|
US Officials Shutting Down Russian Compound in Maryland
|
|
Topic Started: Dec 30 2016, 12:52 AM (1,748 Views)
|
|
Robertr2000
|
Dec 31 2016, 04:00 PM
Post #61
|
|
- Posts:
- 12,483
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #43
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
https://youtu.be/cruh2p_Wh_4
|
|
"if that **** wins we'll all hang from nooses"
|
| |
|
BuckFan
|
Dec 31 2016, 04:29 PM
Post #62
|
|
- Posts:
- 8,707
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- jake58
- Dec 31 2016, 02:19 PM
- 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
Quoting limited to 5 levels deep The 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=emailThe 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 websitehttp://time.com/4600177/election-hack-russia-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/06/dnc_update.htmlhttps://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/
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. Again, Glenn Greenwald and that site are not cyber-security experts and they have been exposed as being complicit in this whole charade. They have a lot to hide.
The published analysis clearly shows a link to Russian GRU and other intelligence agencies. It shows links to Russian servers that those agencies use. They debunked the Guccifer claim. They are professionals who do this for a living, they know what they are doing.
To add to that, they then released the raw code for others to investigate. Several other security firms did and came to the same conclusions.
|
|
|
| |
|
Robertr2000
|
Dec 31 2016, 04:31 PM
Post #63
|
|
- Posts:
- 12,483
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #43
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- BuckFan
- Dec 31 2016, 04:29 PM
- jake58
- Dec 31 2016, 02:19 PM
- BuckFan
- Dec 31 2016, 01:14 PM
- jake58
- Dec 31 2016, 12:37 PM
- BuckFan
- Dec 31 2016, 12:21 PM
Quoting limited to 5 levels deep The 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=emailThe 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 websitehttp://time.com/4600177/election-hack-russia-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/06/dnc_update.htmlhttps://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/
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.
Again, Glenn Greenwald and that site are not cyber-security experts and they have been exposed as being complicit in this whole charade. They have a lot to hide. The published analysis clearly shows a link to Russian GRU and other intelligence agencies. It shows links to Russian servers that those agencies use. They debunked the Guccifer claim. They are professionals who do this for a living, they know what they are doing. To add to that, they then released the raw code for others to investigate. Several other security firms did and came to the same conclusions. Ok Buc, lets say it happened just like you think it did. What now?
|
|
"if that **** wins we'll all hang from nooses"
|
| |
|
jake58
|
Dec 31 2016, 04:42 PM
Post #64
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,344
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #47
- Joined:
- Mar 19, 2016
|
- BuckFan
- Dec 31 2016, 04:29 PM
- jake58
- Dec 31 2016, 02:19 PM
- BuckFan
- Dec 31 2016, 01:14 PM
- jake58
- Dec 31 2016, 12:37 PM
- BuckFan
- Dec 31 2016, 12:21 PM
Quoting limited to 5 levels deep The 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=emailThe 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 websitehttp://time.com/4600177/election-hack-russia-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/06/dnc_update.htmlhttps://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/
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.
Again, Glenn Greenwald and that site are not cyber-security experts and they have been exposed as being complicit in this whole charade. They have a lot to hide. The published analysis clearly shows a link to Russian GRU and other intelligence agencies. It shows links to Russian servers that those agencies use. They debunked the Guccifer claim. They are professionals who do this for a living, they know what they are doing. To add to that, they then released the raw code for others to investigate. Several other security firms did and came to the same conclusions. Well, if that Intercept article was debunked feel free to show where, maybe you haven't figured it out yet but I'm not taking your say so.
WordFence wrote a similar article debunking the govt's 'proof' and there were 'crickets'
and no, the published evidence doesn't show any direct link to the GRU, you need to stop making **** up
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.
Next, 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.
Even the claim that APT 28/Fancy Bear itself is a group working for the Kremlin is speculative, a fact that’s been completely erased from this year’s discourse. In its 2014 reveal of the group, the high-profile security firm FireEye couldn’t even blame Russia without a question mark in the headline: “APT28: A Window into Russia’s Cyber Espionage Operations?” The blog post itself is remarkably similar to arguments about the DNC hack: technical but still largely speculative, presenting evidence the company “[believes] indicate a government sponsor based in Moscow.” Believe! Indicate! We should know already this is no smoking gun. FireEye’s argument that the malware used by APT 28 is connected to the Russian government is based on the belief that its “developers are Russian language speakers operating during business hours that are consistent with the time zone of Russia’s major cities.”
As security researcher Jeffrey Carr pointed out in June, FireEye’s 2014 report on APT 28 is questionable from the start:
To my surprise, the report’s authors declared that they deliberately excluded evidence that didn’t support their judgment that the Russian government was responsible for APT28’s activities:
“APT28 has targeted a variety of organizations that fall outside of the three themes we highlighted above. However, we are not profiling all of APT28’s targets with the same detail because they are not particularly indicative of a specific sponsor’s interests.” (emphasis added)
That is the very definition of confirmation bias. Had FireEye published a detailed picture of APT28’s activities including all of their known targets, other theories regarding this group could have emerged; for example, that the malware developers and the operators of that malware were not the same or even necessarily affiliated.
The notion that APT 28 has a narrow focus on American political targets is undermined in another SecureWorks paper, which shows that the hackers have a wide variety of interests: 10 percent of their targets are NGOs, 22 percent are journalists, 4 percent are aerospace researchers, and 8 percent are “government supply chain.” SecureWorks says that only 8 percent of APT 28/Fancy Bear’s targets are “government personnel” of any nationality — hardly the focused agenda described by CrowdStrike.
Feel free to comment on any of this, buck, so far your performance has been pitiful.
|
|
That which can be asserted without evidence; can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchens
|
| |
|
clone
|
Dec 31 2016, 05:54 PM
Post #65
|
|
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
- Posts:
- 26,468
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #155
- Joined:
- Apr 4, 2016
|
[twitter=AnnCoulter/status/814595691779592192]
|
Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence.
|
| |
|
BuckFan
|
Dec 31 2016, 06:29 PM
Post #66
|
|
- Posts:
- 8,707
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- jake58
- Dec 31 2016, 04:42 PM
- BuckFan
- Dec 31 2016, 04:29 PM
- jake58
- Dec 31 2016, 02:19 PM
- BuckFan
- Dec 31 2016, 01:14 PM
- jake58
- Dec 31 2016, 12:37 PM
Quoting limited to 5 levels deep The 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=emailThe 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 websitehttp://time.com/4600177/election-hack-russia-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/http://www.threatgeek.com/2016/06/dnc_update.htmlhttps://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/
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.
Again, Glenn Greenwald and that site are not cyber-security experts and they have been exposed as being complicit in this whole charade. They have a lot to hide. The published analysis clearly shows a link to Russian GRU and other intelligence agencies. It shows links to Russian servers that those agencies use. They debunked the Guccifer claim. They are professionals who do this for a living, they know what they are doing. To add to that, they then released the raw code for others to investigate. Several other security firms did and came to the same conclusions.
Well, if that Intercept article was debunked feel free to show where, maybe you haven't figured it out yet but I'm not taking your say so. WordFence wrote a similar article debunking the govt's 'proof' and there were 'crickets' and no, the published evidence doesn't show any direct link to the GRU, you need to stop making **** up 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.
Next, 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.
Even the claim that APT 28/Fancy Bear itself is a group working for the Kremlin is speculative, a fact that’s been completely erased from this year’s discourse. In its 2014 reveal of the group, the high-profile security firm FireEye couldn’t even blame Russia without a question mark in the headline: “APT28: A Window into Russia’s Cyber Espionage Operations?” The blog post itself is remarkably similar to arguments about the DNC hack: technical but still largely speculative, presenting evidence the company “[believes] indicate a government sponsor based in Moscow.” Believe! Indicate! We should know already this is no smoking gun. FireEye’s argument that the malware used by APT 28 is connected to the Russian government is based on the belief that its “developers are Russian language speakers operating during business hours that are consistent with the time zone of Russia’s major cities.”
As security researcher Jeffrey Carr pointed out in June, FireEye’s 2014 report on APT 28 is questionable from the start:
To my surprise, the report’s authors declared that they deliberately excluded evidence that didn’t support their judgment that the Russian government was responsible for APT28’s activities:
“APT28 has targeted a variety of organizations that fall outside of the three themes we highlighted above. However, we are not profiling all of APT28’s targets with the same detail because they are not particularly indicative of a specific sponsor’s interests.” (emphasis added)
That is the very definition of confirmation bias. Had FireEye published a detailed picture of APT28’s activities including all of their known targets, other theories regarding this group could have emerged; for example, that the malware developers and the operators of that malware were not the same or even necessarily affiliated.
The notion that APT 28 has a narrow focus on American political targets is undermined in another SecureWorks paper, which shows that the hackers have a wide variety of interests: 10 percent of their targets are NGOs, 22 percent are journalists, 4 percent are aerospace researchers, and 8 percent are “government supply chain.” SecureWorks says that only 8 percent of APT 28/Fancy Bear’s targets are “government personnel” of any nationality — hardly the focused agenda described by CrowdStrike.
Feel free to comment on any of this, buck, so far your performance has been pitiful. So they take one example of evidence, isolate it, and then claim it debunks the Crowdstrike analysis. That is not the way intelligence or judicial analysis works. The Crowdstrike analysis covers a dozen different indicators that they have collected over years of tracking and investigating these Russian hackers. Yes, modus operandi does count and while theinterceptor.com may not want to admit it, it is evidence. Along with that Crowdstrike identified specific code segments that are like fingerprints in the hacking world.
Where theintercept.com is wrong is saying the malware sample was Ukrainian. This is their misunderstanding of the source of the malware (or at least the malware that Crowdstrike addresses, who knows because unlike Crowdstrike, Biddle doesn't document his claims with sources). Crowdstrike first identified that piece of Russian malware when the Russians used it AGAINST the Ukrainians. It was recovered in the Ukraine but it originated in Russia.
As Crowdstike documents (unlike Biddle), the code they found on the DNC servers is directly traced back to the Russians through samples of code that has been collected over years and directly linked to the GRU and FSB.
You don't want to admit it but the evidence is clear and convincing. It will convince those with open minds which means you and Trump will probably never be convinced.
|
|
|
| |
|
Robert Stout
|
Dec 31 2016, 11:45 PM
Post #67
|
|
- Posts:
- 27,269
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #112
- Joined:
- Mar 22, 2016
|
- Robertr2000
- Dec 31 2016, 04:00 PM
Obama is correct...The Russians can not rig our election....However the Russians can make Obama look like a TOTAL FOOL.............
|
|
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
|
| |
|
clone
|
Jan 1 2017, 01:13 PM
Post #68
|
|
Director @ Center for Advanced Memetic Warfare
- Posts:
- 26,468
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #155
- Joined:
- Apr 4, 2016
|
- Robert Stout
- Dec 31 2016, 11:45 PM
Obama is correct...The Russians can not rig our election....However the Russians can make Obama look like a TOTAL FOOL............. the Democrats… after smearing Trump supporters for months as “xenophobes”… are now the party of anti-Russian hate and fear-mongering.
It’s probably for the better that a group of people sent into derangement from the loss of one election won’t be running the country for a while.
|
Only liberals can choose not to go down the road to widespread, systematic violence.
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|