4 ms·

From the AP version (h/t @tareqak) [0], "identification of anyone engaged in foreign state-sanctioned malicious cyber activity". Key phrase, state-sanctioned.

From the AP version (h/t @tareqak) [0], "identification of anyone engaged in foreign state-sanctioned malicious cyber activity". Key phrase, state-sanctioned. This has less to do with tracking down cybercriminals, and more with creating a case for foreign policy agenda. Remember it was WMD informant "Curveball" testimony to then Secretary of State Powell, that was used as one of the key pretexts to invade Iraq. Essentially if an administration comes with an agenda to start a new war, they put the right people inside the State Department and then those guys just need to comb for anything (validated or not) to find "informants" to make the case for cyber attack. Followed by making the case in media that cyber attack is military attack and it requires military retaliation. This will bypass the entire US intelligence system to validate the source of threat. It just needs one person to claim they were involve in cyber attack against US and it was sponsored by the government of Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, or any other country we want to go after. I highly recommend watching this portion of the town hall with former US Congressman Dennis Kucinich talking about how non disclosure rules prevented the Congress from speaking out against US State Department spreading false information to American public [1]. [0] https://apnews.com/article/technology-joe-biden-europe-business-government-and-politics-cd21d84b5fd070421f871610b40e91d0 https://apnews.com/article/technology-joe-biden-europe-busin... [1] https://youtu.be/s-W9b-_K_Xo?t=2433 https://youtu.be/s-W9b-_K_Xo?t=2433

jonnybgood 5y ago
> Essentially if an administration comes with an agenda to start a new war, they put the right people inside the State Department and then those guys just need to comb for anything (validated or not) to find "informants" to make the case for cyber attack. Followed by making the case in media that cyber attack is military attack and it requires military retaliation. This will bypass the entire US intelligence system to validate the source of threat. It just needs one person to claim they were involve in cyber attack against US and it was sponsored by the government of Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, or any other country we want to go after. That’s a very oversimplified odd narrative. Unlike Iraq and mysterious nuclear related material objects, cyber attacks are happening. And it’s quite evident US is lacking in this area. The US doesn’t need “one person” when there are clear signatures and traces that are substantiated not only by the US intelligence system but also by non-government entities.
- nyokodo 5y ago
  > The US doesn’t need “one person” when there are clear signatures and traces How clear are they really? How hard is it to pin an attack on another group or country?
  - Natsu 5y ago
    Less than one might hope, in general: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_7#UMBRAGE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_7#UMBRAGE Even HN has torn a few of the analyses apart, e.g. when the auditors looked at Bezos' phone and claimed that a file from MBS might be malicious, HN called them out on the claims that it couldn't be decrypted: https://github.com/ddz/whatsapp-media-decrypt https://github.com/ddz/whatsapp-media-decrypt Given that their entire analysis hinged on this one file being a malicious executable that couldn't be decrypted, well... suffice it to say I'm quite mistrustful of these things, especially when politics is involved.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Well sure, and just like in Iraq WMDs did actually exist at some point - the US sold some to Iraq - they were just destroyed. The thing with cyberattacks is that they are even easier to misattribute. All it takes is for some country to use another countries tool, and then you've got actual evidence you can easily twist. That's how it works nowadays, you start with a kernel of truth or evidence, like the aluminium tubes in Iraq, and exaggerate wildly what suits your narrative. And it works, even to those that can know better.
  - pie420 5y ago
    "just like in Iraq WMDs did actually exist at some point - the US sold some to Iraq - they were just destroyed." Are you seriously going to post that without a source?
    - albatross13 5y ago
      USA backed Iraq in the iraq-iran war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq... USA armed 'rebels' in afghanistan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone I mean it's pretty commonly accepted at this point that Iraq was a US proxy for waging war in the middle east (similar to the mujihadeen against the russians)..I don't think it's too much of a stretch to arrive at the conclusion that the USA facilitated the sale of weapons of mass destruction (anthrax) to Iraq.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

jonnybgood 5y ago

> Essentially if an administration comes with an agenda to start a new war, they put the right people inside the State Department and then those guys just need to comb for anything (validated or not) to find "informants" to make the case for cyber attack. Followed by making the case in media that cyber attack is military attack and it requires military retaliation. This will bypass the entire US intelligence system to validate the source of threat. It just needs one person to claim they were involve in cyber attack against US and it was sponsored by the government of Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, or any other country we want to go after. That’s a very oversimplified odd narrative. Unlike Iraq and mysterious nuclear related material objects, cyber attacks are happening. And it’s quite evident US is lacking in this area. The US doesn’t need “one person” when there are clear signatures and traces that are substantiated not only by the US intelligence system but also by non-government entities.

nyokodo 5y ago
> The US doesn’t need “one person” when there are clear signatures and traces How clear are they really? How hard is it to pin an attack on another group or country?
- Natsu 5y ago
  Less than one might hope, in general: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_7#UMBRAGE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_7#UMBRAGE Even HN has torn a few of the analyses apart, e.g. when the auditors looked at Bezos' phone and claimed that a file from MBS might be malicious, HN called them out on the claims that it couldn't be decrypted: https://github.com/ddz/whatsapp-media-decrypt https://github.com/ddz/whatsapp-media-decrypt Given that their entire analysis hinged on this one file being a malicious executable that couldn't be decrypted, well... suffice it to say I'm quite mistrustful of these things, especially when politics is involved.
sudosysgen 5y ago
Well sure, and just like in Iraq WMDs did actually exist at some point - the US sold some to Iraq - they were just destroyed. The thing with cyberattacks is that they are even easier to misattribute. All it takes is for some country to use another countries tool, and then you've got actual evidence you can easily twist. That's how it works nowadays, you start with a kernel of truth or evidence, like the aluminium tubes in Iraq, and exaggerate wildly what suits your narrative. And it works, even to those that can know better.
- pie420 5y ago
  "just like in Iraq WMDs did actually exist at some point - the US sold some to Iraq - they were just destroyed." Are you seriously going to post that without a source?
  - albatross13 5y ago
    USA backed Iraq in the iraq-iran war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq... USA armed 'rebels' in afghanistan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone I mean it's pretty commonly accepted at this point that Iraq was a US proxy for waging war in the middle east (similar to the mujihadeen against the russians)..I don't think it's too much of a stretch to arrive at the conclusion that the USA facilitated the sale of weapons of mass destruction (anthrax) to Iraq.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]