4 ms·

I'm curious, does anyone have concrete evidence about these things or are people just saying that "on the evidence which we are gathering"

bojl 10y ago
Don't think any concrete evidence exists, but the fact that the politicians (across the aisle) that were briefed on the hackings are universally accepting that Russia hacked the DNC is pretty good indication that the claims are true. Well, either that or there's a huge conspiracy going on, or gross incompetence.
- gregman1 10y ago
  Considering recent news articles it definitely is a gross incompetence.
rwmj 10y ago
I guess solid evidence is hard to put forward. Suppose I follow a chain of forwarders back to a Russian government hacking organization. What evidence would convince you that it happened? A PDF report listing the IPs? Screenshots? Print outs? An independent third party (and how would I convince them?) Add to that the secrecy of the agencies gathering this evidence (completely unnecessary IMO) and the partisan/scepticism of the recipients, it's a hard problem.
- Natsu 10y ago
  Hack one of them and release their email/recordings/etc. showing the plot. Maybe you'd burn some sources or methods, but if the alternative is that you get taken over, is that not worth it?
  - nl 10y ago
    Except that will be disclaimed as being faked, and it will be impossible to prove otherwise.
    - Natsu 10y ago
      There are many ways to corroborate evidence from 3rd party sources. It's done in courtrooms every single day. Take, for example, the leaked emails. They can be shown to have DKIM signatures which are signed by both Google & Hillary's email servers and these can be validated. Or in the physical world, you can show that people were in the right place in the right time. You can find multiple, named witnesses who have proof of being in the right place at the right time and other corroborating evidence. Sure, it will be disclaimed as being faked. But then you end up like Donna Brazille: - First you show her denying this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Izl0e4xvgGA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Izl0e4xvgGA - Now you show a DKIM validated email: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205 - Now you show how to perform the validation: http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/10/yes-we-can-validate-wikileaks-emails.html?m=1 http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/10/yes-we-can-validate-wikile... At this point, they can deny however they like. It only makes them look more guilty.
      - nl 10y ago
        Well it depends on the evidence, right? I'd imagine that the FSB has reasonable OpSec, and APT28 too.
        Natsu 10y ago
        Turn that around to see why there's always a weak link somewhere. I'd expect the NSA to have reasonable OpSec too, but there's Snowden. And they protect the US Secretary of State, too, but look at how hard Colin Powell made their job: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324 https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324 It's in the PDF attached to that. There's always a weak link somewhere. When you have people like this in power, even the smartest spies can't protect them -- "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."
- Dolores12 10y ago
  >What evidence would convince you that it happened? Exact thought process they used to figure out they were russian hackers would be good. I need to understand. Screenshots, ips, print outs do not explain\prove anything.
  - thewhitetulip 10y ago
    Everyone aware of how cyber security works is aware that it is next to impossible to prove with absolute certainty about being hacked by someone, but yes, if I claim bob hacked my servers, I'd have to conclude that based on some data, I'd love to see that some data :-D (Sometimes I watch RT and you won't believe how differently they represent all the news :-D) (p.s. I am not a US or Russian citizen)

bojl 10y ago

Don't think any concrete evidence exists, but the fact that the politicians (across the aisle) that were briefed on the hackings are universally accepting that Russia hacked the DNC is pretty good indication that the claims are true. Well, either that or there's a huge conspiracy going on, or gross incompetence.

gregman1 10y ago
Considering recent news articles it definitely is a gross incompetence.

rwmj 10y ago

I guess solid evidence is hard to put forward. Suppose I follow a chain of forwarders back to a Russian government hacking organization. What evidence would convince you that it happened? A PDF report listing the IPs? Screenshots? Print outs? An independent third party (and how would I convince them?) Add to that the secrecy of the agencies gathering this evidence (completely unnecessary IMO) and the partisan/scepticism of the recipients, it's a hard problem.

Natsu 10y ago
Hack one of them and release their email/recordings/etc. showing the plot. Maybe you'd burn some sources or methods, but if the alternative is that you get taken over, is that not worth it?
- nl 10y ago
  Except that will be disclaimed as being faked, and it will be impossible to prove otherwise.
  - Natsu 10y ago
    There are many ways to corroborate evidence from 3rd party sources. It's done in courtrooms every single day. Take, for example, the leaked emails. They can be shown to have DKIM signatures which are signed by both Google & Hillary's email servers and these can be validated. Or in the physical world, you can show that people were in the right place in the right time. You can find multiple, named witnesses who have proof of being in the right place at the right time and other corroborating evidence. Sure, it will be disclaimed as being faked. But then you end up like Donna Brazille: - First you show her denying this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Izl0e4xvgGA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Izl0e4xvgGA - Now you show a DKIM validated email: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205 - Now you show how to perform the validation: http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/10/yes-we-can-validate-wikileaks-emails.html?m=1 http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/10/yes-we-can-validate-wikile... At this point, they can deny however they like. It only makes them look more guilty.
    - nl 10y ago
      Well it depends on the evidence, right? I'd imagine that the FSB has reasonable OpSec, and APT28 too.
      - Natsu 10y ago
        Turn that around to see why there's always a weak link somewhere. I'd expect the NSA to have reasonable OpSec too, but there's Snowden. And they protect the US Secretary of State, too, but look at how hard Colin Powell made their job: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324 https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324 It's in the PDF attached to that. There's always a weak link somewhere. When you have people like this in power, even the smartest spies can't protect them -- "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."
Dolores12 10y ago
>What evidence would convince you that it happened? Exact thought process they used to figure out they were russian hackers would be good. I need to understand. Screenshots, ips, print outs do not explain\prove anything.
- thewhitetulip 10y ago
  Everyone aware of how cyber security works is aware that it is next to impossible to prove with absolute certainty about being hacked by someone, but yes, if I claim bob hacked my servers, I'd have to conclude that based on some data, I'd love to see that some data :-D (Sometimes I watch RT and you won't believe how differently they represent all the news :-D) (p.s. I am not a US or Russian citizen)