3 ms·

I don't know the ins and outs about the DNC stuff. Here in Europe all that news got lost in the turbulence around Trump. But I thought Russian influence in that

I don't know the ins and outs about the DNC stuff. Here in Europe all that news got lost in the turbulence around Trump. But I thought Russian influence in that case was certain, the Wikipedia page also mentions it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee_cyber_attacks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committe... and also the NYT article you quote is all about Russian involvement in that case. And evidence in cyber security cases is super hard. There's just too much misdirection and ways to obfuscate traffic. Especially for state sponsored actors. Attribution to threat actor groups is often based on methodology and toolsets (also referred to as tactics and techniques) and not on hard traceable evidence. However I have no political stake in this as a European (who never even visited the US) and it's just what I read. Perhaps I'm wrong. But I know in terms of capability as an EDR product crowdstrike is very highly regarded. I agree the secrecy around this testimony is very weird. And like I said I do agree with most of his points. Something is brewing there.

pomdapi 5y ago
> However I have no political stake in this and it's just what I read. Sorry about my tone earlier. It was uncalled for. I edited my comment. > Wikipedia page also mentions it: The "talk" section of the page shows vigorous exchanges, as various editors are constantly fighting to erase or put back that part of the story. As the whole case was central to the fight around Trump being an orange but also Russian menace for 4 years, you can easily divine the editors are probably operatives of both parties. > NYT article you quote is all about Russian involvement in that case. Yes, that was the first time they publicly lied about it.
- GekkePrutser 5y ago
  I understand. I had no idea how heavily this was politicized. For us the DNC thing was just in the news when it happened and quickly overwhelmed by other news in that period. Thanks for the links, I don't have time now but I'll read them in the days to come. I want to know more about this case. Especially because we use the product at work.
  - pomdapi 5y ago
    > Especially because we use the product at work. Used to be in the industry, 10+ years ago. Friends tell me goods things about it too. And anyways, I'm pro-neither party. Both are corrupt to the core. I just hate it when propaganda and lies at this scale works too well.
  - r721 5y ago
    >Thanks for the links Aaron Mate is a heavily pro-Kremlin voice, so it's not like those were very good sources, just an opinion of a quite biased journalist.
    - pomdapi 5y ago
      That is not opinion : - I linked the New York articles interviewing Crowdstrike : "The D.N.C. immediately hired CrowdStrike, [...] It made its first appearance in 2014, said Dmitri Alperovitch, CrowdStrike’s co-founder and chief technology officer.[...] Whenever someone clicked on a phishing message, the Russians would enter the network, “exfiltrate” documents of interest and stockpile them for intelligence purposes. Once they got into the D.N.C., they found the data valuable and decided to continue the operation,” said Mr. Alperovitch, [...]" There are similar claims elsewhere. You can also find their management in TV interviews or being in TV expert panels. - The Mate link is only interesting here because of the handy scans of the House Comitee minutes where they answered a direct question by "We did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC". You can also go to the original source, if you want. There are several scanned pages inlined in the middle of that article.
      - ryanlol 5y ago
        But you’re just playing games with meanings of words. > "We did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC" They did not have pcaps of exfil traffic but did recover the compressed files that had been prepared for exfiltration. Without pcaps there can be no “concrete evidence” that those files were exfiltrated, but we do know that the intruders did prepare data for exfiltration and had nothing stopping them from doing so. This is basically as good as it ever gets. How about you name examples of some better investigations?

pomdapi 5y ago

> However I have no political stake in this and it's just what I read. Sorry about my tone earlier. It was uncalled for. I edited my comment. > Wikipedia page also mentions it: The "talk" section of the page shows vigorous exchanges, as various editors are constantly fighting to erase or put back that part of the story. As the whole case was central to the fight around Trump being an orange but also Russian menace for 4 years, you can easily divine the editors are probably operatives of both parties. > NYT article you quote is all about Russian involvement in that case. Yes, that was the first time they publicly lied about it.

GekkePrutser 5y ago
I understand. I had no idea how heavily this was politicized. For us the DNC thing was just in the news when it happened and quickly overwhelmed by other news in that period. Thanks for the links, I don't have time now but I'll read them in the days to come. I want to know more about this case. Especially because we use the product at work.
- pomdapi 5y ago
  > Especially because we use the product at work. Used to be in the industry, 10+ years ago. Friends tell me goods things about it too. And anyways, I'm pro-neither party. Both are corrupt to the core. I just hate it when propaganda and lies at this scale works too well.
- r721 5y ago
  >Thanks for the links Aaron Mate is a heavily pro-Kremlin voice, so it's not like those were very good sources, just an opinion of a quite biased journalist.
  - pomdapi 5y ago
    That is not opinion : - I linked the New York articles interviewing Crowdstrike : "The D.N.C. immediately hired CrowdStrike, [...] It made its first appearance in 2014, said Dmitri Alperovitch, CrowdStrike’s co-founder and chief technology officer.[...] Whenever someone clicked on a phishing message, the Russians would enter the network, “exfiltrate” documents of interest and stockpile them for intelligence purposes. Once they got into the D.N.C., they found the data valuable and decided to continue the operation,” said Mr. Alperovitch, [...]" There are similar claims elsewhere. You can also find their management in TV interviews or being in TV expert panels. - The Mate link is only interesting here because of the handy scans of the House Comitee minutes where they answered a direct question by "We did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC". You can also go to the original source, if you want. There are several scanned pages inlined in the middle of that article.
    - ryanlol 5y ago
      But you’re just playing games with meanings of words. > "We did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC" They did not have pcaps of exfil traffic but did recover the compressed files that had been prepared for exfiltration. Without pcaps there can be no “concrete evidence” that those files were exfiltrated, but we do know that the intruders did prepare data for exfiltration and had nothing stopping them from doing so. This is basically as good as it ever gets. How about you name examples of some better investigations?