3 ms·
Cyber Pearl Harbor doesn't worry me nearly as much as Cyber Gulf of Tonkin. The article takes the Russian "attack" in 2016 as given. The evidence is shaky at b
by apo 8y ago
Cyber Pearl Harbor doesn't worry me nearly as much as Cyber Gulf of Tonkin.
The article takes the Russian "attack" in 2016 as given. The evidence is shaky at best that the Russians were in any way involved in leaking emails revealing the DNC's underhanded tactics to sideline Sanders.
As such, the article plays to the Cyber Gulf of Tonkin model.
- gandhium 8y ago> The evidence is shaky at best I think nothing will please the 'believers' except the personal Putin's apology. And of course they might say that was just his double speaking.
- equalunique 8y ago>The evidence is shaky Indeed, it is. The FBI said under oath that they did not get to do forensics on the server. The owner of CrowdStrike, the company which did have access, had a conflict of interest that was easily overlooked. CrowdStrike had to retract multiple claims made in their report. Then there's the curous case of faked DNS logs which were meant to show communication between a Trump Tower server and a Russian bank. I'm all for enhanced cybersecurity. In a government setting, I observed many attacks during my time on a cyber ops team for a couple years. These "Russian hacking" articles are however very political in nature. Assuming that the events most often reported about the DNC leaks are fact is foolhardy.