3 ms·

You're failing to state a claim, other than perhaps "some guy on the internet is distrustful". If you have a reason other than your feelings about domestic pol

by _jal 6y ago

You're failing to state a claim, other than perhaps "some guy on the internet is distrustful". If you have a reason other than your feelings about domestic politics for skepticism about this case, please share it.

tehjoker 6y ago
Based on the previous hacks of the DNC regarding Russiagate and Wikileaks being fraudulent allegations, the current leadership being Democratic (1), and the current target being China, I am not convinced by simple assertions alleging the an actual exfiltration of emails by China without evidence. (1) Not that Republicans wouldn't be above this, just that the Democratic party has a history of this particular tactic. EDIT: My guess is that if they actually showed what they were basing this allegation on, a lot of people would conclude it was extremely weak stuff, maybe impossible to decide who did it if anyone did. Hiding information is extremely useful for spinning authoritative narratives. Of course let's not forget that NSA implants are probably present in strategic locations around China, but that's par for the course.
- jlgaddis 6y ago
  > Hiding information is extremely useful for spinning authoritative narratives. Telling the criminals, publicly and in detail, exactly how you know it's them is also extremely useful -- to them! -- in that they know what not to do the next time around. It's in your own best interest to keep that information secret, especially if you have any reason whatsoever to expect that it may be useful again in the future. Yes, this requires that we simply trust Microsoft when they say it was $attacker. You can choose not to believe them, if you like, and demand to see all the evidence. I don't think that will hurt their feelings all that much -- and I also don't think you should hold your breath while waiting for them to give you that evidence. Ultimately, it doesn't matter all that much -- as far as I'm concerned -- whether it was China or North Korea or Canada or New Zealand. I'm less worried about who did it than I am cleaning it up and doing whatever I can to prevent it from happening again.
  - BelenusMordred 6y ago
    Great video for anyone has the time: Conducting a Successful False Flag Cyber Operation (Blame it on China) - Blackhat Europe - Jake Williams https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2vBu_Jui9A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2vBu_Jui9A
  - 1MachineElf 6y ago
    >Telling the criminals, publicly and in detail, exactly how you know it's them is also extremely useful -- to them! -- in that they know what not to do the next time around. Great point, although I wonder, isn't the goal for them to not do it again next time anyway? Seems appropriate to weigh the costs and benefits of continued detection versus sunlight as a disinfectant.
prophesi 6y ago
> They attribute the attack to a particular actor without providing any evidence to the public. This statement still holds whether you replace "they" with "Brian Krebs" or "Microsoft". Attributing blame on cyberattacks is a very difficult problem, as it's easy to cover and obfuscate your tracks. Even your tactics; using strategies and tools from other state-sponsored groups, for example.

by _jal 6y ago

tehjoker 6y ago

Based on the previous hacks of the DNC regarding Russiagate and Wikileaks being fraudulent allegations, the current leadership being Democratic (1), and the current target being China, I am not convinced by simple assertions alleging the an actual exfiltration of emails by China without evidence. (1) Not that Republicans wouldn't be above this, just that the Democratic party has a history of this particular tactic. EDIT: My guess is that if they actually showed what they were basing this allegation on, a lot of people would conclude it was extremely weak stuff, maybe impossible to decide who did it if anyone did. Hiding information is extremely useful for spinning authoritative narratives. Of course let's not forget that NSA implants are probably present in strategic locations around China, but that's par for the course.

jlgaddis 6y ago
> Hiding information is extremely useful for spinning authoritative narratives. Telling the criminals, publicly and in detail, exactly how you know it's them is also extremely useful -- to them! -- in that they know what not to do the next time around. It's in your own best interest to keep that information secret, especially if you have any reason whatsoever to expect that it may be useful again in the future. Yes, this requires that we simply trust Microsoft when they say it was $attacker. You can choose not to believe them, if you like, and demand to see all the evidence. I don't think that will hurt their feelings all that much -- and I also don't think you should hold your breath while waiting for them to give you that evidence. Ultimately, it doesn't matter all that much -- as far as I'm concerned -- whether it was China or North Korea or Canada or New Zealand. I'm less worried about who did it than I am cleaning it up and doing whatever I can to prevent it from happening again.
- BelenusMordred 6y ago
  Great video for anyone has the time: Conducting a Successful False Flag Cyber Operation (Blame it on China) - Blackhat Europe - Jake Williams https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2vBu_Jui9A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2vBu_Jui9A
- 1MachineElf 6y ago
  >Telling the criminals, publicly and in detail, exactly how you know it's them is also extremely useful -- to them! -- in that they know what not to do the next time around. Great point, although I wonder, isn't the goal for them to not do it again next time anyway? Seems appropriate to weigh the costs and benefits of continued detection versus sunlight as a disinfectant.

prophesi 6y ago

> They attribute the attack to a particular actor without providing any evidence to the public. This statement still holds whether you replace "they" with "Brian Krebs" or "Microsoft". Attributing blame on cyberattacks is a very difficult problem, as it's easy to cover and obfuscate your tracks. Even your tactics; using strategies and tools from other state-sponsored groups, for example.