4 ms·

I hate this grubby finger-pointing to a state actor. Sadly, the majority of non tech readers will take is as given.

by alva 9y ago

zitterbewegung 9y ago
I think it must be some crisis management / PR department that says to say "done by state actor".
- honestlyreally 9y ago
  Certainly minimises any anger for the 90m golden parachute given to the person at the helm now bailing out.
  - trendia 9y ago
    If anything, it turns the CEO into a victim. "No CEO would be able to withstand a targeted attack from such a motivated adversary!"
RhodesianHunter 9y ago
Considering everything we now know about Russia's attempts to influence our elections and sew division, is it really unreasonable to think they might try to throw a wrench into our credit system?
- lowry 9y ago
  Did not they just buy ads on Facebook instead of hacking it?
  - untog 9y ago
    You'll notice the post you are replying to didn't use the word "hack", it said "attempts to influence our elections and sew division", which is something Facebook ads would do quite well. I agree that hysteria over "election hacking" is tedious, but so is blanket dismissal that a foreign state actor would have an interest in influencing a US election. Of course they would.
  - heartbreak 9y ago
    Why would you assume that a single actor used a single approach in attacking the election process? These election systems would have some extremely useful data for targeting those Facebook ad campaigns: https://www.apnews.com/cb8a753a9b0948589cc372a3c037a567 https://www.apnews.com/cb8a753a9b0948589cc372a3c037a567
  - _jal 9y ago
    They also attempted hacking (according to the intelligence services) 21 state's election systems, with varying degrees of success. Pretty sure that qualifies as 'unauthorized access'.
    - zaroth 9y ago
      The Washington Post basically exposed this as "Fake News". https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/09/23/what-we-know-about-the-21-states-targeted-by-russian-hackers/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/09/23/wh... And in case you're interested, here it is from a more colorful source; https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia-story-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/ https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia...
- tajen 9y ago
  Apart from CNN throwing the phrase "ties with Russia" like the period at the end of the sentences for things as little as an interview being aired on Russian TV (true story from CNN [1]), do we have reasons to think the "Russians hacked the election"? Are you telling me our systems aren't resilient to attacks from other nation-states? If so... what's the NSA doing? [1] https://youtu.be/rSzYc_gSx44 https://youtu.be/rSzYc_gSx44
- grandalf 9y ago
  > throw a wrench into our credit system How, by getting Equifax to hire IT staff that does not see the wisdom in patching known vulnerabilities? > everything we now know about Russia's attempts to influence our elections and sew division Be careful what you believe. To date there has not been hard evidence that the Russian government was involved in any of the mischief that has been discovered. It could just as easily have been an activist group within Russia or even (sadly) the US intelligence agencies looking to fan the flames of war with Russia. There has been consistent conflict between the US and Russia all along since the cold war ended. And certainly lots of mischief on both sides. The danger in this case is allowing US propagandists to frame the recent mischief as cyber warfare, which it is not. Considering the way that information about the alleged hacks have been strategically leaked and timed to convince the American people to resent Russia, it's pretty clear what the objective is. Wars don't just happen, they are the result of significant propaganda effort. We are seeing the beginnings of it with the outrage over "meddling". It's only going to get worse. Expect to read additional revelations about Putin's character and Russian society/culture. The goal is to gradually foment mistrust and hate to the point where Americans actually consent to a war which may kill many Russians and many Americans.
  - allemagne 9y ago
    Propagandists like the US President's own son and close associates will stop at nothing to frame the Russian government with emails and undisclosed meetings. The scope of the deception is almost unbelievable.
  - _jal 9y ago
    > It could just as easily have been an activist group within Russia or even (sadly) the US intelligence agencies looking to fan the flames of war with Russia. Neither of those square with observed data, unless you posit a rather massive conspiracy to control that information. And you still have to contend with a highly suggestive narrative involving key Trumpistas, key Russians, a gloating "denial" from Putin himself, highly suspicious correlations between Trumpist-public actions and private meetings, and the fact that the administration has zero credibility with their stories, having been repeatedly caught out brazenly lying about significant events. Not to mention, eventually Mueller's investigation will come out. That should be amusing. > The danger in this case is allowing US propagandists to frame the recent mischief as cyber warfare, which it is not. Care to elaborate? What do you call it? I've always preferred 'info war' ('cyber' is just insipid), but unfortunately that phrase has been rather coopted. > Wars don't just happen, they are the result of significant propaganda effort Very, very true. And we have at least three players here, all spinning in support of their own motives. I just believe you've misidentified the motives of at least one of them.
- f055 9y ago
  More often than not simple incompetence is a far more reasonable explanation than complex schemes.
mythrwy 9y ago
I think if we look at motive and potential effects on the financial system it's very likely to have been a state sponsored attack. Coming right on the heels of economic sanctions and a stream of threats my wild guess is North Korean involvement. Or else that's who they'll eventually blame it on. Or who knows. Which none of this in any way excuses Equifax's shockingly bad behavior.
ringaroundthetx 9y ago
> Sadly, the majority of non tech readers will take is as given. Even tech readers. I worked with a veteran who would just take that kind of stuff as fact because "17 intelligence agencies cant be wrong"

I hate this grubby finger-pointing to a state actor. Sadly, the majority of non tech readers will take is as given.

by alva 9y ago

I hate this grubby finger-pointing to a state actor. Sadly, the majority of non tech readers will take is as given.

zitterbewegung 9y ago

I think it must be some crisis management / PR department that says to say "done by state actor".

honestlyreally 9y ago
Certainly minimises any anger for the 90m golden parachute given to the person at the helm now bailing out.
- trendia 9y ago
  If anything, it turns the CEO into a victim. "No CEO would be able to withstand a targeted attack from such a motivated adversary!"

RhodesianHunter 9y ago

Considering everything we now know about Russia's attempts to influence our elections and sew division, is it really unreasonable to think they might try to throw a wrench into our credit system?

lowry 9y ago
Did not they just buy ads on Facebook instead of hacking it?
- untog 9y ago
  You'll notice the post you are replying to didn't use the word "hack", it said "attempts to influence our elections and sew division", which is something Facebook ads would do quite well. I agree that hysteria over "election hacking" is tedious, but so is blanket dismissal that a foreign state actor would have an interest in influencing a US election. Of course they would.
- heartbreak 9y ago
  Why would you assume that a single actor used a single approach in attacking the election process? These election systems would have some extremely useful data for targeting those Facebook ad campaigns: https://www.apnews.com/cb8a753a9b0948589cc372a3c037a567 https://www.apnews.com/cb8a753a9b0948589cc372a3c037a567
- _jal 9y ago
  They also attempted hacking (according to the intelligence services) 21 state's election systems, with varying degrees of success. Pretty sure that qualifies as 'unauthorized access'.
  - zaroth 9y ago
    The Washington Post basically exposed this as "Fake News". https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/09/23/what-we-know-about-the-21-states-targeted-by-russian-hackers/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/09/23/wh... And in case you're interested, here it is from a more colorful source; https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia-story-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/ https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia...
tajen 9y ago
Apart from CNN throwing the phrase "ties with Russia" like the period at the end of the sentences for things as little as an interview being aired on Russian TV (true story from CNN [1]), do we have reasons to think the "Russians hacked the election"? Are you telling me our systems aren't resilient to attacks from other nation-states? If so... what's the NSA doing? [1] https://youtu.be/rSzYc_gSx44 https://youtu.be/rSzYc_gSx44
grandalf 9y ago
> throw a wrench into our credit system How, by getting Equifax to hire IT staff that does not see the wisdom in patching known vulnerabilities? > everything we now know about Russia's attempts to influence our elections and sew division Be careful what you believe. To date there has not been hard evidence that the Russian government was involved in any of the mischief that has been discovered. It could just as easily have been an activist group within Russia or even (sadly) the US intelligence agencies looking to fan the flames of war with Russia. There has been consistent conflict between the US and Russia all along since the cold war ended. And certainly lots of mischief on both sides. The danger in this case is allowing US propagandists to frame the recent mischief as cyber warfare, which it is not. Considering the way that information about the alleged hacks have been strategically leaked and timed to convince the American people to resent Russia, it's pretty clear what the objective is. Wars don't just happen, they are the result of significant propaganda effort. We are seeing the beginnings of it with the outrage over "meddling". It's only going to get worse. Expect to read additional revelations about Putin's character and Russian society/culture. The goal is to gradually foment mistrust and hate to the point where Americans actually consent to a war which may kill many Russians and many Americans.
- allemagne 9y ago
  Propagandists like the US President's own son and close associates will stop at nothing to frame the Russian government with emails and undisclosed meetings. The scope of the deception is almost unbelievable.
- _jal 9y ago
  > It could just as easily have been an activist group within Russia or even (sadly) the US intelligence agencies looking to fan the flames of war with Russia. Neither of those square with observed data, unless you posit a rather massive conspiracy to control that information. And you still have to contend with a highly suggestive narrative involving key Trumpistas, key Russians, a gloating "denial" from Putin himself, highly suspicious correlations between Trumpist-public actions and private meetings, and the fact that the administration has zero credibility with their stories, having been repeatedly caught out brazenly lying about significant events. Not to mention, eventually Mueller's investigation will come out. That should be amusing. > The danger in this case is allowing US propagandists to frame the recent mischief as cyber warfare, which it is not. Care to elaborate? What do you call it? I've always preferred 'info war' ('cyber' is just insipid), but unfortunately that phrase has been rather coopted. > Wars don't just happen, they are the result of significant propaganda effort Very, very true. And we have at least three players here, all spinning in support of their own motives. I just believe you've misidentified the motives of at least one of them.
f055 9y ago
More often than not simple incompetence is a far more reasonable explanation than complex schemes.

mythrwy 9y ago

I think if we look at motive and potential effects on the financial system it's very likely to have been a state sponsored attack. Coming right on the heels of economic sanctions and a stream of threats my wild guess is North Korean involvement. Or else that's who they'll eventually blame it on. Or who knows. Which none of this in any way excuses Equifax's shockingly bad behavior.

ringaroundthetx 9y ago

> Sadly, the majority of non tech readers will take is as given. Even tech readers. I worked with a veteran who would just take that kind of stuff as fact because "17 intelligence agencies cant be wrong"