5 ms·

What is this evidence you bring up, and where can we find it? If you have evidence - especially evidence that Assange himself doesn't have - by all means, shar

What is this evidence you bring up, and where can we find it? If you have evidence - especially evidence that Assange himself doesn't have - by all means, share it. I am sure this would really help a lot of people understand an issue, about which the cyber-security industry has apparently reached a consensus.

three_seagrass 7y ago
Sure - more info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0 >The U.S. Intelligence Community concluded that some of the genuine leaks from "Guccifer 2.0" were part of a series of cyberattacks on the DNC committed by two Russian military intelligence groups, and that "Guccifer 2.0" is actually a persona created by Russian intelligence services to cover for their interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. This conclusion is based on analyses conducted by various private sector cybersecurity individuals and firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, FireEye's Mandiant, SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, Trend Micro, and the security editor for Ars Technica.
- ryanlol 7y ago
  > including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, FireEye's Mandiant, SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, Trend Micro, and the security editor for Ars Technica. Some of these are not like the others.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - crunchatized 7y ago
    The Ars article is at least very transparent about its conclusions and what evidence they're based on. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/06/guccifer-leak-of-dnc-trump-research-has-a-russians-fingerprints-on-it/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/06/gucci... "We still don't know who he is or whether he works for the Russian government, but one thing is for sure: Guccifer 2.0—the nom de guerre of the person claiming he hacked the Democratic National Committee and published hundreds of pages that appeared to prove it—left behind fingerprints implicating a Russian-speaking person with a nostalgia for the country's lost Soviet era."
    - monocasa 7y ago
      I never really got this argument. If someone embedded the username "J Edgar Hoover" in some documents, would we make the assumption that they pined for a return to cold war era FBI control over politics, or that they were just trolling? Dzerzhinsky was basically J Edgar's counterpoint in the east.
      - pandaman 7y ago
        For the complete analogy, it should be the pinning of CIA control over politics based on Edgar Hoover's name because the GRU, which is accused of this operation is the military intelligence and Dzerzhinsky is the founder of NKVD/KGB/FSB - an FBI+DHS equivalent.
- einpoklum 7y ago
  > The U.S. Intelligence Community concluded "Conculded"? It's nice that they concluded. If they want _us_ to conclude, then let them bring evidence. I remember when the US concluded Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction". That did not turn out to be quite accurate.
  - three_seagrass 7y ago
    In the case of WMDs in Iraq, it was based loosely off single and misused British intelligence. There is overwhelming evidence with the DNC hack from the cybersecurity industry and intelligence communities.
    - einpoklum 7y ago
      Evidence cannot be "from the cybersecurity industry and intelligence communities"; it can only be from the affected machines. I believe you are conflating there being assertions by those communities with there being evidence. If I am mistaken - please provide a link to such evidence. I also remember that there was a report by many US intelligence agencies "confirming" the assessment - but they were all basing their opinion on the opinions by other agencies and/or CrowdStrike, the DNC-associated cyber-security firm which had actual access to the servers.
      - FDSGSG 7y ago
        > DNC-associated cyber-security firm which had actual access to the servers. Why use the wording "DNC-associated firm" instead of "firm hired by DNC"? They're working with the GOP too https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-cybersecurity-202/2019/11/04/the-cybersecurity-202-gop-house-campaign-arm-uses-crowdstrike-despite-trump-conspiracy-theories/5dbf22d488e0fa10ffd20b34/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-cyb...
        einpoklum 7y ago
        That's stronger than a mere association actually, at least w.r.t. this issue. The DNC was interested in deflecting criticism regarding the leaked information, and arguing "We're under attack by Russia!" is very useful to that end. So, the firm they hired reaches this conclusion, opaquely, and based on exclusive access to the machines, which are then not examined by any other party.
- Bendingo 7y ago
  None of your sources are evidence; they are just unsubstantiated opinions. The era when an authority could simply issue a conclusion, and expect the great unwashed public to just believe it without question, are long gone. We all have access to much more information than in the past and if we wish, can perform our own analysis and reach our own conclusions, independent of old media, private sector experts, assorted propaganda sources etc.
  - three_seagrass 7y ago
    You're certainly welcome to disprove the findings from the individual cybersecurity firms if you think they're wrong. Here, start with Fidelis: https://www.fidelissecurity.com/threatgeek/archive/findings-analysis-dnc-intrusion-malware/ https://www.fidelissecurity.com/threatgeek/archive/findings-...
    - harry8 7y ago
      What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. That link contains zero evidence. That's your best? Really? How gullible do you think we are? Colin Powell had satellite photos of trains! That was something, not evidence he said it was, sure, but something at least. This is nothing.
      - three_seagrass 7y ago
        If you won't address the evidence in the article then you have confirmation bias.
        AndrewUnmuted 7y ago
        That's actually not a claim you could make. You don't know why the poster has, thus far, not addressed "the evidence in the article." That said, I am also seeking out this "evidence," of which you write. The Fidelis article you linked to did nothing but show some similarity in naming schemes, binary packaging conventions, and code style. And, it's building a case upon the precedent of prior "evidence," which we cannot see for ourselves either. We all know that the FBI could put all of its evidence in a GitHub repo, along with a README.md that explains how to run the code that offers the substantiated proof of their claims. The problem is, they don't have any.
- zmoreira 7y ago
  CrowdStrike, lol.
  - FDSGSG 7y ago
    What's wrong with CrowdStrike? It's perhaps the most respected shop in that list.
  - blaser-waffle 7y ago
    user: zmoreira created: July 8, 2013 karma: 49 Mostly posts on "hot button" political topics that can wielded as wedge issues, aka chelsea manning, iranian airstrikes, and DHS. I'm guessing this is someone's alt account.
ccaleb 7y ago
Direct quote from Mueller Report: "GRU officers used both the DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 personas to communicate with WikiLeaks through Twitter private messaging and through encrypted channels, including possibly through WikiLeaks's private communication system.”
- einpoklum 7y ago
  Mueller claimed this was the case, but - his report, as released to the public, did not present evidence to establish these claims (nor, in fact, most claims in the report regarding Russian interference). Also, "including possibly through Wikileaks" means nothing. "Including possibly through my second cousin's DIY basement mail server."
  - dangoor 7y ago
    There was an indictment: https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download I don’t know if there was further evidence not made public to protect sources and methods.
    - crunchatized 7y ago
      Of all the things that aren't evidence, an indictment is possibly among the most not-evidence things. A judge famously said you could indict a ham sandwich. In practice, grand juries say whatever a prosecutor wants them to say. And as Russian nationals, it's also unlikely they'll ever have to actually stand trial, which is when evidence would be required to enter the public record to convict them.
      - einpoklum 7y ago
        I also very much doubt the US government will want to go through a discovery phase with these people, so I'm not sure the DoJ really wants a trial to actually take place.
    - einpoklum 7y ago

three_seagrass 7y ago

Sure - more info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0 >The U.S. Intelligence Community concluded that some of the genuine leaks from "Guccifer 2.0" were part of a series of cyberattacks on the DNC committed by two Russian military intelligence groups, and that "Guccifer 2.0" is actually a persona created by Russian intelligence services to cover for their interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. This conclusion is based on analyses conducted by various private sector cybersecurity individuals and firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, FireEye's Mandiant, SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, Trend Micro, and the security editor for Ars Technica.

ryanlol 7y ago
> including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, FireEye's Mandiant, SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, Trend Micro, and the security editor for Ars Technica. Some of these are not like the others.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- crunchatized 7y ago
  The Ars article is at least very transparent about its conclusions and what evidence they're based on. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/06/guccifer-leak-of-dnc-trump-research-has-a-russians-fingerprints-on-it/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/06/gucci... "We still don't know who he is or whether he works for the Russian government, but one thing is for sure: Guccifer 2.0—the nom de guerre of the person claiming he hacked the Democratic National Committee and published hundreds of pages that appeared to prove it—left behind fingerprints implicating a Russian-speaking person with a nostalgia for the country's lost Soviet era."
  - monocasa 7y ago
    I never really got this argument. If someone embedded the username "J Edgar Hoover" in some documents, would we make the assumption that they pined for a return to cold war era FBI control over politics, or that they were just trolling? Dzerzhinsky was basically J Edgar's counterpoint in the east.
    - pandaman 7y ago
      For the complete analogy, it should be the pinning of CIA control over politics based on Edgar Hoover's name because the GRU, which is accused of this operation is the military intelligence and Dzerzhinsky is the founder of NKVD/KGB/FSB - an FBI+DHS equivalent.
einpoklum 7y ago
> The U.S. Intelligence Community concluded "Conculded"? It's nice that they concluded. If they want _us_ to conclude, then let them bring evidence. I remember when the US concluded Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction". That did not turn out to be quite accurate.
- three_seagrass 7y ago
  In the case of WMDs in Iraq, it was based loosely off single and misused British intelligence. There is overwhelming evidence with the DNC hack from the cybersecurity industry and intelligence communities.
  - einpoklum 7y ago
    Evidence cannot be "from the cybersecurity industry and intelligence communities"; it can only be from the affected machines. I believe you are conflating there being assertions by those communities with there being evidence. If I am mistaken - please provide a link to such evidence. I also remember that there was a report by many US intelligence agencies "confirming" the assessment - but they were all basing their opinion on the opinions by other agencies and/or CrowdStrike, the DNC-associated cyber-security firm which had actual access to the servers.
    - FDSGSG 7y ago
      > DNC-associated cyber-security firm which had actual access to the servers. Why use the wording "DNC-associated firm" instead of "firm hired by DNC"? They're working with the GOP too https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-cybersecurity-202/2019/11/04/the-cybersecurity-202-gop-house-campaign-arm-uses-crowdstrike-despite-trump-conspiracy-theories/5dbf22d488e0fa10ffd20b34/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-cyb...
      - einpoklum 7y ago
        That's stronger than a mere association actually, at least w.r.t. this issue. The DNC was interested in deflecting criticism regarding the leaked information, and arguing "We're under attack by Russia!" is very useful to that end. So, the firm they hired reaches this conclusion, opaquely, and based on exclusive access to the machines, which are then not examined by any other party.
Bendingo 7y ago
None of your sources are evidence; they are just unsubstantiated opinions. The era when an authority could simply issue a conclusion, and expect the great unwashed public to just believe it without question, are long gone. We all have access to much more information than in the past and if we wish, can perform our own analysis and reach our own conclusions, independent of old media, private sector experts, assorted propaganda sources etc.
- three_seagrass 7y ago
  You're certainly welcome to disprove the findings from the individual cybersecurity firms if you think they're wrong. Here, start with Fidelis: https://www.fidelissecurity.com/threatgeek/archive/findings-analysis-dnc-intrusion-malware/ https://www.fidelissecurity.com/threatgeek/archive/findings-...
  - harry8 7y ago
    What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. That link contains zero evidence. That's your best? Really? How gullible do you think we are? Colin Powell had satellite photos of trains! That was something, not evidence he said it was, sure, but something at least. This is nothing.
    - three_seagrass 7y ago
      If you won't address the evidence in the article then you have confirmation bias.
      - AndrewUnmuted 7y ago
        That's actually not a claim you could make. You don't know why the poster has, thus far, not addressed "the evidence in the article." That said, I am also seeking out this "evidence," of which you write. The Fidelis article you linked to did nothing but show some similarity in naming schemes, binary packaging conventions, and code style. And, it's building a case upon the precedent of prior "evidence," which we cannot see for ourselves either. We all know that the FBI could put all of its evidence in a GitHub repo, along with a README.md that explains how to run the code that offers the substantiated proof of their claims. The problem is, they don't have any.
zmoreira 7y ago
CrowdStrike, lol.
- FDSGSG 7y ago
  What's wrong with CrowdStrike? It's perhaps the most respected shop in that list.
- blaser-waffle 7y ago
  user: zmoreira created: July 8, 2013 karma: 49 Mostly posts on "hot button" political topics that can wielded as wedge issues, aka chelsea manning, iranian airstrikes, and DHS. I'm guessing this is someone's alt account.

ccaleb 7y ago

Direct quote from Mueller Report: "GRU officers used both the DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 personas to communicate with WikiLeaks through Twitter private messaging and through encrypted channels, including possibly through WikiLeaks's private communication system.”

einpoklum 7y ago
Mueller claimed this was the case, but - his report, as released to the public, did not present evidence to establish these claims (nor, in fact, most claims in the report regarding Russian interference). Also, "including possibly through Wikileaks" means nothing. "Including possibly through my second cousin's DIY basement mail server."
- dangoor 7y ago
  There was an indictment: https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download I don’t know if there was further evidence not made public to protect sources and methods.
  - crunchatized 7y ago
    Of all the things that aren't evidence, an indictment is possibly among the most not-evidence things. A judge famously said you could indict a ham sandwich. In practice, grand juries say whatever a prosecutor wants them to say. And as Russian nationals, it's also unlikely they'll ever have to actually stand trial, which is when evidence would be required to enter the public record to convict them.
    - einpoklum 7y ago
      I also very much doubt the US government will want to go through a discovery phase with these people, so I'm not sure the DoJ really wants a trial to actually take place.
  - einpoklum 7y ago