4 ms·

> The idea that these attacks are just being made up or we don't have evidence who executed them is either willfully ignorant (a google search will provide plen

> The idea that these attacks are just being made up or we don't have evidence who executed them is either willfully ignorant (a google search will provide plenty of evidence) or actively malicious. Tools to fake such attribution and evidence were literally part of the leaked NSA/Equation Group toolkit.

boston_clone 5y ago
and yet, we were able to accurately attribute the code released in that leak as being developed by NSA.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  We know it was the NSA because of leaked NSA documents that admitted to the affiliation. Not from the tools themselves.
  - boston_clone 5y ago
    Interesting; could you share your source on that? I had only previously heard [0] that similarities in the tools were discovered by Kaspersky, not that there were any leaked docs that pointed the finger back at NSA themselves. Are you maybe thinking of PRISM/Wikileaks? [0] - https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/02/how-omnipotent-hackers-tied-to-the-nsa-hid-for-14-years-and-were-found-at-last/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/02/how-o...
SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
Sure, and we should be willing to entertain skepticism of specific incidents when justified. The idea that there's no such thing as real attribution, that it's always fabricated based on political convenience, is just unproductive nihilism.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  There is such a thing as real attribution. Just not from IPs and tools that are easily faked. You need more than that, and indeed there were many cases were we got more than that.
  - SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
    Agreed, but this seems to be one of the cases where we got more than that. I don't have time to read the indictment in a ton of depth, but it tells a very detailed story about some of the hackers and how they organized the hacking; it's not just "the IP matched so it's gotta be them".
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > There is such a thing as real attribution. Just not from IPs and tools that are easily faked. You need more than that, and indeed there were many cases were we got more than that. And there are most likely a lot of cases where: 1) "...we got more than that," and... 2) ...data from "IPs and tools that are easily faked" is the only information that could be released publicly without compromising sources and methods. It's a hopeless wish to want to be able to independently assess (as an amateur!) intelligence findings in all cases. If trusting the official assessments isn't acceptable (cross-checked with general knowledge of the situation), about the only reasonable alternative position is to remain agnostic.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

boston_clone 5y ago

and yet, we were able to accurately attribute the code released in that leak as being developed by NSA.

sudosysgen 5y ago
We know it was the NSA because of leaked NSA documents that admitted to the affiliation. Not from the tools themselves.
- boston_clone 5y ago
  Interesting; could you share your source on that? I had only previously heard [0] that similarities in the tools were discovered by Kaspersky, not that there were any leaked docs that pointed the finger back at NSA themselves. Are you maybe thinking of PRISM/Wikileaks? [0] - https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/02/how-omnipotent-hackers-tied-to-the-nsa-hid-for-14-years-and-were-found-at-last/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/02/how-o...

SpicyLemonZest 5y ago

Sure, and we should be willing to entertain skepticism of specific incidents when justified. The idea that there's no such thing as real attribution, that it's always fabricated based on political convenience, is just unproductive nihilism.

sudosysgen 5y ago
There is such a thing as real attribution. Just not from IPs and tools that are easily faked. You need more than that, and indeed there were many cases were we got more than that.
- SpicyLemonZest 5y ago
  Agreed, but this seems to be one of the cases where we got more than that. I don't have time to read the indictment in a ton of depth, but it tells a very detailed story about some of the hackers and how they organized the hacking; it's not just "the IP matched so it's gotta be them".
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > There is such a thing as real attribution. Just not from IPs and tools that are easily faked. You need more than that, and indeed there were many cases were we got more than that. And there are most likely a lot of cases where: 1) "...we got more than that," and... 2) ...data from "IPs and tools that are easily faked" is the only information that could be released publicly without compromising sources and methods. It's a hopeless wish to want to be able to independently assess (as an amateur!) intelligence findings in all cases. If trusting the official assessments isn't acceptable (cross-checked with general knowledge of the situation), about the only reasonable alternative position is to remain agnostic.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]