4 ms·
>The Gmail messages of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign chairman, were famously hacked last year No, he was phished.
by retox 9y ago
>The Gmail messages of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign chairman, were famously hacked last year
No, he was phished.
- moonka 9y agoI'd consider it the same, just using a little more social engineering.
- meowface 9y agoThey are the same, but the article said "His Gmail messages were hacked" rather than "Podesta was hacked". The former implies (or could be interpreted as implying) that Gmail itself was breached, which is not true in this case.
- moonka 9y agoFair point. Thanks for clarifying, I see a difference now.
- stephengillie 9y agoIIRC, he wasn't using 2FA at the time.
- gonyea 9y ago2fa would have protected him.
- AgentME 9y agoIs 2fa that big of a deal to a dedicated attacker who gets the victim to enter their info into a phishing page? (Just thinking of passcode-style 2fa, not usb key 2fa.) The attacker just has to forward the victim's login info to a login page, and then if the attacker gets a 2fa prompt, they prompt the victim with a 2fa prompt and then forward the victim's answer immediately. I understand a lot of attackers don't bother since there's plenty of easier victims without 2fa, but if they're targeting a specific individual, it's not that much more work to make their attack work on 2fa too.
- aiiane 9y agoThat's why U2F is a better alternative - it avoids the phishing issue as well as the password reuse issue.
- technion 9y agoI've had a number of successes in phishing tests against 2FA protected Office 365 services. https://github.com/technion/3652fa https://github.com/technion/3652fa
- Natsu 9y agoIn fact, we can prove that. Here is the phishing email in question: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/34899 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/34899 The stats page for that bitly link shows two clicks on it from the time in question, proving they actually visited it: https://bitly.com/1PibSU0+ https://bitly.com/1PibSU0+
- akhilcacharya 9y agoHe was spear-phished by a state agents, which should be the actual outrageous part of this.
- emodendroket 9y agoThe proof that it was actually Russians seems paper-thin
- akhilcacharya 9y agoIf its good for the CIA, it's good for me. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/russia-responsible-podesta-wikileaks-hack-230095 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/russia-responsible-pod... https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.df06dceaa831 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama...
- blfr 9y agoIf its good for the CIA, it's good for me. Really? Despite their motivations to distort reality and after all the incompetence they displayed over the decades, you still consider CIA a credible source? You're not even reading their internal reports, these are just some leaks and statements to the press.
- akhilcacharya 9y agoYes, really, because the alternative is abandoning all reason and believing a hostile pariah state.
- sievebrain 9y agoIsn't that circular? Part of the reason you believe Russia is a hostile pariah state is because the CIA tells you it is. As for "If don't believe US intelligence agencies I've abandoned all reason" ... just laughable, really