an "election" with no real choice while occupied by a foreign power undermines your position significantly.
AJ007 10y ago
Trying to avoid all political topics here - If there were security holes in such a high profile organization, I would assume multiple intelligence agencies may have made interceptions of the data. The US intercepts communications of even friendly foreign governments, it certainly should be expected that a hostile government is going to try to intercept communications of the US government and related private organizations. If Julian Assange is to be believed, which I think is fair, my guess is Russia hacked the DNC and RNC, yet the DNC dump came from someone else, internal or external. Everything about the Russia stories are reminding me of a few years ago when ever hack was caused by China. Of course, because hackers are routing traffic through China and thats where the trail ended! I've written this here before, but while there is the appearance that the United States Government is unified and trying to do one thing, this is not the case. There are specific individuals, within places such as the State Department and Central Intelligence Agency, who have very intentional strategies and agendas which in some cases are totally at odds with the Department of Defense or the Department of Justice. They have done enough to keep long, multi-Presidential administration careers and gain influence in those organizations while avoid being ousted, but they are wielding outsized influence on US foreign policy. If one tries to explain what the US is doing without acknowledging or understanding the strong opposing forces within the US government, things start sounding really wacky. Most certainly others within the US government including elected officials are guilty of this too, at least in their public statements (which like propaganda can have long term destructive counter-effect of eventually causing the majority of your supporters to fight for made up stories rather than what you were originally intending to do.)
lern_too_spel 10y ago
How would Assange know who released the DNC emails? They were publicly released by Guccifer 2.0. Assange merely downloaded the public dump and indexed it on WikiLeaks.
- Toe-Rag 10y ago
  Guccifer 2.0 released different material from Wikileaks. He/she/it did not release emails.
normaljoe 10y ago
> but Assange said that wasn't the case and I feel he's more likely to be telling the truth than state players. Why? He already has a distain against the US and Clinton. He has no more reason to tell the truth the the state players do. > Comneys email announcement at the 11th hour about reopening email investigation was probably a deciding variable and that was hardly Russian lead. This I completely agree with. I think the DNC leaks may have impacted a hundredth of a percent, but Comney contributed in a tenth of a precent. Why would he not intervene? He was almost certainly aware that he would have been job hunting shortly after a Clinton win. He already has shown us his true nature in the whole Apple phone mess which really was more a litmus test then trying to gather real intelligence. Still at the same time if indeed we had foreign actors engaged in election manipulation that is something we, nor any nation, should not tolerate. And yes we should also look inward as I am fairly certain that we have been guilty of this in the past. Maybe, although I doubt this is enough, we and others can quit this ongoing manipulation. The US has proved it backfires multiple times in the middle east. Other nations can hopefully learn from our mistakes. I almost hate to bring it up, but.. "Why can't we all just get along". The answer is simple in that folks want to keep jobs and power. > I'm no expert and just wonder why countries can put more effort to looking after their own populations needs. If they did then that reduces the fear of those against us. That fear seems to be the driving force of politics in 2016 globally.

threeseed 10y ago

a) Anyone who thinks this document is the sole source of evidence is deluding themselves. The intelligence agencies are not going to document their capabilities to the world. Which I am sure would include compromised Tor nodes and DPI (including SSL/encrypted traffic) across many of the key sites/switches/cables. b) It has been claimed that this document is more a guide for other companies and government agencies about the type of techniques that Russia allegedly used. General education about security is still pretty low and the US government et al are going to need to more in this area.

Natsu 10y ago
The problem with a line of reasoning that includes secret evidence we'll never get to see is that it can be used to support any conclusion whatsoever. Inasmuch as it's a guide for other agencies, they'd be better served by OWASP recommendations. It's not clear what anyone could do with a report like this. I don't see any great takeaways that one could add to the next revision of their STIG. There are no 0-days for an IAVA. As long as we're going for pure speculation, I think that Kim Dotcom hired Ukranian hackers and I could potentially find weak circumstantial evidence by going through a timeline of his Tweets. I seem to remember that he had foreknowledge of some of the items to be leaked, though that could've been pure BS and I didn't really investigate it at the time. He also has motive based on this administration's treatment of him. EDIT: Found it - https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-14/kim-dotcom-julian-assange-will-be-hillary-clinton-s-worst-nightmare-in-2016 https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-14/kim-d...
- Toe-Rag 10y ago
  Interesting theory about Dotcom. He knew something. I also think that Wikileaks has more material than they released and that Dotcom knows it. His tweets during October suggest that he was expecting something more to drop. It could have been BS, as you say, but I think he knew something.

gozur88 10y ago

>It's really interesting FBI/DHS would make those claims publicly when the chance of having any hard evidence of that would be minimal. But they still did it. Why? Occam's razor says it's what the DNC wanted them to say. Politically it's a lot easier cop to being penetrated by a state actor than a group like Anonymous, and it allows the Democrats to deflect the conversation from the content of the emails. Well, to make the attempt, anyway. I'll be curious to see what Trump does with this once he takes office. If there's no compelling evidence of Russian state involvement I suspect he'll direct the relevant agencies to release everything. If he doesn't do that it's going to be difficult for him to cast doubt on the Russian angle.

grzm 10y ago
the DNC Just an observation: I don't recall until very recently the DNC or the RNC to refer to the parties, as opposed to the Democratic Party or Republican Party. I wonder why the shift? The focus on the Podesta/DNC emails? Makes sense during the election, and now it seems to have transferred over to referring to the party as part of the government (e.g., in reference to the FBI or DHS). Last time I remember the DNC being mentioned so much by name was during the Bill Clinton campaigns, in contrast to the Democratic Leadership Council. My memory can be faulty and selective, so I'm wondering if anyone else has noticed this as well. (Anyone else remember Sinbad in Shazam?)
- nickff 10y ago
  I think people are using 'DNC' and 'RNC' to make it clear that they are referring to the party leadership, not rank-and-file members.