6 ms·

The Hackers Russia-Proofing Germany’s Elections

TeMPOraL 9y ago
God, that headline ("The Hackers Russia-Proofing Germany’s Elections"). Has it been ever conclusively proven that Russia hacked any election? Or is it just repeating unwarranted accusations in a form as if they were already facts?
- atmosx 9y ago
  Of course not. Who cares?
- ideonexus 9y ago
  Yeah. The evidence is pretty overwhelming at this point: http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/26/us/2016-presidential-campaign-hacking-fast-facts/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/26/us/2016-presidential-campaign-... The fact that Reality Leigh Winner is being charged with leaking classified information on the Russian government's phishing-attack on computers at an American voting machine company confirms that leak was valid. Then last week a DHS official said the Russian government was targeting voting systems in 21 states. And these two things happened just this month. The evidence has been mounting for over a year now.
  - ythn 9y ago
    To me it seems disingenuous to call that "election hacking". "Election hacking" conjures images of manipulating voting machines, but what Russia did based on that link you provided was simply find unsavory things the DNC has done in order to bring negative PR to the party.
    - ascagnel_ 9y ago
      I think it would be more appropriate to say that Russian influence socially engineered the 2016 election rather than outright hacked the election. One other thing to consider: US elections are by definition secure from a wholesale hacking on account of the election being run on a patchwork of systems that differ from state to state (and sometimes county to county or even precinct to precinct). However, this same design and subsequent long list of vulnerabilities found in election machines and their software means that it would be possible to tip crucial precincts and districts in surgical, spear-phishing style attacks that may not attract all that much attention.
      - unityByFreedom 9y ago
        Isn't there some question over whether Russia supplied illegally obtained data, such as emails or voter registration details (or metadata generated from said data), to the Trump campaign? That's more than social engineering. It's potentially hacking and collusion. EDIT: Wow, quick to downvote. I thought we were in favor of waiting until the investigation concludes to say decisively whether or not collusion happened.
        catawbasam 9y ago
        A GOP consultant named Aaron Nevins requested and received detailed campaign data from Guccifer 2 that was hacked from the Dems. This included the Dem voter turnout model, "worth millions" according to Nevins. Guccifer 2 forwarded Nevin's analysis to Trump associate Roger Stone. Story at Wall Street Journal, May 25 2017. Short non pay wall version on Ars Technica.
    - rsynnott 9y ago
      That was a rather old article. See https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-13/russian-breach-of-39-states-threatens-future-u-s-elections https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-13/russian-b... Also see Russian activities in the Ukraine, Bulgaria, etc.
    - CharlesW 9y ago
      > To me it seems disingenuous to call that "election hacking". Really, you've never heard of social engineering/hacking? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_hacking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_hacking
      - AckSyn 9y ago
        And it's extremely misleading to use media buzzwords that convey an entirely different meaning. It's essentially lying to the public.
      - KekDemaga 9y ago
        If I broke the pin on your smartphone and obtained evidence of infidelity on your part and gave it to your wife, did I hack your marriage?
        willvarfar 9y ago
        You hacked his phone. You influenced his wife.
        ythn 9y ago
        Wife hacking?
    - kesselvon 9y ago
      They hacked more than the DNC. Lots of competitive districts had their Dems hacked, and the propaganda campaign using bots and fake news.
    - 52-6F-62 9y ago
      There have been reports of voter data being manipulated, with some voters being unregistered shortly before election day. I can dig up further info if anybody wants, but it shouldn't be too hard to find. This is the first report I came across: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/voter-data-manipulated-in-2016-hacks-report-974201923942 http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/voter-data-manipula...
  - mmjaa 9y ago
    It is still too early to tell, and nobody should be jumping to conclusions at this stage in the investigation. Either you have faith in the law-enforcement machine, or you don't. Let them finish their investigation, publish a report, and then make your own conclusions. (You know, kind of how it all went down with 9/11: same deal. No jumping to conclusions, kids ..)
    - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
      Nobody should be jumping to conclusions at the point the Senate intel committee has said they're sure during committee hearings and NSA/FBI/CIA have issued a joint report? What do you consider a reasonable standard if the intel community saying their findings isn't it?
      - mmjaa 9y ago
        A written report that isn't a 30-second video sound-bite.
        SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
        Like the one they issued on January 6th? https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/publications/assessing-russian-activities-and-intentions-recent-us-elections https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/publications/assessing-r...
    - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
      > Either you have faith in the law-enforcement machine Law enforcement has said Russia interfered [1]. The ODNI conducted an investigation and published its report [2]. Whether it flipped the outcome is difficult to determine, and in my view a wholly-separate issue. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_... [2] https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf EDIT: added link to report [2] from first paragraph of the Wikipedia article [1]
  - Corristowolf 9y ago
    CNN Producer Says Russia Narrative “bullsh*t" > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdP8TiKY8dE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdP8TiKY8dE Well now....
  - weirdstuff 9y ago
    Like David Brooks, I'm not convinced. Sure, Russia seeks influence, and has a little. But I have to be suspicious of leaked publicized intel. Brooks' NY Times article from last week: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/opinion/russia-investigation-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/opinion/russia-investigat...
    - cmurf 9y ago
      A contrary opinion. http://www.gq.com/story/david-brooks-trump-whitewater http://www.gq.com/story/david-brooks-trump-whitewater
  - travmatt 9y ago
    At this point even Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump concede Russia attacked America, they're only trying to muddy attribution as to who ordered it and why. The only people who don't believe it at this point usually have some motivation beyond honest inquiry.
  - Jerry2 9y ago
    CNN are confirmed to be liars. Here's the CNN producer saying Russia story's bullshit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdP8TiKY8dE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdP8TiKY8dE Never trust CNN on anything. They're just a propaganda outlet at this point.
    - ythn 9y ago
      > Never trust CNN on anything. They're just a propaganda outlet at this point. Seems like every news network is in the pocket of one party or the other. Are there any (relatively) unbiased sources left?
    - 52-6F-62 9y ago
      Thats a video released by O'Keefe and Project Veritas who are confirmed frauds. They've altered context of statements in videos before, and lost out in court when confronted about it. They're simply not credible. Besides, that guy doesn't produce in the same department as the journalists working on the Russia story. He's a supervising producer for CNN Health. Leave the misinformation campaigns out of here.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - ihalip 9y ago
    Didn't a few people resign from CNN just a few days ago after they wrote an unsubstantiated article regarding the election interference?
    - willstrafach 9y ago
      No. You might be thinking of three people who resigned from CNN after an article retraction related to news of a POTUS ally having connections to a Russian investment firm which is under investigation (That investigation is separate from the election interference one).
basicplus2 9y ago
Pencil and paper is pretty hard to hack.. social engineering in the other hand..
- adrianN 9y ago
  Social engineering... also called election campaigns?
  - JohnTHaller 9y ago
    I didn't realize foreign powers running massive botnets on Facebook and Twitter to share fake news stories was considered an 'election campaign'.
    - unityByFreedom 9y ago
      It's more than that. Advertising is legal as long as it's not libel. Hacking into machines that store voter data isn't legal. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-13/russian-breach-of-39-states-threatens-future-u-s-elections https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-13/russian-b...
      - travmatt 9y ago
        But it is helpful for voter targeting, especially when you pass that information onto republicans who offer to buy it. Also helpful is targeting swing state databases and deleting the voter registrations of people who you think would vote against your candidate.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - anc84 9y ago
      Did you miss the Cambridge Analytics hype campaign?
- nickpsecurity 9y ago
Freestyler_3 9y ago
I guess Russia-Proofing is a bit click-baity. I mean, unless they are really only focussing on attacks by Russia. What I think helps a lot is awareness and preventing human error (taking the phishing bait).
noir_lord 9y ago
> Said Linus Neumann Given that name how could he not be hacker.
pjc50 9y ago
The strange thing is I've not heard any substantial allegations of "hacking" in the UK's recent snap election. Possibly it was called with too short notice for any to be organised. The other possible conclusion is that the British government is doing too good a job at weakening itself for the Russians to risk interfering... (There is an allegation that a large chunk of Saudi money was given to the DUP, now coalition minor partners: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/election-dup-brexit-donations-saudi-arabia-tale-tories-theresa-may-a7782681.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/election-dup-b... )
- have_faith 9y ago
  The article is very interesting but seemed to stop short of finishing off the journalism that was started. Interestingly no link between Saudi money and the DUP was actually established at all. Not that there probably isn't hidden connections.
jancsika 9y ago
Is there anything like the CCC in the U.S.?
Tomte 9y ago
Unfortunately, the headline with "Russia" in it distracts everyone. I almost didn't click through to the article, and was pleasantly surprised that it is not at all about Russia or election hacking, but about the Chaos Computer Club and its standing in society and the institutions.
Gravityloss 9y ago
Why would elections have to involve machines, nevermind computers? I have studied, worked with and spent free time with computers a lot, for many decades, and I think I know quite a lot more about them than the average parliament member or other representatives. I have also worked as a volunteer at a voting place so I know at least partially how voting works, and which safeguard processes it includes. I do not find computers useful for the voting process. I find them very detrimental to trust, and practically impossible to safeguard for voting. I strongly oppose using computers in anything in the critical path related to voting.
- daveguy 9y ago
  I would trust a scantron style ballot over any manual or digital alternative. Quick, simple, proven and it leaves a verifiable paper trail.
- josu 9y ago
  Paper ballots are just as easy to manipulate. Computers+blockchain should be the future of voting. Verifiable votes are something that paper ballots will always lack, and the computers could bring that to the table. However, this would make vote buying so much easier, so it probably wouldn't work for most developing countries.
  - kahnpro 9y ago
    Paper votes are difficult to manipulate on a massive scale. You can stuff some ballot boxes and turn a polling station. But to do the same across the country to rig the election? At this point your country probably has worse problems and they won't even bother counting votes, but announce wholly fabricated numbers. With electronic voting, it becomes trivially easy for a single hacker to falsify the entire election in one fell swoop.
    - josu 9y ago
      >on a massive scale. Usually you can't to manipulate elections "on a massive" scale to win, regardless of the format of the ballot. If the polls are 50/30 and the 30 ends up winning the elections, it will always be too obvious. Elections are usually stolen on the margins, look at most apparently-rigged-but-not-obviously elections in history. >At this point your country probably has worse problems and they won't even bother counting ballots, but announce wholly fabricated numbers. And yes, usually, when an election rigging scandal comes up, the country has more serious problems than vote manipulation. >With electronic voting, it becomes trivially easy for a single hacker to falsify the entire election in one fell swoop. But yes, I wouldn't say "trivially easy", but yeah, a lone wolf would never be able to falsify paper vote elections.

God, that headline ("The Hackers Russia-Proofing Germany’s Elections"). Has it been ever conclusively proven that Russia hacked any election? Or is it just repeating unwarranted accusations in a form as if they were already facts?

atmosx 9y ago
Of course not. Who cares?
ideonexus 9y ago
Yeah. The evidence is pretty overwhelming at this point: http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/26/us/2016-presidential-campaign-hacking-fast-facts/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/26/us/2016-presidential-campaign-... The fact that Reality Leigh Winner is being charged with leaking classified information on the Russian government's phishing-attack on computers at an American voting machine company confirms that leak was valid. Then last week a DHS official said the Russian government was targeting voting systems in 21 states. And these two things happened just this month. The evidence has been mounting for over a year now.
- ythn 9y ago
  To me it seems disingenuous to call that "election hacking". "Election hacking" conjures images of manipulating voting machines, but what Russia did based on that link you provided was simply find unsavory things the DNC has done in order to bring negative PR to the party.
  - ascagnel_ 9y ago
    I think it would be more appropriate to say that Russian influence socially engineered the 2016 election rather than outright hacked the election. One other thing to consider: US elections are by definition secure from a wholesale hacking on account of the election being run on a patchwork of systems that differ from state to state (and sometimes county to county or even precinct to precinct). However, this same design and subsequent long list of vulnerabilities found in election machines and their software means that it would be possible to tip crucial precincts and districts in surgical, spear-phishing style attacks that may not attract all that much attention.
    - unityByFreedom 9y ago
      Isn't there some question over whether Russia supplied illegally obtained data, such as emails or voter registration details (or metadata generated from said data), to the Trump campaign? That's more than social engineering. It's potentially hacking and collusion. EDIT: Wow, quick to downvote. I thought we were in favor of waiting until the investigation concludes to say decisively whether or not collusion happened.
      - catawbasam 9y ago
        A GOP consultant named Aaron Nevins requested and received detailed campaign data from Guccifer 2 that was hacked from the Dems. This included the Dem voter turnout model, "worth millions" according to Nevins. Guccifer 2 forwarded Nevin's analysis to Trump associate Roger Stone. Story at Wall Street Journal, May 25 2017. Short non pay wall version on Ars Technica.
  - rsynnott 9y ago
    That was a rather old article. See https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-13/russian-breach-of-39-states-threatens-future-u-s-elections https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-13/russian-b... Also see Russian activities in the Ukraine, Bulgaria, etc.
  - CharlesW 9y ago
    > To me it seems disingenuous to call that "election hacking". Really, you've never heard of social engineering/hacking? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_hacking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_hacking
    - AckSyn 9y ago
      And it's extremely misleading to use media buzzwords that convey an entirely different meaning. It's essentially lying to the public.
    - KekDemaga 9y ago
      If I broke the pin on your smartphone and obtained evidence of infidelity on your part and gave it to your wife, did I hack your marriage?
      - willvarfar 9y ago
        You hacked his phone. You influenced his wife.
        ythn 9y ago
        Wife hacking?
  - kesselvon 9y ago
    They hacked more than the DNC. Lots of competitive districts had their Dems hacked, and the propaganda campaign using bots and fake news.
  - 52-6F-62 9y ago
    There have been reports of voter data being manipulated, with some voters being unregistered shortly before election day. I can dig up further info if anybody wants, but it shouldn't be too hard to find. This is the first report I came across: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/voter-data-manipulated-in-2016-hacks-report-974201923942 http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/voter-data-manipula...
- mmjaa 9y ago
  It is still too early to tell, and nobody should be jumping to conclusions at this stage in the investigation. Either you have faith in the law-enforcement machine, or you don't. Let them finish their investigation, publish a report, and then make your own conclusions. (You know, kind of how it all went down with 9/11: same deal. No jumping to conclusions, kids ..)
  - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
    Nobody should be jumping to conclusions at the point the Senate intel committee has said they're sure during committee hearings and NSA/FBI/CIA have issued a joint report? What do you consider a reasonable standard if the intel community saying their findings isn't it?
    - mmjaa 9y ago
      A written report that isn't a 30-second video sound-bite.
      - SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
        Like the one they issued on January 6th? https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/publications/assessing-russian-activities-and-intentions-recent-us-elections https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/publications/assessing-r...
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > Either you have faith in the law-enforcement machine Law enforcement has said Russia interfered [1]. The ODNI conducted an investigation and published its report [2]. Whether it flipped the outcome is difficult to determine, and in my view a wholly-separate issue. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_... [2] https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf EDIT: added link to report [2] from first paragraph of the Wikipedia article [1]
- Corristowolf 9y ago
  CNN Producer Says Russia Narrative “bullsh*t" > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdP8TiKY8dE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdP8TiKY8dE Well now....
- weirdstuff 9y ago
  Like David Brooks, I'm not convinced. Sure, Russia seeks influence, and has a little. But I have to be suspicious of leaked publicized intel. Brooks' NY Times article from last week: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/opinion/russia-investigation-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/opinion/russia-investigat...
  - cmurf 9y ago
    A contrary opinion. http://www.gq.com/story/david-brooks-trump-whitewater http://www.gq.com/story/david-brooks-trump-whitewater
- travmatt 9y ago
  At this point even Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump concede Russia attacked America, they're only trying to muddy attribution as to who ordered it and why. The only people who don't believe it at this point usually have some motivation beyond honest inquiry.
- Jerry2 9y ago
  CNN are confirmed to be liars. Here's the CNN producer saying Russia story's bullshit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdP8TiKY8dE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdP8TiKY8dE Never trust CNN on anything. They're just a propaganda outlet at this point.
  - ythn 9y ago
    > Never trust CNN on anything. They're just a propaganda outlet at this point. Seems like every news network is in the pocket of one party or the other. Are there any (relatively) unbiased sources left?
  - 52-6F-62 9y ago
    Thats a video released by O'Keefe and Project Veritas who are confirmed frauds. They've altered context of statements in videos before, and lost out in court when confronted about it. They're simply not credible. Besides, that guy doesn't produce in the same department as the journalists working on the Russia story. He's a supervising producer for CNN Health. Leave the misinformation campaigns out of here.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ihalip 9y ago
  Didn't a few people resign from CNN just a few days ago after they wrote an unsubstantiated article regarding the election interference?
  - willstrafach 9y ago
    No. You might be thinking of three people who resigned from CNN after an article retraction related to news of a POTUS ally having connections to a Russian investment firm which is under investigation (That investigation is separate from the election interference one).

basicplus2 9y ago

Pencil and paper is pretty hard to hack.. social engineering in the other hand..

adrianN 9y ago
Social engineering... also called election campaigns?
- JohnTHaller 9y ago
  I didn't realize foreign powers running massive botnets on Facebook and Twitter to share fake news stories was considered an 'election campaign'.
  - unityByFreedom 9y ago
    It's more than that. Advertising is legal as long as it's not libel. Hacking into machines that store voter data isn't legal. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-13/russian-breach-of-39-states-threatens-future-u-s-elections https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-13/russian-b...
    - travmatt 9y ago
      But it is helpful for voter targeting, especially when you pass that information onto republicans who offer to buy it. Also helpful is targeting swing state databases and deleting the voter registrations of people who you think would vote against your candidate.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - anc84 9y ago
    Did you miss the Cambridge Analytics hype campaign?
nickpsecurity 9y ago

Freestyler_3 9y ago

I guess Russia-Proofing is a bit click-baity. I mean, unless they are really only focussing on attacks by Russia. What I think helps a lot is awareness and preventing human error (taking the phishing bait).

noir_lord 9y ago

> Said Linus Neumann Given that name how could he not be hacker.

pjc50 9y ago

The strange thing is I've not heard any substantial allegations of "hacking" in the UK's recent snap election. Possibly it was called with too short notice for any to be organised. The other possible conclusion is that the British government is doing too good a job at weakening itself for the Russians to risk interfering... (There is an allegation that a large chunk of Saudi money was given to the DUP, now coalition minor partners: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/election-dup-brexit-donations-saudi-arabia-tale-tories-theresa-may-a7782681.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/election-dup-b... )

have_faith 9y ago
The article is very interesting but seemed to stop short of finishing off the journalism that was started. Interestingly no link between Saudi money and the DUP was actually established at all. Not that there probably isn't hidden connections.

jancsika 9y ago

Is there anything like the CCC in the U.S.?

Tomte 9y ago

Unfortunately, the headline with "Russia" in it distracts everyone. I almost didn't click through to the article, and was pleasantly surprised that it is not at all about Russia or election hacking, but about the Chaos Computer Club and its standing in society and the institutions.

Gravityloss 9y ago

Why would elections have to involve machines, nevermind computers? I have studied, worked with and spent free time with computers a lot, for many decades, and I think I know quite a lot more about them than the average parliament member or other representatives. I have also worked as a volunteer at a voting place so I know at least partially how voting works, and which safeguard processes it includes. I do not find computers useful for the voting process. I find them very detrimental to trust, and practically impossible to safeguard for voting. I strongly oppose using computers in anything in the critical path related to voting.

daveguy 9y ago
I would trust a scantron style ballot over any manual or digital alternative. Quick, simple, proven and it leaves a verifiable paper trail.
josu 9y ago
Paper ballots are just as easy to manipulate. Computers+blockchain should be the future of voting. Verifiable votes are something that paper ballots will always lack, and the computers could bring that to the table. However, this would make vote buying so much easier, so it probably wouldn't work for most developing countries.
- kahnpro 9y ago
  Paper votes are difficult to manipulate on a massive scale. You can stuff some ballot boxes and turn a polling station. But to do the same across the country to rig the election? At this point your country probably has worse problems and they won't even bother counting votes, but announce wholly fabricated numbers. With electronic voting, it becomes trivially easy for a single hacker to falsify the entire election in one fell swoop.
  - josu 9y ago
    >on a massive scale. Usually you can't to manipulate elections "on a massive" scale to win, regardless of the format of the ballot. If the polls are 50/30 and the 30 ends up winning the elections, it will always be too obvious. Elections are usually stolen on the margins, look at most apparently-rigged-but-not-obviously elections in history. >At this point your country probably has worse problems and they won't even bother counting ballots, but announce wholly fabricated numbers. And yes, usually, when an election rigging scandal comes up, the country has more serious problems than vote manipulation. >With electronic voting, it becomes trivially easy for a single hacker to falsify the entire election in one fell swoop. But yes, I wouldn't say "trivially easy", but yeah, a lone wolf would never be able to falsify paper vote elections.