Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
US Officials Shutting Down Russian Compound in Maryland
Topic Started: Dec 30 2016, 12:52 AM (1,745 Views)
BuckFan

Demagogue
Dec 30 2016, 06:19 PM
BuckFan
Dec 30 2016, 05:59 PM
jake58
Dec 30 2016, 03:27 PM
BuckFan
Dec 30 2016, 01:48 PM
jake58
Dec 30 2016, 11:59 AM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deepThe 1996 United States campaign finance controversy was an alleged effort by the People's Republic of China to influence domestic American politics prior to and during the Clinton administration and also involved the fund-raising practices of the administration itself.

While questions regarding the U.S. Democratic Party's fund-raising activities first arose over a Los Angeles Times article published on September 21, 1996, China's alleged role in the affair first gained public attention when Bob Woodward and Brian Duffy of The Washington Post published a story stating that a United States Department of Justice investigation into the fund-raising activities had uncovered evidence that agents of China sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) before the 1996 presidential campaign. The journalists wrote that intelligence information had shown the Chinese embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC in violation of United States law forbidding non-American citizens or non-permanent residents from giving monetary donations to United States politicians and political parties. A Republican investigator of the controversy stated the Chinese plan targeted both presidential and congressional United States elections, while Democratic Senators said the evidence showed the Chinese targeted only congressional elections. The government of the People's Republic of China denied all accusations.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy

I'm sure it's just an oversight that libs completely forgot about China's dealings with the Clintons while they are fapping themselves silly over Pooty-poot.
I believe those people went to prison.
You believe wrong, as per usual. Most were found guilty or pleaded guilty yet none served a day in jail. I don't think you want to go down this road, buck. Reno impeded all requests for a special prosecutor, even when directly requested by Clinton's FBI Director. FBI agents were not allowed to ask Clinton or Gore questions during Justice Dept interviews and at no time was anyone in the White House queried on the record about these specific folks who clearly had connections to the White House.

Both parties agreed that the Chinese were trying to influence elections, the difference was that the Republican thought they were trying to influence the Presidential and Congressional elections and the Democrats just thought they were trying to influence Congressional elections, pretty laughable considering all the money that had to be returned by Clinton, but then again libs are pretty laughable when it comes to this kind of stuff.

With regard to Russia you seem to think that sufficient evidence has been produced to connect Russia to the recent hacking and while I'm not much of a tech guy, I found this article illuminating for the fact that there's nothing that's been produced publicly which definitively makes a connection - one hopes intel has a little more than this.

https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/russia-malware-ip-hack/?utm_source=list&utm_campaign=123016&utm_medium=email

The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like Russia. But they don’t appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes.

The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website
.

Has anyone suggested that the Russians tried to influence the election by influence peddling or graft? Apparently, at the worst, and this is unproven, they've made some emails public that some people didn't want to be made public. Oh snap!


As to the Ukrainian connection, the malware was not from Ukraine, it was used against Ukraine. It was traced at that time back to Russian intelligence agencies. That is what makes the malware a "smoking gun" in that it is specifically a tool of Russian military intelligence units.
I don't want to get into this discussion too much but I would like to make a technical point here. You are probably aware of Stuxnet. Stuxnet is usually attributed to the actions of some nefarious US/Israeli team who built the worm to damage the Iranian nuclear program.

The thing is, once Stuxnet was out in the wild a number of people got access to it and since then it and variants of it have turned up used in exploits that were pretty much certainly not done by the US or Israel.

So, stating that they code used in the attack was similar to the code that was previously used by Russians and therefor it is without question the Russians who performed this exploit is a weak argument. It would be equal to saying that every stuxnet attack around the world was performed by the NSA.

I am just putting this out there FYI. :cheers:
I would think that the professional cyber-crime companies that investigated the DNC break-in and have come out and stated this was Russia know what they are talking about and doing.

i would think that NSA, CIA, FBI and 14 other intelligence agencies know what they are talking about and what they are doing in tracking this down and tracing this back to the origins.

Both have come out and said this points to Russia with a high degree of confidence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

BuckFan
Dec 30 2016, 08:15 PM
Demagogue
Dec 30 2016, 06:19 PM
BuckFan
Dec 30 2016, 05:59 PM
jake58
Dec 30 2016, 03:27 PM
BuckFan
Dec 30 2016, 01:48 PM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deepThe 1996 United States campaign finance controversy was an alleged effort by the People's Republic of China to influence domestic American politics prior to and during the Clinton administration and also involved the fund-raising practices of the administration itself.

While questions regarding the U.S. Democratic Party's fund-raising activities first arose over a Los Angeles Times article published on September 21, 1996, China's alleged role in the affair first gained public attention when Bob Woodward and Brian Duffy of The Washington Post published a story stating that a United States Department of Justice investigation into the fund-raising activities had uncovered evidence that agents of China sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) before the 1996 presidential campaign. The journalists wrote that intelligence information had shown the Chinese embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC in violation of United States law forbidding non-American citizens or non-permanent residents from giving monetary donations to United States politicians and political parties. A Republican investigator of the controversy stated the Chinese plan targeted both presidential and congressional United States elections, while Democratic Senators said the evidence showed the Chinese targeted only congressional elections. The government of the People's Republic of China denied all accusations.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy
You believe wrong, as per usual. Most were found guilty or pleaded guilty yet none served a day in jail. I don't think you want to go down this road, buck. Reno impeded all requests for a special prosecutor, even when directly requested by Clinton's FBI Director. FBI agents were not allowed to ask Clinton or Gore questions during Justice Dept interviews and at no time was anyone in the White House queried on the record about these specific folks who clearly had connections to the White House.

Both parties agreed that the Chinese were trying to influence elections, the difference was that the Republican thought they were trying to influence the Presidential and Congressional elections and the Democrats just thought they were trying to influence Congressional elections, pretty laughable considering all the money that had to be returned by Clinton, but then again libs are pretty laughable when it comes to this kind of stuff.

With regard to Russia you seem to think that sufficient evidence has been produced to connect Russia to the recent hacking and while I'm not much of a tech guy, I found this article illuminating for the fact that there's nothing that's been produced publicly which definitively makes a connection - one hopes intel has a little more than this.

https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/russia-malware-ip-hack/?utm_source=list&utm_campaign=123016&utm_medium=email

The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like Russia. But they don’t appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes.

The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website
.

Has anyone suggested that the Russians tried to influence the election by influence peddling or graft? Apparently, at the worst, and this is unproven, they've made some emails public that some people didn't want to be made public. Oh snap!


As to the Ukrainian connection, the malware was not from Ukraine, it was used against Ukraine. It was traced at that time back to Russian intelligence agencies. That is what makes the malware a "smoking gun" in that it is specifically a tool of Russian military intelligence units.
I don't want to get into this discussion too much but I would like to make a technical point here. You are probably aware of Stuxnet. Stuxnet is usually attributed to the actions of some nefarious US/Israeli team who built the worm to damage the Iranian nuclear program.

The thing is, once Stuxnet was out in the wild a number of people got access to it and since then it and variants of it have turned up used in exploits that were pretty much certainly not done by the US or Israel.

So, stating that they code used in the attack was similar to the code that was previously used by Russians and therefor it is without question the Russians who performed this exploit is a weak argument. It would be equal to saying that every stuxnet attack around the world was performed by the NSA.

I am just putting this out there FYI. :cheers:
I would think that the professional cyber-crime companies that investigated the DNC break-in and have come out and stated this was Russia know what they are talking about and doing.

i would think that NSA, CIA, FBI and 14 other intelligence agencies know what they are talking about and what they are doing in tracking this down and tracing this back to the origins.

Both have come out and said this points to Russia with a high degree of confidence.
Our illustrious intelligence agencies only know that the computer hacking program used was Russian...Anything else is pulled out of their ass...How many programs are on your computer that originated in other countries ???................. :mad:
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BuckFan

Robert Stout
Dec 30 2016, 11:04 PM
BuckFan
Dec 30 2016, 08:15 PM
Demagogue
Dec 30 2016, 06:19 PM
BuckFan
Dec 30 2016, 05:59 PM
jake58
Dec 30 2016, 03:27 PM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deepThe 1996 United States campaign finance controversy was an alleged effort by the People's Republic of China to influence domestic American politics prior to and during the Clinton administration and also involved the fund-raising practices of the administration itself.

While questions regarding the U.S. Democratic Party's fund-raising activities first arose over a Los Angeles Times article published on September 21, 1996, China's alleged role in the affair first gained public attention when Bob Woodward and Brian Duffy of The Washington Post published a story stating that a United States Department of Justice investigation into the fund-raising activities had uncovered evidence that agents of China sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) before the 1996 presidential campaign. The journalists wrote that intelligence information had shown the Chinese embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC in violation of United States law forbidding non-American citizens or non-permanent residents from giving monetary donations to United States politicians and political parties. A Republican investigator of the controversy stated the Chinese plan targeted both presidential and congressional United States elections, while Democratic Senators said the evidence showed the Chinese targeted only congressional elections. The government of the People's Republic of China denied all accusations.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversyhttps://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/russia-malware-ip-hack/?utm_source=list&utm_campaign=123016&utm_medium=email

The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like Russia. But they don’t appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes.

The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website
.

Has anyone suggested that the Russians tried to influence the election by influence peddling or graft? Apparently, at the worst, and this is unproven, they've made some emails public that some people didn't want to be made public. Oh snap!


As to the Ukrainian connection, the malware was not from Ukraine, it was used against Ukraine. It was traced at that time back to Russian intelligence agencies. That is what makes the malware a "smoking gun" in that it is specifically a tool of Russian military intelligence units.
I don't want to get into this discussion too much but I would like to make a technical point here. You are probably aware of Stuxnet. Stuxnet is usually attributed to the actions of some nefarious US/Israeli team who built the worm to damage the Iranian nuclear program.

The thing is, once Stuxnet was out in the wild a number of people got access to it and since then it and variants of it have turned up used in exploits that were pretty much certainly not done by the US or Israel.

So, stating that they code used in the attack was similar to the code that was previously used by Russians and therefor it is without question the Russians who performed this exploit is a weak argument. It would be equal to saying that every stuxnet attack around the world was performed by the NSA.

I am just putting this out there FYI. :cheers:
I would think that the professional cyber-crime companies that investigated the DNC break-in and have come out and stated this was Russia know what they are talking about and doing.

i would think that NSA, CIA, FBI and 14 other intelligence agencies know what they are talking about and what they are doing in tracking this down and tracing this back to the origins.

Both have come out and said this points to Russia with a high degree of confidence.
Our illustrious intelligence agencies only know that the computer hacking program used was Russian...Anything else is pulled out of their ass...How many programs are on your computer that originated in other countries ???................. :mad:
You should do some more research. They have IP addresses and have been able to trace the origins of the hackers. They have a lot more than just a country of origin for the software although a criminal's tools are sometimes as good as fingerprints.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jake58

BuckFan
Dec 30 2016, 11:11 PM
Robert Stout
Dec 30 2016, 11:04 PM
BuckFan
Dec 30 2016, 08:15 PM
Demagogue
Dec 30 2016, 06:19 PM
BuckFan
Dec 30 2016, 05:59 PM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deepThe 1996 United States campaign finance controversy was an alleged effort by the People's Republic of China to influence domestic American politics prior to and during the Clinton administration and also involved the fund-raising practices of the administration itself.

While questions regarding the U.S. Democratic Party's fund-raising activities first arose over a Los Angeles Times article published on September 21, 1996, China's alleged role in the affair first gained public attention when Bob Woodward and Brian Duffy of The Washington Post published a story stating that a United States Department of Justice investigation into the fund-raising activities had uncovered evidence that agents of China sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) before the 1996 presidential campaign. The journalists wrote that intelligence information had shown the Chinese embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC in violation of United States law forbidding non-American citizens or non-permanent residents from giving monetary donations to United States politicians and political parties. A Republican investigator of the controversy stated the Chinese plan targeted both presidential and congressional United States elections, while Democratic Senators said the evidence showed the Chinese targeted only congressional elections. The government of the People's Republic of China denied all accusations.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversyhttps://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/russia-malware-ip-hack/?utm_source=list&utm_campaign=123016&utm_medium=email

The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like Russia. But they don’t appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes.

The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website
I don't want to get into this discussion too much but I would like to make a technical point here. You are probably aware of Stuxnet. Stuxnet is usually attributed to the actions of some nefarious US/Israeli team who built the worm to damage the Iranian nuclear program.

The thing is, once Stuxnet was out in the wild a number of people got access to it and since then it and variants of it have turned up used in exploits that were pretty much certainly not done by the US or Israel.

So, stating that they code used in the attack was similar to the code that was previously used by Russians and therefor it is without question the Russians who performed this exploit is a weak argument. It would be equal to saying that every stuxnet attack around the world was performed by the NSA.

I am just putting this out there FYI. :cheers:
I would think that the professional cyber-crime companies that investigated the DNC break-in and have come out and stated this was Russia know what they are talking about and doing.

i would think that NSA, CIA, FBI and 14 other intelligence agencies know what they are talking about and what they are doing in tracking this down and tracing this back to the origins.

Both have come out and said this points to Russia with a high degree of confidence.
Our illustrious intelligence agencies only know that the computer hacking program used was Russian...Anything else is pulled out of their ass...How many programs are on your computer that originated in other countries ???................. :mad:
You should do some more research. They have IP addresses and have been able to trace the origins of the hackers. They have a lot more than just a country of origin for the software although a criminal's tools are sometimes as good as fingerprints.
You should do some more research as well. All that they've showed is that the bulk of the most used IPs were Tor exit nodes, meaning essentially anonymous... to anyone. Trying to find out who this is months later is somewhat beyond the pale.

They may well have more info, they haven't shown it yet and you certainly don't know what it is.
That which can be asserted without evidence; can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BuckFan

jake58
Dec 30 2016, 11:51 PM
BuckFan
Dec 30 2016, 11:11 PM
Robert Stout
Dec 30 2016, 11:04 PM
BuckFan
Dec 30 2016, 08:15 PM
Demagogue
Dec 30 2016, 06:19 PM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deepThe 1996 United States campaign finance controversy was an alleged effort by the People's Republic of China to influence domestic American politics prior to and during the Clinton administration and also involved the fund-raising practices of the administration itself.

While questions regarding the U.S. Democratic Party's fund-raising activities first arose over a Los Angeles Times article published on September 21, 1996, China's alleged role in the affair first gained public attention when Bob Woodward and Brian Duffy of The Washington Post published a story stating that a United States Department of Justice investigation into the fund-raising activities had uncovered evidence that agents of China sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) before the 1996 presidential campaign. The journalists wrote that intelligence information had shown the Chinese embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC in violation of United States law forbidding non-American citizens or non-permanent residents from giving monetary donations to United States politicians and political parties. A Republican investigator of the controversy stated the Chinese plan targeted both presidential and congressional United States elections, while Democratic Senators said the evidence showed the Chinese targeted only congressional elections. The government of the People's Republic of China denied all accusations.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversyhttps://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/russia-malware-ip-hack/?utm_source=list&utm_campaign=123016&utm_medium=email

The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like Russia. But they don’t appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes.

The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website
I would think that the professional cyber-crime companies that investigated the DNC break-in and have come out and stated this was Russia know what they are talking about and doing.

i would think that NSA, CIA, FBI and 14 other intelligence agencies know what they are talking about and what they are doing in tracking this down and tracing this back to the origins.

Both have come out and said this points to Russia with a high degree of confidence.
Our illustrious intelligence agencies only know that the computer hacking program used was Russian...Anything else is pulled out of their ass...How many programs are on your computer that originated in other countries ???................. :mad:
You should do some more research. They have IP addresses and have been able to trace the origins of the hackers. They have a lot more than just a country of origin for the software although a criminal's tools are sometimes as good as fingerprints.
You should do some more research as well. All that they've showed is that the bulk of the most used IPs were Tor exit nodes, meaning essentially anonymous... to anyone. Trying to find out who this is months later is somewhat beyond the pale.

They may well have more info, they haven't shown it yet and you certainly don't know what it is.
http://time.com/4600177/election-hack-russia-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/

http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/06/dnc_update.html

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

Here are the experts reports, they clearly believe it was the Russians and explain why.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Coast2coast

Eddo36
Dec 30 2016, 01:42 AM
No matter how disastrous anyone thinks Trump will become, it will never hold a candle to starting WW3 so anyone who says Hillary should have been voted for because Trump would be a bigger disaster can stuff a sock in their mouths.
No need to start World War III - President Trump will let the Russians do anything they want to this nation.



Edited by Coast2coast, Dec 31 2016, 12:43 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Coast2coast

Demagogue
Dec 30 2016, 10:23 AM
First, if you knew that the Russians were committing espionage from these compounds then why did you not close them and expel the Russians long ago?


Second, the way that Puntin is handling this is making Obama look like he is throwing a temper tantrum on his way out of office. Of course, then I look at all the pardons and the last minute executive actions Obama is taking and think that maybe Obama is throwing a temper tantrum on his way out of office. Obama is like a person who is being evicted for not paying the rent who chooses to wreck the house on the way out because he is mad that you have the audacity to toss him out.
No.

What's it's looking like is that we have an incoming President that won't stand up to Russia or stand up for the United States..

He is definitely President Putin's boy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Coast2coast

Harambe4Trump
Dec 30 2016, 10:51 AM
CautionaryTales
Dec 30 2016, 10:37 AM
Harambe4Trump
Dec 30 2016, 10:32 AM
CautionaryTales
Dec 30 2016, 10:31 AM
Demagogue
Dec 30 2016, 10:23 AM
First, if you knew that the Russians were committing espionage from these compounds then why did you not close them and expel the Russians long ago?


Second, the way that Puntin is handling this is making Obama look like he is throwing a temper tantrum on his way out of office. Of course, then I look at all the pardons and the last minute executive actions Obama is taking and think that maybe Obama is throwing a temper tantrum on his way out of office. Obama is like a person who is being evicted for not paying the rent who chooses to wreck the house on the way out because he is mad that you have the audacity to toss him out.
Having them all located in one place was probably a convenience.
All the easier to keep an eye on their activity.

Sending them away doesn't mean much. It will be an inconvenience for the Russians and it will take action from Putin's American Governor to highlight that they are here with his invitiation.

A brick doesn't build a wall. It takes a lot of brick to build a wall.
This is one brick.
If only you were half as upset with Mexico, Israel, or Saudi Arabia meddling in our politics.
They do not carry the same threat as does Russia.
Interaction between us and them presents their own set of challenges to us.

We have treaties with some, we have business and charity interests....
We sell to some, we buy from some. We support the military for some.

Each of those three you mention are allies of this country.
Russia is no ally. They have not been accused of tampering with our election. Russia has.

Do you support their meddling with our election?
Mexico is recolonizing this country; it is no ally. Saudi Arabia brought down the World Trade Center. Israel dragged America into the Iraq war. If these are "allies" and Russia is an enemy then it is revealed why western civilization is dying.
President Bush put us in the Iraq war.

You're rewrite of history is as conservatives like to say these days "fake news". Only this time its actual fake news.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jake58

BuckFan
Dec 31 2016, 12:05 AM
jake58
Dec 30 2016, 11:51 PM
BuckFan
Dec 30 2016, 11:11 PM
Robert Stout
Dec 30 2016, 11:04 PM
BuckFan
Dec 30 2016, 08:15 PM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deepThe 1996 United States campaign finance controversy was an alleged effort by the People's Republic of China to influence domestic American politics prior to and during the Clinton administration and also involved the fund-raising practices of the administration itself.

While questions regarding the U.S. Democratic Party's fund-raising activities first arose over a Los Angeles Times article published on September 21, 1996, China's alleged role in the affair first gained public attention when Bob Woodward and Brian Duffy of The Washington Post published a story stating that a United States Department of Justice investigation into the fund-raising activities had uncovered evidence that agents of China sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) before the 1996 presidential campaign. The journalists wrote that intelligence information had shown the Chinese embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC in violation of United States law forbidding non-American citizens or non-permanent residents from giving monetary donations to United States politicians and political parties. A Republican investigator of the controversy stated the Chinese plan targeted both presidential and congressional United States elections, while Democratic Senators said the evidence showed the Chinese targeted only congressional elections. The government of the People's Republic of China denied all accusations.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversyhttps://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/russia-malware-ip-hack/?utm_source=list&utm_campaign=123016&utm_medium=email

The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like Russia. But they don’t appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes.

The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website
Our illustrious intelligence agencies only know that the computer hacking program used was Russian...Anything else is pulled out of their ass...How many programs are on your computer that originated in other countries ???................. :mad:
You should do some more research. They have IP addresses and have been able to trace the origins of the hackers. They have a lot more than just a country of origin for the software although a criminal's tools are sometimes as good as fingerprints.
You should do some more research as well. All that they've showed is that the bulk of the most used IPs were Tor exit nodes, meaning essentially anonymous... to anyone. Trying to find out who this is months later is somewhat beyond the pale.

They may well have more info, they haven't shown it yet and you certainly don't know what it is.
http://time.com/4600177/election-hack-russia-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/

http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/06/dnc_update.html

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

Here are the experts reports, they clearly believe it was the Russians and explain why.
Yes, I know, we have a self interested cyber security firm with a financial stake in making the internet seem real scary and only they can fix it.

From Intercept...

For one, a lot of the so-called evidence above is no such thing. CrowdStrike, whose claims of Russian responsibility are perhaps most influential throughout the media, says APT 28/Fancy Bear “is known for its technique of registering domains that closely resemble domains of legitimate organizations they plan to target.” But this isn’t a Russian technique any more than using a computer is a Russian technique — misspelled domains are a cornerstone of phishing attacks all over the world. Is Yandex — the Russian equivalent of Google — some sort of giveaway? Anyone who claimed a hacker must be a CIA agent because they used a Gmail account would be laughed off the internet. We must also acknowledge that just because Guccifer 2.0 pretended to be Romanian, we can’t conclude he works for the Russian government — it just makes him a liar.

...consider the fact that CrowdStrike describes APT 28 and 29 like this:

Their tradecraft is superb, operational security second to none and the extensive usage of “living-off-the-land” techniques enables them to easily bypass many security solutions they encounter. In particular, we identified advanced methods consistent with nation-state level capabilities including deliberate targeting and “access management” tradecraft — both groups were constantly going back into the environment to change out their implants, modify persistent methods, move to new Command & Control channels and perform other tasks to try to stay ahead of being detected.

Compare that description to CrowdStrike’s claim it was able to finger APT 28 and 29, described above as digital spies par excellence, because they were so incredibly sloppy. Would a group whose “tradecraft is superb” with “operational security second to none” really leave behind the name of a Soviet spy chief imprinted on a document it sent to American journalists? Would these groups really be dumb enough to leave cyrillic comments on these documents? Would these groups that “constantly [go] back into the environment to change out their implants, modify persistent methods, move to new Command & Control channels” get caught because they precisely didn’t make sure not to use IP addresses they’d been associated before? It’s very hard to buy the argument that the Democrats were hacked by one of the most sophisticated, diabolical foreign intelligence services in history, and that we know this because they screwed up over and over again.

But how do we even know these oddly named groups are Russian? CrowdStrike co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch himself describes APT 28 as a “Russian-based threat actor” whose modus operandi “closely mirrors the strategic interests of the Russian government” and “may indicate affiliation [Russia’s] Main Intelligence Department or GRU, Russia’s premier military intelligence service.” Security firm SecureWorks issued a report blaming Russia with “moderate confidence.” What constitutes moderate confidence? SecureWorks said it adopted the “grading system published by the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence to indicate confidence in their assessments. … Moderate confidence generally means that the information is credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.” All of this amounts to a very educated guess, at best.

There's more.... at https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/

So, you still have a good bit of circumstantial evidence but no proof... the NSA may have SIGINT connecting the FSB to the hackers but until they show that, as Mr Biddle suggests...

What we’re looking at now is the distinct possibility that the United States will consider military retaliation (digital or otherwise) against Russia, based on nothing but private sector consultants and secret intelligence agency notes. If you care about the country enough to be angry at the prospect of election-meddling, you should be terrified of the prospect of military tensions with Russia based on hidden evidence. You need not look too far back in recent history to find an example of when wrongly blaming a foreign government for sponsoring an attack on the U.S. has tremendously backfired.

Congrats for finally getting around to posting a source, buck... I knew you could do it... even if the articles are months old and their findings discredited.
That which can be asserted without evidence; can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BuckFan

jake58
Dec 31 2016, 12:58 AM
BuckFan
Dec 31 2016, 12:05 AM
jake58
Dec 30 2016, 11:51 PM
BuckFan
Dec 30 2016, 11:11 PM
Robert Stout
Dec 30 2016, 11:04 PM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deepThe 1996 United States campaign finance controversy was an alleged effort by the People's Republic of China to influence domestic American politics prior to and during the Clinton administration and also involved the fund-raising practices of the administration itself.

While questions regarding the U.S. Democratic Party's fund-raising activities first arose over a Los Angeles Times article published on September 21, 1996, China's alleged role in the affair first gained public attention when Bob Woodward and Brian Duffy of The Washington Post published a story stating that a United States Department of Justice investigation into the fund-raising activities had uncovered evidence that agents of China sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) before the 1996 presidential campaign. The journalists wrote that intelligence information had shown the Chinese embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC in violation of United States law forbidding non-American citizens or non-permanent residents from giving monetary donations to United States politicians and political parties. A Republican investigator of the controversy stated the Chinese plan targeted both presidential and congressional United States elections, while Democratic Senators said the evidence showed the Chinese targeted only congressional elections. The government of the People's Republic of China denied all accusations.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversyhttps://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/russia-malware-ip-hack/?utm_source=list&utm_campaign=123016&utm_medium=email

The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like Russia. But they don’t appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes.

The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website
You should do some more research. They have IP addresses and have been able to trace the origins of the hackers. They have a lot more than just a country of origin for the software although a criminal's tools are sometimes as good as fingerprints.
You should do some more research as well. All that they've showed is that the bulk of the most used IPs were Tor exit nodes, meaning essentially anonymous... to anyone. Trying to find out who this is months later is somewhat beyond the pale.

They may well have more info, they haven't shown it yet and you certainly don't know what it is.
http://time.com/4600177/election-hack-russia-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/

http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/06/dnc_update.html

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

Here are the experts reports, they clearly believe it was the Russians and explain why.
Yes, I know, we have a self interested cyber security firm with a financial stake in making the internet seem real scary and only they can fix it.

From Intercept...

For one, a lot of the so-called evidence above is no such thing. CrowdStrike, whose claims of Russian responsibility are perhaps most influential throughout the media, says APT 28/Fancy Bear “is known for its technique of registering domains that closely resemble domains of legitimate organizations they plan to target.” But this isn’t a Russian technique any more than using a computer is a Russian technique — misspelled domains are a cornerstone of phishing attacks all over the world. Is Yandex — the Russian equivalent of Google — some sort of giveaway? Anyone who claimed a hacker must be a CIA agent because they used a Gmail account would be laughed off the internet. We must also acknowledge that just because Guccifer 2.0 pretended to be Romanian, we can’t conclude he works for the Russian government — it just makes him a liar.

...consider the fact that CrowdStrike describes APT 28 and 29 like this:

Their tradecraft is superb, operational security second to none and the extensive usage of “living-off-the-land” techniques enables them to easily bypass many security solutions they encounter. In particular, we identified advanced methods consistent with nation-state level capabilities including deliberate targeting and “access management” tradecraft — both groups were constantly going back into the environment to change out their implants, modify persistent methods, move to new Command & Control channels and perform other tasks to try to stay ahead of being detected.

Compare that description to CrowdStrike’s claim it was able to finger APT 28 and 29, described above as digital spies par excellence, because they were so incredibly sloppy. Would a group whose “tradecraft is superb” with “operational security second to none” really leave behind the name of a Soviet spy chief imprinted on a document it sent to American journalists? Would these groups really be dumb enough to leave cyrillic comments on these documents? Would these groups that “constantly [go] back into the environment to change out their implants, modify persistent methods, move to new Command & Control channels” get caught because they precisely didn’t make sure not to use IP addresses they’d been associated before? It’s very hard to buy the argument that the Democrats were hacked by one of the most sophisticated, diabolical foreign intelligence services in history, and that we know this because they screwed up over and over again.

But how do we even know these oddly named groups are Russian? CrowdStrike co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch himself describes APT 28 as a “Russian-based threat actor” whose modus operandi “closely mirrors the strategic interests of the Russian government” and “may indicate affiliation [Russia’s] Main Intelligence Department or GRU, Russia’s premier military intelligence service.” Security firm SecureWorks issued a report blaming Russia with “moderate confidence.” What constitutes moderate confidence? SecureWorks said it adopted the “grading system published by the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence to indicate confidence in their assessments. … Moderate confidence generally means that the information is credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.” All of this amounts to a very educated guess, at best.

There's more.... at https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/

So, you still have a good bit of circumstantial evidence but no proof... the NSA may have SIGINT connecting the FSB to the hackers but until they show that, as Mr Biddle suggests...

What we’re looking at now is the distinct possibility that the United States will consider military retaliation (digital or otherwise) against Russia, based on nothing but private sector consultants and secret intelligence agency notes. If you care about the country enough to be angry at the prospect of election-meddling, you should be terrified of the prospect of military tensions with Russia based on hidden evidence. You need not look too far back in recent history to find an example of when wrongly blaming a foreign government for sponsoring an attack on the U.S. has tremendously backfired.

Congrats for finally getting around to posting a source, buck... I knew you could do it... even if the articles are months old and their findings discredited.
TheIntercept.com is the vehicle that house Glenn Greenwald and was created as a mouthpiece for the Snowden files. It is a conspiracy theory du jour and hardly reliable. It is also not an Internet security expert by any imagination.

You might as well be referencing Rudy Giuliani as a security expert denying the intelligence commnities' findings.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
peewee

BuckFan
Dec 30 2016, 08:15 PM
Demagogue
Dec 30 2016, 06:19 PM
BuckFan
Dec 30 2016, 05:59 PM
jake58
Dec 30 2016, 03:27 PM
BuckFan
Dec 30 2016, 01:48 PM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deepThe 1996 United States campaign finance controversy was an alleged effort by the People's Republic of China to influence domestic American politics prior to and during the Clinton administration and also involved the fund-raising practices of the administration itself.

While questions regarding the U.S. Democratic Party's fund-raising activities first arose over a Los Angeles Times article published on September 21, 1996, China's alleged role in the affair first gained public attention when Bob Woodward and Brian Duffy of The Washington Post published a story stating that a United States Department of Justice investigation into the fund-raising activities had uncovered evidence that agents of China sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) before the 1996 presidential campaign. The journalists wrote that intelligence information had shown the Chinese embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC in violation of United States law forbidding non-American citizens or non-permanent residents from giving monetary donations to United States politicians and political parties. A Republican investigator of the controversy stated the Chinese plan targeted both presidential and congressional United States elections, while Democratic Senators said the evidence showed the Chinese targeted only congressional elections. The government of the People's Republic of China denied all accusations.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy
You believe wrong, as per usual. Most were found guilty or pleaded guilty yet none served a day in jail. I don't think you want to go down this road, buck. Reno impeded all requests for a special prosecutor, even when directly requested by Clinton's FBI Director. FBI agents were not allowed to ask Clinton or Gore questions during Justice Dept interviews and at no time was anyone in the White House queried on the record about these specific folks who clearly had connections to the White House.

Both parties agreed that the Chinese were trying to influence elections, the difference was that the Republican thought they were trying to influence the Presidential and Congressional elections and the Democrats just thought they were trying to influence Congressional elections, pretty laughable considering all the money that had to be returned by Clinton, but then again libs are pretty laughable when it comes to this kind of stuff.

With regard to Russia you seem to think that sufficient evidence has been produced to connect Russia to the recent hacking and while I'm not much of a tech guy, I found this article illuminating for the fact that there's nothing that's been produced publicly which definitively makes a connection - one hopes intel has a little more than this.

https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/russia-malware-ip-hack/?utm_source=list&utm_campaign=123016&utm_medium=email

The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like Russia. But they don’t appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes.

The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website
.

Has anyone suggested that the Russians tried to influence the election by influence peddling or graft? Apparently, at the worst, and this is unproven, they've made some emails public that some people didn't want to be made public. Oh snap!


As to the Ukrainian connection, the malware was not from Ukraine, it was used against Ukraine. It was traced at that time back to Russian intelligence agencies. That is what makes the malware a "smoking gun" in that it is specifically a tool of Russian military intelligence units.
I don't want to get into this discussion too much but I would like to make a technical point here. You are probably aware of Stuxnet. Stuxnet is usually attributed to the actions of some nefarious US/Israeli team who built the worm to damage the Iranian nuclear program.

The thing is, once Stuxnet was out in the wild a number of people got access to it and since then it and variants of it have turned up used in exploits that were pretty much certainly not done by the US or Israel.

So, stating that they code used in the attack was similar to the code that was previously used by Russians and therefor it is without question the Russians who performed this exploit is a weak argument. It would be equal to saying that every stuxnet attack around the world was performed by the NSA.

I am just putting this out there FYI. :cheers:
I would think that the professional cyber-crime companies that investigated the DNC break-in and have come out and stated this was Russia know what they are talking about and doing.

i would think that NSA, CIA, FBI and 14 other intelligence agencies know what they are talking about and what they are doing in tracking this down and tracing this back to the origins.

Both have come out and said this points to Russia with a high degree of confidence.
Roughly 20% of Americans polled by Rasmussen yesterday felt that the Russian hacking was an issue of concern. According to the poll our media seem to be blowing the Russian story out of proportion. More Americans are concerned, 80%, with our relations with Israel than with our relations with Russia. Obama is currently screwing the pooch on both fronts.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BuckFan

peewee
Dec 31 2016, 10:19 AM
BuckFan
Dec 30 2016, 08:15 PM
Demagogue
Dec 30 2016, 06:19 PM
BuckFan
Dec 30 2016, 05:59 PM
jake58
Dec 30 2016, 03:27 PM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deepThe 1996 United States campaign finance controversy was an alleged effort by the People's Republic of China to influence domestic American politics prior to and during the Clinton administration and also involved the fund-raising practices of the administration itself.

While questions regarding the U.S. Democratic Party's fund-raising activities first arose over a Los Angeles Times article published on September 21, 1996, China's alleged role in the affair first gained public attention when Bob Woodward and Brian Duffy of The Washington Post published a story stating that a United States Department of Justice investigation into the fund-raising activities had uncovered evidence that agents of China sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) before the 1996 presidential campaign. The journalists wrote that intelligence information had shown the Chinese embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC in violation of United States law forbidding non-American citizens or non-permanent residents from giving monetary donations to United States politicians and political parties. A Republican investigator of the controversy stated the Chinese plan targeted both presidential and congressional United States elections, while Democratic Senators said the evidence showed the Chinese targeted only congressional elections. The government of the People's Republic of China denied all accusations.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversyhttps://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/russia-malware-ip-hack/?utm_source=list&utm_campaign=123016&utm_medium=email

The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like Russia. But they don’t appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes.

The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website
.

Has anyone suggested that the Russians tried to influence the election by influence peddling or graft? Apparently, at the worst, and this is unproven, they've made some emails public that some people didn't want to be made public. Oh snap!


As to the Ukrainian connection, the malware was not from Ukraine, it was used against Ukraine. It was traced at that time back to Russian intelligence agencies. That is what makes the malware a "smoking gun" in that it is specifically a tool of Russian military intelligence units.
I don't want to get into this discussion too much but I would like to make a technical point here. You are probably aware of Stuxnet. Stuxnet is usually attributed to the actions of some nefarious US/Israeli team who built the worm to damage the Iranian nuclear program.

The thing is, once Stuxnet was out in the wild a number of people got access to it and since then it and variants of it have turned up used in exploits that were pretty much certainly not done by the US or Israel.

So, stating that they code used in the attack was similar to the code that was previously used by Russians and therefor it is without question the Russians who performed this exploit is a weak argument. It would be equal to saying that every stuxnet attack around the world was performed by the NSA.

I am just putting this out there FYI. :cheers:
I would think that the professional cyber-crime companies that investigated the DNC break-in and have come out and stated this was Russia know what they are talking about and doing.

i would think that NSA, CIA, FBI and 14 other intelligence agencies know what they are talking about and what they are doing in tracking this down and tracing this back to the origins.

Both have come out and said this points to Russia with a high degree of confidence.
Roughly 20% of Americans polled by Rasmussen yesterday felt that the Russian hacking was an issue of concern. According to the poll our media seem to be blowing the Russian story out of proportion. More Americans are concerned, 80%, with our relations with Israel than with our relations with Russia. Obama is currently screwing the pooch on both fronts.
I'd like a link because that poll is not on their website.

What is on their website only reaffirms that fact that Rasmussen is a Rightie polling outfit with op-ed pieces by the likes of Pat Buchanan and Michelle Malkin.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jake58

BuckFan
Dec 31 2016, 01:29 AM
jake58
Dec 31 2016, 12:58 AM
BuckFan
Dec 31 2016, 12:05 AM
jake58
Dec 30 2016, 11:51 PM
BuckFan
Dec 30 2016, 11:11 PM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deepThe 1996 United States campaign finance controversy was an alleged effort by the People's Republic of China to influence domestic American politics prior to and during the Clinton administration and also involved the fund-raising practices of the administration itself.

While questions regarding the U.S. Democratic Party's fund-raising activities first arose over a Los Angeles Times article published on September 21, 1996, China's alleged role in the affair first gained public attention when Bob Woodward and Brian Duffy of The Washington Post published a story stating that a United States Department of Justice investigation into the fund-raising activities had uncovered evidence that agents of China sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) before the 1996 presidential campaign. The journalists wrote that intelligence information had shown the Chinese embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC in violation of United States law forbidding non-American citizens or non-permanent residents from giving monetary donations to United States politicians and political parties. A Republican investigator of the controversy stated the Chinese plan targeted both presidential and congressional United States elections, while Democratic Senators said the evidence showed the Chinese targeted only congressional elections. The government of the People's Republic of China denied all accusations.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversyhttps://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/russia-malware-ip-hack/?utm_source=list&utm_campaign=123016&utm_medium=email

The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like Russia. But they don’t appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes.

The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website
You should do some more research as well. All that they've showed is that the bulk of the most used IPs were Tor exit nodes, meaning essentially anonymous... to anyone. Trying to find out who this is months later is somewhat beyond the pale.

They may well have more info, they haven't shown it yet and you certainly don't know what it is.
http://time.com/4600177/election-hack-russia-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/

http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/06/dnc_update.html

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

Here are the experts reports, they clearly believe it was the Russians and explain why.
Yes, I know, we have a self interested cyber security firm with a financial stake in making the internet seem real scary and only they can fix it.

From Intercept...

For one, a lot of the so-called evidence above is no such thing. CrowdStrike, whose claims of Russian responsibility are perhaps most influential throughout the media, says APT 28/Fancy Bear “is known for its technique of registering domains that closely resemble domains of legitimate organizations they plan to target.” But this isn’t a Russian technique any more than using a computer is a Russian technique — misspelled domains are a cornerstone of phishing attacks all over the world. Is Yandex — the Russian equivalent of Google — some sort of giveaway? Anyone who claimed a hacker must be a CIA agent because they used a Gmail account would be laughed off the internet. We must also acknowledge that just because Guccifer 2.0 pretended to be Romanian, we can’t conclude he works for the Russian government — it just makes him a liar.

...consider the fact that CrowdStrike describes APT 28 and 29 like this:

Their tradecraft is superb, operational security second to none and the extensive usage of “living-off-the-land” techniques enables them to easily bypass many security solutions they encounter. In particular, we identified advanced methods consistent with nation-state level capabilities including deliberate targeting and “access management” tradecraft — both groups were constantly going back into the environment to change out their implants, modify persistent methods, move to new Command & Control channels and perform other tasks to try to stay ahead of being detected.

Compare that description to CrowdStrike’s claim it was able to finger APT 28 and 29, described above as digital spies par excellence, because they were so incredibly sloppy. Would a group whose “tradecraft is superb” with “operational security second to none” really leave behind the name of a Soviet spy chief imprinted on a document it sent to American journalists? Would these groups really be dumb enough to leave cyrillic comments on these documents? Would these groups that “constantly [go] back into the environment to change out their implants, modify persistent methods, move to new Command & Control channels” get caught because they precisely didn’t make sure not to use IP addresses they’d been associated before? It’s very hard to buy the argument that the Democrats were hacked by one of the most sophisticated, diabolical foreign intelligence services in history, and that we know this because they screwed up over and over again.

But how do we even know these oddly named groups are Russian? CrowdStrike co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch himself describes APT 28 as a “Russian-based threat actor” whose modus operandi “closely mirrors the strategic interests of the Russian government” and “may indicate affiliation [Russia’s] Main Intelligence Department or GRU, Russia’s premier military intelligence service.” Security firm SecureWorks issued a report blaming Russia with “moderate confidence.” What constitutes moderate confidence? SecureWorks said it adopted the “grading system published by the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence to indicate confidence in their assessments. … Moderate confidence generally means that the information is credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.” All of this amounts to a very educated guess, at best.

There's more.... at https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/

So, you still have a good bit of circumstantial evidence but no proof... the NSA may have SIGINT connecting the FSB to the hackers but until they show that, as Mr Biddle suggests...

What we’re looking at now is the distinct possibility that the United States will consider military retaliation (digital or otherwise) against Russia, based on nothing but private sector consultants and secret intelligence agency notes. If you care about the country enough to be angry at the prospect of election-meddling, you should be terrified of the prospect of military tensions with Russia based on hidden evidence. You need not look too far back in recent history to find an example of when wrongly blaming a foreign government for sponsoring an attack on the U.S. has tremendously backfired.

Congrats for finally getting around to posting a source, buck... I knew you could do it... even if the articles are months old and their findings discredited.
TheIntercept.com is the vehicle that house Glenn Greenwald and was created as a mouthpiece for the Snowden files. It is a conspiracy theory du jour and hardly reliable. It is also not an Internet security expert by any imagination.

You might as well be referencing Rudy Giuliani as a security expert denying the intelligence commnities' findings.
Perhaps you could address the points contained therein instead of retreating behind your usual 'attack the source' when facts become inconvenient.

Crowdstrike offers up nothing that could be described as 'proof' and it's 'evidence' and deductions have some serious holes in them. The govt report is even skimpier in providing anything which can be linked to Russia. if they've got SIGINT connecting the FSB and the hackers, let's see it, otherwise there's nothing to see here.
That which can be asserted without evidence; can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BuckFan

jake58
Dec 31 2016, 12:16 PM
BuckFan
Dec 31 2016, 01:29 AM
jake58
Dec 31 2016, 12:58 AM
BuckFan
Dec 31 2016, 12:05 AM
jake58
Dec 30 2016, 11:51 PM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deepThe 1996 United States campaign finance controversy was an alleged effort by the People's Republic of China to influence domestic American politics prior to and during the Clinton administration and also involved the fund-raising practices of the administration itself.

While questions regarding the U.S. Democratic Party's fund-raising activities first arose over a Los Angeles Times article published on September 21, 1996, China's alleged role in the affair first gained public attention when Bob Woodward and Brian Duffy of The Washington Post published a story stating that a United States Department of Justice investigation into the fund-raising activities had uncovered evidence that agents of China sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) before the 1996 presidential campaign. The journalists wrote that intelligence information had shown the Chinese embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC in violation of United States law forbidding non-American citizens or non-permanent residents from giving monetary donations to United States politicians and political parties. A Republican investigator of the controversy stated the Chinese plan targeted both presidential and congressional United States elections, while Democratic Senators said the evidence showed the Chinese targeted only congressional elections. The government of the People's Republic of China denied all accusations.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversyhttps://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/russia-malware-ip-hack/?utm_source=list&utm_campaign=123016&utm_medium=email

The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like Russia. But they don’t appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes.

The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website
http://time.com/4600177/election-hack-russia-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/

http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/06/dnc_update.html

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

Here are the experts reports, they clearly believe it was the Russians and explain why.
Yes, I know, we have a self interested cyber security firm with a financial stake in making the internet seem real scary and only they can fix it.

From Intercept...

For one, a lot of the so-called evidence above is no such thing. CrowdStrike, whose claims of Russian responsibility are perhaps most influential throughout the media, says APT 28/Fancy Bear “is known for its technique of registering domains that closely resemble domains of legitimate organizations they plan to target.” But this isn’t a Russian technique any more than using a computer is a Russian technique — misspelled domains are a cornerstone of phishing attacks all over the world. Is Yandex — the Russian equivalent of Google — some sort of giveaway? Anyone who claimed a hacker must be a CIA agent because they used a Gmail account would be laughed off the internet. We must also acknowledge that just because Guccifer 2.0 pretended to be Romanian, we can’t conclude he works for the Russian government — it just makes him a liar.

...consider the fact that CrowdStrike describes APT 28 and 29 like this:

Their tradecraft is superb, operational security second to none and the extensive usage of “living-off-the-land” techniques enables them to easily bypass many security solutions they encounter. In particular, we identified advanced methods consistent with nation-state level capabilities including deliberate targeting and “access management” tradecraft — both groups were constantly going back into the environment to change out their implants, modify persistent methods, move to new Command & Control channels and perform other tasks to try to stay ahead of being detected.

Compare that description to CrowdStrike’s claim it was able to finger APT 28 and 29, described above as digital spies par excellence, because they were so incredibly sloppy. Would a group whose “tradecraft is superb” with “operational security second to none” really leave behind the name of a Soviet spy chief imprinted on a document it sent to American journalists? Would these groups really be dumb enough to leave cyrillic comments on these documents? Would these groups that “constantly [go] back into the environment to change out their implants, modify persistent methods, move to new Command & Control channels” get caught because they precisely didn’t make sure not to use IP addresses they’d been associated before? It’s very hard to buy the argument that the Democrats were hacked by one of the most sophisticated, diabolical foreign intelligence services in history, and that we know this because they screwed up over and over again.

But how do we even know these oddly named groups are Russian? CrowdStrike co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch himself describes APT 28 as a “Russian-based threat actor” whose modus operandi “closely mirrors the strategic interests of the Russian government” and “may indicate affiliation [Russia’s] Main Intelligence Department or GRU, Russia’s premier military intelligence service.” Security firm SecureWorks issued a report blaming Russia with “moderate confidence.” What constitutes moderate confidence? SecureWorks said it adopted the “grading system published by the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence to indicate confidence in their assessments. … Moderate confidence generally means that the information is credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.” All of this amounts to a very educated guess, at best.

There's more.... at https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/

So, you still have a good bit of circumstantial evidence but no proof... the NSA may have SIGINT connecting the FSB to the hackers but until they show that, as Mr Biddle suggests...

What we’re looking at now is the distinct possibility that the United States will consider military retaliation (digital or otherwise) against Russia, based on nothing but private sector consultants and secret intelligence agency notes. If you care about the country enough to be angry at the prospect of election-meddling, you should be terrified of the prospect of military tensions with Russia based on hidden evidence. You need not look too far back in recent history to find an example of when wrongly blaming a foreign government for sponsoring an attack on the U.S. has tremendously backfired.

Congrats for finally getting around to posting a source, buck... I knew you could do it... even if the articles are months old and their findings discredited.
TheIntercept.com is the vehicle that house Glenn Greenwald and was created as a mouthpiece for the Snowden files. It is a conspiracy theory du jour and hardly reliable. It is also not an Internet security expert by any imagination.

You might as well be referencing Rudy Giuliani as a security expert denying the intelligence commnities' findings.
Perhaps you could address the points contained therein instead of retreating behind your usual 'attack the source' when facts become inconvenient.

Crowdstrike offers up nothing that could be described as 'proof' and it's 'evidence' and deductions have some serious holes in them. The govt report is even skimpier in providing anything which can be linked to Russia. if they've got SIGINT connecting the FSB and the hackers, let's see it, otherwise there's nothing to see here.
You'll never see SIGINT and you know it.

I've posted several reports on the evidence, I'll let them do the talking. Crowdstrike shared their data with other security firms who confirmed their findings. I'll let the pros do the talking. So the private cyber-security world and the Feds all agree it was the Russians.

But you and the other Righties will continue to ignore the facts and the professionals and instead rely on has-been reporters just like you did for Swiftboats, AGW and a host of other issues you have been exposed on.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jake58

BuckFan
Dec 31 2016, 12:21 PM
jake58
Dec 31 2016, 12:16 PM
BuckFan
Dec 31 2016, 01:29 AM
jake58
Dec 31 2016, 12:58 AM
BuckFan
Dec 31 2016, 12:05 AM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deepThe 1996 United States campaign finance controversy was an alleged effort by the People's Republic of China to influence domestic American politics prior to and during the Clinton administration and also involved the fund-raising practices of the administration itself.

While questions regarding the U.S. Democratic Party's fund-raising activities first arose over a Los Angeles Times article published on September 21, 1996, China's alleged role in the affair first gained public attention when Bob Woodward and Brian Duffy of The Washington Post published a story stating that a United States Department of Justice investigation into the fund-raising activities had uncovered evidence that agents of China sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) before the 1996 presidential campaign. The journalists wrote that intelligence information had shown the Chinese embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC in violation of United States law forbidding non-American citizens or non-permanent residents from giving monetary donations to United States politicians and political parties. A Republican investigator of the controversy stated the Chinese plan targeted both presidential and congressional United States elections, while Democratic Senators said the evidence showed the Chinese targeted only congressional elections. The government of the People's Republic of China denied all accusations.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversyhttps://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/russia-malware-ip-hack/?utm_source=list&utm_campaign=123016&utm_medium=email

The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like Russia. But they don’t appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes.

The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website
http://time.com/4600177/election-hack-russia-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/

http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/06/dnc_update.html

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

Here are the experts reports, they clearly believe it was the Russians and explain why.
Yes, I know, we have a self interested cyber security firm with a financial stake in making the internet seem real scary and only they can fix it.

From Intercept...

For one, a lot of the so-called evidence above is no such thing. CrowdStrike, whose claims of Russian responsibility are perhaps most influential throughout the media, says APT 28/Fancy Bear “is known for its technique of registering domains that closely resemble domains of legitimate organizations they plan to target.” But this isn’t a Russian technique any more than using a computer is a Russian technique — misspelled domains are a cornerstone of phishing attacks all over the world. Is Yandex — the Russian equivalent of Google — some sort of giveaway? Anyone who claimed a hacker must be a CIA agent because they used a Gmail account would be laughed off the internet. We must also acknowledge that just because Guccifer 2.0 pretended to be Romanian, we can’t conclude he works for the Russian government — it just makes him a liar.

...consider the fact that CrowdStrike describes APT 28 and 29 like this:

Their tradecraft is superb, operational security second to none and the extensive usage of “living-off-the-land” techniques enables them to easily bypass many security solutions they encounter. In particular, we identified advanced methods consistent with nation-state level capabilities including deliberate targeting and “access management” tradecraft — both groups were constantly going back into the environment to change out their implants, modify persistent methods, move to new Command & Control channels and perform other tasks to try to stay ahead of being detected.

Compare that description to CrowdStrike’s claim it was able to finger APT 28 and 29, described above as digital spies par excellence, because they were so incredibly sloppy. Would a group whose “tradecraft is superb” with “operational security second to none” really leave behind the name of a Soviet spy chief imprinted on a document it sent to American journalists? Would these groups really be dumb enough to leave cyrillic comments on these documents? Would these groups that “constantly [go] back into the environment to change out their implants, modify persistent methods, move to new Command & Control channels” get caught because they precisely didn’t make sure not to use IP addresses they’d been associated before? It’s very hard to buy the argument that the Democrats were hacked by one of the most sophisticated, diabolical foreign intelligence services in history, and that we know this because they screwed up over and over again.

But how do we even know these oddly named groups are Russian? CrowdStrike co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch himself describes APT 28 as a “Russian-based threat actor” whose modus operandi “closely mirrors the strategic interests of the Russian government” and “may indicate affiliation [Russia’s] Main Intelligence Department or GRU, Russia’s premier military intelligence service.” Security firm SecureWorks issued a report blaming Russia with “moderate confidence.” What constitutes moderate confidence? SecureWorks said it adopted the “grading system published by the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence to indicate confidence in their assessments. … Moderate confidence generally means that the information is credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.” All of this amounts to a very educated guess, at best.

There's more.... at https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/

So, you still have a good bit of circumstantial evidence but no proof... the NSA may have SIGINT connecting the FSB to the hackers but until they show that, as Mr Biddle suggests...

What we’re looking at now is the distinct possibility that the United States will consider military retaliation (digital or otherwise) against Russia, based on nothing but private sector consultants and secret intelligence agency notes. If you care about the country enough to be angry at the prospect of election-meddling, you should be terrified of the prospect of military tensions with Russia based on hidden evidence. You need not look too far back in recent history to find an example of when wrongly blaming a foreign government for sponsoring an attack on the U.S. has tremendously backfired.

Congrats for finally getting around to posting a source, buck... I knew you could do it... even if the articles are months old and their findings discredited.
TheIntercept.com is the vehicle that house Glenn Greenwald and was created as a mouthpiece for the Snowden files. It is a conspiracy theory du jour and hardly reliable. It is also not an Internet security expert by any imagination.

You might as well be referencing Rudy Giuliani as a security expert denying the intelligence commnities' findings.
Perhaps you could address the points contained therein instead of retreating behind your usual 'attack the source' when facts become inconvenient.

Crowdstrike offers up nothing that could be described as 'proof' and it's 'evidence' and deductions have some serious holes in them. The govt report is even skimpier in providing anything which can be linked to Russia. if they've got SIGINT connecting the FSB and the hackers, let's see it, otherwise there's nothing to see here.
You'll never see SIGINT and you know it.

I've posted several reports on the evidence, I'll let them do the talking. Crowdstrike shared their data with other security firms who confirmed their findings. I'll let the pros do the talking. So the private cyber-security world and the Feds all agree it was the Russians.

But you and the other Righties will continue to ignore the facts and the professionals and instead rely on has-been reporters just like you did for Swiftboats, AGW and a host of other issues you have been exposed on.
You've(Crowdstrike) provided hardly any FACTS and none of those lead directly to the Russian govt even if by some miracle someone connects them to someone in Russia, which to date no one has done.

Today of course, we see the news that some of the same malicious code was found on a laptop in a VT utility co as if Putin wants to turn out the lights in Bennington. I've not been a big user of the 'fake news' meme but right now, this qualifies.

The Crowdstrike report was out last spring, it's fascinating that it's become such important news NOW.
That which can be asserted without evidence; can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
_g R_
Member Avatar

Robert Stout
Dec 30 2016, 04:08 AM
This is what comes when liberals fail at the electoral college...Be assured the liberals will try to create another issue after "Trump loves Russia" fails....The only thing certain is that liberals will continue to fail unless they find a great candidate............. :dunno:
What liberals are you referring to ?
The real leftists are the silenced majority, the sleeping giant.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BuckFan

jake58
Dec 31 2016, 12:37 PM
BuckFan
Dec 31 2016, 12:21 PM
jake58
Dec 31 2016, 12:16 PM
BuckFan
Dec 31 2016, 01:29 AM
jake58
Dec 31 2016, 12:58 AM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deepThe 1996 United States campaign finance controversy was an alleged effort by the People's Republic of China to influence domestic American politics prior to and during the Clinton administration and also involved the fund-raising practices of the administration itself.

While questions regarding the U.S. Democratic Party's fund-raising activities first arose over a Los Angeles Times article published on September 21, 1996, China's alleged role in the affair first gained public attention when Bob Woodward and Brian Duffy of The Washington Post published a story stating that a United States Department of Justice investigation into the fund-raising activities had uncovered evidence that agents of China sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) before the 1996 presidential campaign. The journalists wrote that intelligence information had shown the Chinese embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC in violation of United States law forbidding non-American citizens or non-permanent residents from giving monetary donations to United States politicians and political parties. A Republican investigator of the controversy stated the Chinese plan targeted both presidential and congressional United States elections, while Democratic Senators said the evidence showed the Chinese targeted only congressional elections. The government of the People's Republic of China denied all accusations.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversyhttps://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/russia-malware-ip-hack/?utm_source=list&utm_campaign=123016&utm_medium=email

The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like Russia. But they don’t appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes.

The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website
http://time.com/4600177/election-hack-russia-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/

http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/06/dnc_update.html

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/[go] back into the environment to change out their implants, modify persistent methods, move to new Command & Control channels” get caught because they precisely didn’t make sure not to use IP addresses they’d been associated before? It’s very hard to buy the argument that the Democrats were hacked by one of the most sophisticated, diabolical foreign intelligence services in history, and that we know this because they screwed up over and over again.

But how do we even know these oddly named groups are Russian? CrowdStrike co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch himself describes APT 28 as a “Russian-based threat actor” whose modus operandi “closely mirrors the strategic interests of the Russian government” and “may indicate affiliation [Russia’s] Main Intelligence Department or GRU, Russia’s premier military intelligence service.” Security firm SecureWorks issued a report blaming Russia with “moderate confidence.” What constitutes moderate confidence? SecureWorks said it adopted the “grading system published by the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence to indicate confidence in their assessments. … Moderate confidence generally means that the information is credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.” All of this amounts to a very educated guess, at best.

There's more.... at https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/

So, you still have a good bit of circumstantial evidence but no proof... the NSA may have SIGINT connecting the FSB to the hackers but until they show that, as Mr Biddle suggests...

What we’re looking at now is the distinct possibility that the United States will consider military retaliation (digital or otherwise) against Russia, based on nothing but private sector consultants and secret intelligence agency notes. If you care about the country enough to be angry at the prospect of election-meddling, you should be terrified of the prospect of military tensions with Russia based on hidden evidence. You need not look too far back in recent history to find an example of when wrongly blaming a foreign government for sponsoring an attack on the U.S. has tremendously backfired.

Congrats for finally getting around to posting a source, buck... I knew you could do it... even if the articles are months old and their findings discredited.
TheIntercept.com is the vehicle that house Glenn Greenwald and was created as a mouthpiece for the Snowden files. It is a conspiracy theory du jour and hardly reliable. It is also not an Internet security expert by any imagination.

You might as well be referencing Rudy Giuliani as a security expert denying the intelligence commnities' findings.
Perhaps you could address the points contained therein instead of retreating behind your usual 'attack the source' when facts become inconvenient.

Crowdstrike offers up nothing that could be described as 'proof' and it's 'evidence' and deductions have some serious holes in them. The govt report is even skimpier in providing anything which can be linked to Russia. if they've got SIGINT connecting the FSB and the hackers, let's see it, otherwise there's nothing to see here.
You'll never see SIGINT and you know it.

I've posted several reports on the evidence, I'll let them do the talking. Crowdstrike shared their data with other security firms who confirmed their findings. I'll let the pros do the talking. So the private cyber-security world and the Feds all agree it was the Russians.

But you and the other Righties will continue to ignore the facts and the professionals and instead rely on has-been reporters just like you did for Swiftboats, AGW and a host of other issues you have been exposed on.
You've(Crowdstrike) provided hardly any FACTS and none of those lead directly to the Russian govt even if by some miracle someone connects them to someone in Russia, which to date no one has done.

Today of course, we see the news that some of the same malicious code was found on a laptop in a VT utility co as if Putin wants to turn out the lights in Bennington. I've not been a big user of the 'fake news' meme but right now, this qualifies.

The Crowdstrike report was out last spring, it's fascinating that it's become such important news NOW.
If you don't think Crowdstrike's analysis links the attack to Russia than you either didn't read the report or are being dishonest.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
clone
Member Avatar
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
_g R_
Dec 31 2016, 12:42 PM
Robert Stout
Dec 30 2016, 04:08 AM
This is what comes when liberals fail at the electoral college...Be assured the liberals will try to create another issue after "Trump loves Russia" fails....The only thing certain is that liberals will continue to fail unless they find a great candidate............. :dunno:
What liberals are you referring to ?
All of them....

Posted Image
Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BuckFan

clone
Dec 31 2016, 01:31 PM
_g R_
Dec 31 2016, 12:42 PM
Robert Stout
Dec 30 2016, 04:08 AM
This is what comes when liberals fail at the electoral college...Be assured the liberals will try to create another issue after "Trump loves Russia" fails....The only thing certain is that liberals will continue to fail unless they find a great candidate............. :dunno:
What liberals are you referring to ?
All of them....

Posted Image
you
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jake58

BuckFan
Dec 31 2016, 01:14 PM
jake58
Dec 31 2016, 12:37 PM
BuckFan
Dec 31 2016, 12:21 PM
jake58
Dec 31 2016, 12:16 PM
BuckFan
Dec 31 2016, 01:29 AM

Quoting limited to 5 levels deepThe 1996 United States campaign finance controversy was an alleged effort by the People's Republic of China to influence domestic American politics prior to and during the Clinton administration and also involved the fund-raising practices of the administration itself.

While questions regarding the U.S. Democratic Party's fund-raising activities first arose over a Los Angeles Times article published on September 21, 1996, China's alleged role in the affair first gained public attention when Bob Woodward and Brian Duffy of The Washington Post published a story stating that a United States Department of Justice investigation into the fund-raising activities had uncovered evidence that agents of China sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) before the 1996 presidential campaign. The journalists wrote that intelligence information had shown the Chinese embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC in violation of United States law forbidding non-American citizens or non-permanent residents from giving monetary donations to United States politicians and political parties. A Republican investigator of the controversy stated the Chinese plan targeted both presidential and congressional United States elections, while Democratic Senators said the evidence showed the Chinese targeted only congressional elections. The government of the People's Republic of China denied all accusations.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversyhttps://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/russia-malware-ip-hack/?utm_source=list&utm_campaign=123016&utm_medium=email

The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like Russia. But they don’t appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes.

The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website
http://time.com/4600177/election-hack-russia-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/

http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/06/dnc_update.html

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/[go] back into the environment to change out their implants, modify persistent methods, move to new Command & Control channels” get caught because they precisely didn’t make sure not to use IP addresses they’d been associated before? It’s very hard to buy the argument that the Democrats were hacked by one of the most sophisticated, diabolical foreign intelligence services in history, and that we know this because they screwed up over and over again.

But how do we even know these oddly named groups are Russian? CrowdStrike co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch himself describes APT 28 as a “Russian-based threat actor” whose modus operandi “closely mirrors the strategic interests of the Russian government” and “may indicate affiliation [Russia’s] Main Intelligence Department or GRU, Russia’s premier military intelligence service.” Security firm SecureWorks issued a report blaming Russia with “moderate confidence.” What constitutes moderate confidence? SecureWorks said it adopted the “grading system published by the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence to indicate confidence in their assessments. … Moderate confidence generally means that the information is credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.” All of this amounts to a very educated guess, at best.

There's more.... at https://theintercept.com/2016/12/14/heres-the-public-evidence-russia-hacked-the-dnc-its-not-enough/
Perhaps you could address the points contained therein instead of retreating behind your usual 'attack the source' when facts become inconvenient.

Crowdstrike offers up nothing that could be described as 'proof' and it's 'evidence' and deductions have some serious holes in them. The govt report is even skimpier in providing anything which can be linked to Russia. if they've got SIGINT connecting the FSB and the hackers, let's see it, otherwise there's nothing to see here.
You'll never see SIGINT and you know it.

I've posted several reports on the evidence, I'll let them do the talking. Crowdstrike shared their data with other security firms who confirmed their findings. I'll let the pros do the talking. So the private cyber-security world and the Feds all agree it was the Russians.

But you and the other Righties will continue to ignore the facts and the professionals and instead rely on has-been reporters just like you did for Swiftboats, AGW and a host of other issues you have been exposed on.
You've(Crowdstrike) provided hardly any FACTS and none of those lead directly to the Russian govt even if by some miracle someone connects them to someone in Russia, which to date no one has done.

Today of course, we see the news that some of the same malicious code was found on a laptop in a VT utility co as if Putin wants to turn out the lights in Bennington. I've not been a big user of the 'fake news' meme but right now, this qualifies.

The Crowdstrike report was out last spring, it's fascinating that it's become such important news NOW.
If you don't think Crowdstrike's analysis links the attack to Russia than you either didn't read the report or are being dishonest.
Didn't read it? I provided an article which debunked or called into question most of its findings. Your response? Glenn Greenwald... hurrr hurrr hurr. Really dude, address the issues brought up in the Intercept article or stfu. Nothing linked to the Russian govt, nothing even directly linked to a Russian. Guccifer isn't exactly a Romanian... earth shattering stuff there, Defcon 3 time.
That which can be asserted without evidence; can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · UnitedStates.com DOMESTIC U.S. news · Next Topic »
Add Reply