11 ms·

Russia confirms US cybercommand cyberattack; RAID controllers destroyed

99 points by makhama 8y ago

waynecochran 8y ago
The main link support the "Russia" cyber-attack gives me a 404. Who is upvoting this stuff?
- 317070 8y ago
  Works for me (in the UK) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/us/politics/russian-hacking-usa-cyber-command.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/us/politics/russian-hacki... Edit: I see what you mean. This is the source after fixing the link: https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Nakasone_02-14-19.pdf https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Nakasone...
  - makhama 8y ago
    Works for me too.
- tofof 8y ago
  Several 404 for me as well, but because they're trivially malformed. Extracting the obvious destination from the url (and sometimes correcting for e.g. a missing / in http:// http://) results in urls that work: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/us/politics/russian-hacking-usa-cyber-command.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/us/politics/russian-hacki... https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Nakasone_02-14-19.pdf https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Nakasone... https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-cyber-command-operation-disrupted-internet-access-of-russian-troll-factory-on-day-of-2018-midterms/2019/02/26/1827fc9e-36d6-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0daec82fe881 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-cy... https://riafan.ru/1155441-kiberataka-ssha-na-fan-podrobnosti-neudachnoi-operacii-us-cyber-command https://riafan.ru/1155441-kiberataka-ssha-na-fan-podrobnosti... https://www.rbc.ru/technology_and_media/08/02/2019/5c5c51069a7947bef4503927 https://www.rbc.ru/technology_and_media/08/02/2019/5c5c51069... http://tass.com/world/1046641 http://tass.com/world/1046641 etc
- whatislovecraft 8y ago
  > Who is upvoting this stuff? HN is starved for conversation about this. There's a massively futuristic cyberwar happening between the US and Russia. Hackers galore, wild spy stories, technological innovation, clever ideas, things happening at scale, etc - all the kinds of topics HN would love to have a conversation about! But every story about it gets flagged and removed. So HN never, ever talks about the most interesting topic of our day (IMO). I think that is why this is getting upvotes. It'll probably disappear soon, as the rest of posts do on this topic. I don't have any info about this source btw, it could be a useless site. Just trying to add some insight. The topic isn't political btw. Saying the President is compromised by Russia, along with much of the Republican party is just a fact. But HN sees that as political I guess, and things are removed. It's really unfortunate.
  - spitfire 8y ago
    Where is this being discussed by knowledgeable people and not getting deleted? I'm asking because I'd really like to know more of the details.
  - rubyfan 8y ago
    > The topic isn't political btw. Saying the President is compromised by Russia, along with much of the Republican party is just a fact. But HN sees that as political I guess, and things are removed. It's really unfortunate. How could you realistically believe that is not a political comment?
    - shiohime 8y ago
      Years of accepting an unquestionable narrative on either end of the spectrum tricks many people into thinking it is a fact as the perceived majority in their own social network bubbles push it as an undeniable truth as part of a multi-year long black/white narrative. Because it is a fact, it cannot be political :)
    - yesenadam 8y ago
      They seem to be using 'political' to mean false, propaganda, 'biased' or something. So then 'fact' and 'political' are non-overlapping categories. Like non-biased vs biased, opinion vs fact, lies vs reality. Not so surprising someone thinks the word means that - maybe that's how it's used in some circles...
__m 8y ago
Well the media also reported that by the Mayan calendar doom was imminent. What did they report? do they have informants from the inside? Otherwise this is hardly substantiating.
astazangasta 8y ago
So... The Constitution? We just attack other countries whenever we feel like now?
- cronix 8y ago
  The case can be made that we were attacked first in 2016, both by hacking (and releasing) the DNC emails and a coordinated propaganda campaign via social media, and this was an offensive move to prevent it from happening again in the 2018 elections. I don't see how this is just an "attack whenever we feel like it."
  - triplewipeass 8y ago
    The DNC is not an institution of the US government.
    - cronix 8y ago
      Neither is social media. Your point?
      - triplewipeass 8y ago
        My point is that the government shouldn't be itching to get itself in the business of retaliating against foreign attacks on non-government entities. Eventually the attackers and the attacked will sort themselves out. There's no need for taxpayer money to be spent on such things.
        gandhium 8y ago
        > retaliating against foreign attacks on non-government entities So if they will blow up "non-government entity" it will be perfectly ok and will not require any retaliation? Where's the line?
        learc83 8y ago
        How do you feel about attacks on cargo ships by a foreign Navy? Protecting citizens and companies from foreign governments is one of the explicit purposes of the military.
doctoboggan 8y ago
Recently the US Cyber Command was granted greater authority to go on the offensive, which enabled them to take actions such as this. You can read more here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/17/us/politics/cyber-command-trump.html?module=inline https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/17/us/politics/cyber-command...
- justicezyx 8y ago
  > granted greater authority > go on the offensive > take actions I do hope we can use the same words to describe whatever Russia and China are doing.
dweekly 8y ago
I'm mildly amused by comments about the "militarization" of the Internet given its origins.
- bem94 8y ago
  Perhaps re-militarisation would be more accurate?
  - msla 8y ago
    https://www.internetsociety.org/internet/history-internet/brief-history-internet/ https://www.internetsociety.org/internet/history-internet/br... Just to keep in mind: > It was from the RAND study that the false rumor started claiming that the ARPANET was somehow related to building a network resistant to nuclear war. This was never true of the ARPANET, only the unrelated RAND study on secure voice considered nuclear war. However, the later work on Internetting did emphasize robustness and survivability, including the capability to withstand losses of large portions of the underlying networks.
- Gpetrium 8y ago
  The internet has always been militarized, it is just that some actors have picked up the pace (tech know-how, capabilities, etc) and that we are now seeing more emphasis in looking at the issue.
miaklesp 8y ago
Two hard drives destroyed? I believe the enemy is in panic right now. Either do a serious attack to destroy that Troll Factory once and forever or don't be clowns.
- makhama 8y ago
  like, with a Tomahawk?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
m0zg 8y ago
Same as when I read reports of Russia "attacking" the US, I'm having a hard time believing there was the actual evidence to support the origin of the attack in this case as well. Any even modestly sophisticated hacker, let alone US Cyber Command, would have no problem hiding the origin of the attack in order to have plausible deniability. Truth of the matter is, you don't know if it was USCC or some teenager in her parents' basement. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the two countries don't ever attack each other's computer systems. I think they do it all the time. I'm just saying that when someone says "this particular attack was definitely from country X" they're usually full of shit. Disclosure: I'm Russian-American.
- nexuist 8y ago
  As with most things, it's hard to prove what actually happened definitively, but there are clues you can piece together to make a claim within a reasonable degree of probability. Things like what type of binaries were installed, what servers were reached out to, even what commands were run...if you collect enough data, it is possible to see patterns in how certain attackers (like USCC) operate, and if we assume a teenager in her parents' basement doesn't have access to the same tools and procedures as USCC does, then it becomes pretty obvious it wasn't her. To a certain degree, if your server has malware X, and you can identify malware X (or something very similar) as belonging to actor A, and you know actors B, C, and D don't have X in their arsenal, then you can guess with high probability that you were attacked by A. Intelligence is probably the most high stakes guessing game in history, and there are definitely smart people at the top who know that simple IP correlation is not enough to make this claim - but they likely have access to sensitive (confidential) data that further justifies that claim.
  - m0zg 8y ago
    >> doesn't have access to the same tools and procedures as USCC does If she's well connected, she does have access to almost everything that's available, short of something that offers no plausible deniablity because it's custom made for a particular system, like Stuxnet, or something that's full of zero days nobody else knows about yet. And the only thing you can conclude in these two cases is that you're _probably_ dealing with a state-level attacker, but you can't say which state unless there's something to further narrow things down, such as unfettered access to controlled nuclear technology in the case of Stuxnet. Notice also how we are always expected to accept these reports on faith, and no _verifiable_ evidence is ever presented.
huxflux 8y ago
"hacked iPhone 7" how about that Apple fanboys?

99 points by makhama 8y ago

waynecochran 8y ago

The main link support the "Russia" cyber-attack gives me a 404. Who is upvoting this stuff?

317070 8y ago
Works for me (in the UK) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/us/politics/russian-hacking-usa-cyber-command.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/us/politics/russian-hacki... Edit: I see what you mean. This is the source after fixing the link: https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Nakasone_02-14-19.pdf https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Nakasone...
- makhama 8y ago
  Works for me too.
tofof 8y ago
Several 404 for me as well, but because they're trivially malformed. Extracting the obvious destination from the url (and sometimes correcting for e.g. a missing / in http:// http://) results in urls that work: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/us/politics/russian-hacking-usa-cyber-command.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/23/us/politics/russian-hacki... https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Nakasone_02-14-19.pdf https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Nakasone... https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-cyber-command-operation-disrupted-internet-access-of-russian-troll-factory-on-day-of-2018-midterms/2019/02/26/1827fc9e-36d6-11e9-af5b-b51b7ff322e9_story.html/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0daec82fe881 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-cy... https://riafan.ru/1155441-kiberataka-ssha-na-fan-podrobnosti-neudachnoi-operacii-us-cyber-command https://riafan.ru/1155441-kiberataka-ssha-na-fan-podrobnosti... https://www.rbc.ru/technology_and_media/08/02/2019/5c5c51069a7947bef4503927 https://www.rbc.ru/technology_and_media/08/02/2019/5c5c51069... http://tass.com/world/1046641 http://tass.com/world/1046641 etc
whatislovecraft 8y ago
> Who is upvoting this stuff? HN is starved for conversation about this. There's a massively futuristic cyberwar happening between the US and Russia. Hackers galore, wild spy stories, technological innovation, clever ideas, things happening at scale, etc - all the kinds of topics HN would love to have a conversation about! But every story about it gets flagged and removed. So HN never, ever talks about the most interesting topic of our day (IMO). I think that is why this is getting upvotes. It'll probably disappear soon, as the rest of posts do on this topic. I don't have any info about this source btw, it could be a useless site. Just trying to add some insight. The topic isn't political btw. Saying the President is compromised by Russia, along with much of the Republican party is just a fact. But HN sees that as political I guess, and things are removed. It's really unfortunate.
- spitfire 8y ago
  Where is this being discussed by knowledgeable people and not getting deleted? I'm asking because I'd really like to know more of the details.
- rubyfan 8y ago
  > The topic isn't political btw. Saying the President is compromised by Russia, along with much of the Republican party is just a fact. But HN sees that as political I guess, and things are removed. It's really unfortunate. How could you realistically believe that is not a political comment?
  - shiohime 8y ago
    Years of accepting an unquestionable narrative on either end of the spectrum tricks many people into thinking it is a fact as the perceived majority in their own social network bubbles push it as an undeniable truth as part of a multi-year long black/white narrative. Because it is a fact, it cannot be political :)
  - yesenadam 8y ago
    They seem to be using 'political' to mean false, propaganda, 'biased' or something. So then 'fact' and 'political' are non-overlapping categories. Like non-biased vs biased, opinion vs fact, lies vs reality. Not so surprising someone thinks the word means that - maybe that's how it's used in some circles...

__m 8y ago

Well the media also reported that by the Mayan calendar doom was imminent. What did they report? do they have informants from the inside? Otherwise this is hardly substantiating.

astazangasta 8y ago

So... The Constitution? We just attack other countries whenever we feel like now?

cronix 8y ago
The case can be made that we were attacked first in 2016, both by hacking (and releasing) the DNC emails and a coordinated propaganda campaign via social media, and this was an offensive move to prevent it from happening again in the 2018 elections. I don't see how this is just an "attack whenever we feel like it."
- triplewipeass 8y ago
  The DNC is not an institution of the US government.
  - cronix 8y ago
    Neither is social media. Your point?
    - triplewipeass 8y ago
      My point is that the government shouldn't be itching to get itself in the business of retaliating against foreign attacks on non-government entities. Eventually the attackers and the attacked will sort themselves out. There's no need for taxpayer money to be spent on such things.
      - gandhium 8y ago
        > retaliating against foreign attacks on non-government entities So if they will blow up "non-government entity" it will be perfectly ok and will not require any retaliation? Where's the line?
      - learc83 8y ago
        How do you feel about attacks on cargo ships by a foreign Navy? Protecting citizens and companies from foreign governments is one of the explicit purposes of the military.

doctoboggan 8y ago

Recently the US Cyber Command was granted greater authority to go on the offensive, which enabled them to take actions such as this. You can read more here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/17/us/politics/cyber-command-trump.html?module=inline https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/17/us/politics/cyber-command...

justicezyx 8y ago
> granted greater authority > go on the offensive > take actions I do hope we can use the same words to describe whatever Russia and China are doing.

dweekly 8y ago

I'm mildly amused by comments about the "militarization" of the Internet given its origins.

bem94 8y ago
Perhaps re-militarisation would be more accurate?
- msla 8y ago
  https://www.internetsociety.org/internet/history-internet/brief-history-internet/ https://www.internetsociety.org/internet/history-internet/br... Just to keep in mind: > It was from the RAND study that the false rumor started claiming that the ARPANET was somehow related to building a network resistant to nuclear war. This was never true of the ARPANET, only the unrelated RAND study on secure voice considered nuclear war. However, the later work on Internetting did emphasize robustness and survivability, including the capability to withstand losses of large portions of the underlying networks.
Gpetrium 8y ago
The internet has always been militarized, it is just that some actors have picked up the pace (tech know-how, capabilities, etc) and that we are now seeing more emphasis in looking at the issue.

miaklesp 8y ago

Two hard drives destroyed? I believe the enemy is in panic right now. Either do a serious attack to destroy that Troll Factory once and forever or don't be clowns.

makhama 8y ago
like, with a Tomahawk?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

m0zg 8y ago

Same as when I read reports of Russia "attacking" the US, I'm having a hard time believing there was the actual evidence to support the origin of the attack in this case as well. Any even modestly sophisticated hacker, let alone US Cyber Command, would have no problem hiding the origin of the attack in order to have plausible deniability. Truth of the matter is, you don't know if it was USCC or some teenager in her parents' basement. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the two countries don't ever attack each other's computer systems. I think they do it all the time. I'm just saying that when someone says "this particular attack was definitely from country X" they're usually full of shit. Disclosure: I'm Russian-American.

nexuist 8y ago
As with most things, it's hard to prove what actually happened definitively, but there are clues you can piece together to make a claim within a reasonable degree of probability. Things like what type of binaries were installed, what servers were reached out to, even what commands were run...if you collect enough data, it is possible to see patterns in how certain attackers (like USCC) operate, and if we assume a teenager in her parents' basement doesn't have access to the same tools and procedures as USCC does, then it becomes pretty obvious it wasn't her. To a certain degree, if your server has malware X, and you can identify malware X (or something very similar) as belonging to actor A, and you know actors B, C, and D don't have X in their arsenal, then you can guess with high probability that you were attacked by A. Intelligence is probably the most high stakes guessing game in history, and there are definitely smart people at the top who know that simple IP correlation is not enough to make this claim - but they likely have access to sensitive (confidential) data that further justifies that claim.
- m0zg 8y ago
  >> doesn't have access to the same tools and procedures as USCC does If she's well connected, she does have access to almost everything that's available, short of something that offers no plausible deniablity because it's custom made for a particular system, like Stuxnet, or something that's full of zero days nobody else knows about yet. And the only thing you can conclude in these two cases is that you're _probably_ dealing with a state-level attacker, but you can't say which state unless there's something to further narrow things down, such as unfettered access to controlled nuclear technology in the case of Stuxnet. Notice also how we are always expected to accept these reports on faith, and no _verifiable_ evidence is ever presented.

huxflux 8y ago

"hacked iPhone 7" how about that Apple fanboys?