4 ms·
So basically what you are saying is no conclusive evidence, or no evidence that can be considered conclusive since any state actor could forge it. Further, any
by grandalf 9y ago
So basically what you are saying is no conclusive evidence, or no evidence that can be considered conclusive since any state actor could forge it.
Further, any state actor (such as Russia) could easily avoid leaving such a trail if it wanted to. Of the many "campaigns" linked using loose turns of phrase to the Russian government, several would certainly have been obvious/easy to keep under the radar if they were indeed conducted by Russia. Why hand the US a smoking gun due to amateurish mistakes?
I am not aware of any forensic evidence that it seems reasonable to consider conclusive. In fact, statements issued by Homeland Security concerning the exact same bits of evidence were not considered concerning or confidently linked to the Russian government prior to the insane politicization that occurred after the election.
So as someone who does not want to help fuel the escalation of tensions toward war with a nuclear power, I demand that all evidence be made public so that independent security experts can conduct a full audit under full transparency.
- linkregister 9y agoWhat specifically about the Crowdstrike and Mandiant reports was particularly suspect? They have tracked these campaigns and found them completely consistent with APT 28, whose infrastructure leads back to GRU. All actors leave traces, how do you think Kaspersky was able to track down Equation Group? Why did you choose to deflect with the Homeland Security "report"? I didn't bring it up, and it isn't meant to be evidence of anything. Why are you choosing to be a bit disingenuous in this argument?