CIA: Russia influenced the election

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

I have no reason to lie about it, or I'd look like a fool
you can't lie about things you don't know...my point...conjecture...what you can point out is that Trump campaigned on not trusting the security agencies that report to him.....that's made things let's say.....awkward
 
Putin got his revenge on Hillary for exposing the Panama Papers and getting his cronies locked up.....that's what I read from this
 
Here's a much more technical analysis by a security expert whose had contracts with the intelligence community.

http://www.robertmlee.org/critiques-of-the-dhsfbis-grizzly-steppe-report/

Because what I’m going to write below is blunt feedback I want to note ahead of time, I’m doing this for the purpose of the community as well as government operators/report writers who read to learn and become better. I understand that it is always hard to publish things from the government. In my time working in the U.S. Intelligence Community on such cases it was extremely rare that anything was released publicly and when it was it was almost always disappointing as the best material and information had been stripped out. For that reason, I want to especially note, and say thank you, to the government operators who did fantastic work and tried their best to push out the best information. For those involved in the sanitation of that information and the report writing – well, read below.

...

Even worse, page 4 of the document notes other groups identified as RIS (Figure 4). This would be exciting normally. Government validation of private sector intelligence helps raise the confidence level of the public information. Unfortunately, the list in the report detracts from the confidence because of the interweaving of unrelated data.

As an example, the list contains campaign/group names such as APT28, APT29, COZYBEAR, Sandworm, Sofacy, and others. This is exactly what you’d want to see although the government’s justification for this assessment is completely lacking (for a better exploration on the topic of naming see Sergio Caltagirone’s blog post here). But as the list progresses it becomes worrisome as the list also contains malware names (HAVEX and BlackEnergy v3 as examples) which are different than campaign names.

...

In some locations in the CSV the indicators are IP addresses with a request to network administrators to look for it and in other locations there are IP addresses with just what country it was located in. This information is nearly useless for a few reasons. First, we do not know what data set these indicators belong to (see my previous point, are these IPs for “Sandworm”, “APT28” “Powershell” or what?). Second, many (30%+) of these IP addresses are mostly useless as they are VPS, TOR exit nodes, proxies, and other non-descriptive internet traffic sites (you can use this type of information but not in the way being positioned in the report and not well without additional information such as timestamps). Third, IP addresses as indicators especially when associated with malware or adversary campaigns must contain information around timing. I.e. when were these IP addresses associated with the malware or campaign and when were they in active usage? IP addresses and domains are constantly getting shuffled around the Internet and are mostly useful when seen in a snapshot of time.
 
The first paragraph above for riverman's benefit. The last echoes what I wrote myself, about TOR and proxies, etc.

Also, the specific malwares appear to be identified, none particularly attributable to the Russian government.
 
It's true the DNC may have been hacked by Putin himself.

There simply hasn't been anything but circumstantial evidence that links it to the Russian government.

There are obvious reasons why Obama ordered this report. Do realize we should be most skeptical of possibly cherry picked intel. This is the administration that claimed Benghazi was an uprising over a YouTube video, after all. And told us Saddam had WMDs. These reports say what the administration wants them to say. True for W, true for O.

I have defended corporate WWW sites against cyberattacks by the anonymous hacker group. They announced their intention ahead of time. We infiltrated their chat rooms and saw them say, "now" and the DoS attacks begin. I've had to clean up hacked corporate systems. I literally worked on one of the major security companies' hardware/software appliance, and examined and handled hundreds of malicious programs. I have been logged into systems at the same time the hacker was, and chatted with him. I even hired several teenage hackers, one of them a 400 lb kid who hacked from his bedroom.

This site is under 24/7 constant assault by hackers. I see the evidence in the server logs all the time. I don't think it's the Russian government.

I know evidence tracing the source to Russia when I see it. The 25 page document and associated csv and xml files contain no such proof. People who have dug further into the claimed sources find they're TOR endpoints or open VPN, that anyone can use.

I already posted that the tools used could be created by one guy with the skills to do so, and share them with tens of thousands of hackers who need little skill. Read my previous post - it talks about how old the JAR was that enabled the breach. That the software is a maintained and updated means they build upon their knew knowledge and fix issues with the previous version.

That large software projects can be jointly developed by non professionals (e.g. Not getting paid to do so) is evident. Google Chrome, Linux, FreeBSD, FireFox, and 10s of thousands of projects on sites like github are that evidence.

The closest thing I've seen is the company that the DNC hired to review the hack were logged in to the server while it was sending files to some distant server. There's been nothing convincing about who controlled that remote server at the time and from where.

The hackers aren't going to connect from their laptop directly to that server to download the files. They'll log in to a machine in India, then from that machine to a machine in South Africa, from that machine to a machine in Maryland, to a machine in London, then to the machine with the files. All those links have to be made to prove its true origin.

Plus, if this is a Russian government sponsored program ongoing since the 1990s as claimed, these hackers would be the most advanced of all haCkers and simply wouldn't get caught.

But do pretend whatever it takes to make you happy.

In the meantime, I await even a little direct (not circumstantial) evidence, and I will say it's Putin if it is.

That's fine. Being skeptical is ok. But you may never know the actual answer. You almost certainly don't now. So what's the point of making 10,000 posts claiming people are lying? You don't know they are. You just want it to be true.

Again I ask - what would they be gaining by concocting this elaborate ruse?

barfo
 
That's fine. Being skeptical is ok. But you may never know the actual answer. You almost certainly don't now. So what's the point of making 10,000 posts claiming people are lying? You don't know they are. You just want it to be true.

Again I ask - what would they be gaining by concocting this elaborate ruse?

barfo
Without even scant proof, the only assumption is the government is lying to us.

Obama wanted to kick out the 35 diplomats, to stir up a conflict before Trump took office. Putin punked him by not responding.

Obama also took a parting shot at Israel, via the UN.
 
Without even scant proof, the only assumption is the government is lying to us.

I don't think that's the only possible assumption, but if that's what works for you, go for it.

Do you assume that all people and entities are lying to you when you cannot verify first-hand, or just the government?

Obama wanted to kick out the 35 diplomats, to stir up a conflict before Trump took office. Putin punked him by not responding.

Obama could have kicked out 35 diplomats without even giving a reason, if he wanted to.

The 'punked' claim is just silly - if Putin had instead kicked out 35 of our diplomats, or 70, or done whatever in response, you'd be saying the exact same thing about how he punked Obama, because it's what you want to believe.

In any case, that doesn't seem to answer my question, since the assertion of Russian hacking was made starting months ago, and the 35 just got booted a couple of weeks ago.

barfo
 
I don't think that's the only possible assumption, but if that's what works for you, go for it.

Do you assume that all people and entities are lying to you when you cannot verify first-hand, or just the government?



Obama could have kicked out 35 diplomats without even giving a reason, if he wanted to.

The 'punked' claim is just silly - if Putin had instead kicked out 35 of our diplomats, or 70, or done whatever in response, you'd be saying the exact same thing about how he punked Obama, because it's what you want to believe.

In any case, that doesn't seem to answer my question, since the assertion of Russian hacking was made starting months ago, and the 35 just got booted a couple of weeks ago.

barfo
They're making the claims, the burden of proof is on them.

I do a lot of looking into claims made by whoever. It's called intellectual curiosity. Try it.

If Putin responded in kind to Obama's parting shot, it would have been expected. To not respond is advanced statesmanship. Obama came out looking small, especially since he can't provide proof.
 
The Daily Beast, MSNBC talking heads. It's funny. The last two paragraphs are what I wroye earlier, in their words.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/01/06/how-the-u-s-enabled-russian-hack-truthers.html

How the U.S. Hobbled Its Hacking Case Against Russia and Enabled Truthers

“At every level this report is a failure,” says security researcher Robert M. Lee. “It didn’t do what it set out to do, and it didn’t provide useful data. They’re handing out bad information to the industry when good information exists.” At issue is the “Joint Analyses Report” released by DHS last Thursday as part of the Obama administration’s long-awaited response to Russia’s election hacking. The 13-page document was widely expected to lay out the government’s evidence that Russia was behind the intrusions into the Democratic National Committee’s private network, and a separate attack that exposed years of the private email belonging to Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta.

Instead, the report is a gumbo of earnest security advice mixed with random information from a broad range of hacking activity. One piece of well-known malware used by criminal hackers, the PAS webshell, is singled out for special attention, while the sophisticated Russian “SeaDuke” code used in the DNC hack barely rates a mention. A full page of the report is dedicated to listing names that computer security companies have assigned to Russian malware and hacking groups over the years, information that nobody is asking for.

Rather than focusing on the Russian intelligence services, the U.S. seemingly opted to gather all Russia-sourced hacking under a single rubric, code named “Grizzly Steppe,” putting everything from online bank heists to identity theft in the same bucket as the Kremlin-linked intrusions into the White House, State Department, and the DNC.

Though the written report is confusing, it’s the raw data released along with it that truly exasperates security professionals. The department released 876 internet IP addresses it says is linked to Grizzly Steppe hacking, and urged network administrators everywhere to add the list to their networking monitoring.

Lists of IP addresses used by hackers can be useful “indicators of compromise” in network security—admins can check the list against access logs, or program an intrusion detection system to sound the alarm when it sees traffic from a suspect address. But that assumes that the list is good: carefully culled, and surrounded with enough context that administrators know what to do when they get a hit.

The DHS list is none of these things, as Lee, founder of the cyber security firm Dragos, discovered when he ran the list against a stored cache of known clean traffic his company keeps around for testing. The results stunned him. “We had thousands of hits,” he says. “We had an extraordinary high amount of false positives on this dataset… Six of them were Yahoo e-mail servers.”

It turns out that some, perhaps most, of the watchlisted addresses have a decidedly weak connection to the Kremlin, if any. In addition to the Yahoo servers, about 44 percent of the addresses are exit nodes in the Tor anonymity network, The Intercept’s Micah Lee reported Wednesday. Tor is free software used primarily for anonymous web browsing. Russian hackers use Tor, but so do plenty of other people.
 
They're making the claims, the burden of proof is on them.

Actually it's not. They aren't under any obligation to prove their case to you.

I do a lot of looking into claims made by whoever. It's called intellectual curiosity. Try it.

If Putin responded in kind to Obama's parting shot, it would have been expected. To not respond is advanced statesmanship.

Ooh, like 200-level statesmanship? Wow. Putin's such a genius.

Not responding to sanctions... man, they'll be writing books about that for years. Call it "The Art of Accepting Sanctions", maybe.

If only Putin could rule this country, he's so frickin' awesome! I mean, sooner than 12 days from now. Why wait?

Obama came out looking small, especially since he can't provide proof.

To you. But then he would have come out looking small to you no matter what happened, because you are predisposed to that position.

barfo
 
I do a lot of looking into claims made by whoever. It's called intellectual curiosity. Try it.

And yet for some reason you don't do a lot (or even a little) of looking into claims made by one Donald J. Trump. Why is that, do you suppose?

barfo
 
And yet for some reason you don't do a lot (or even a little) of looking into claims made by one Donald J. Trump. Why is that, do you suppose?

barfo
I most certainly do. Oddly, my original takes during the campaign was that he's being silly. Look into his statements, and there's a lot of truth to them. Things like anchor babies aren't guaranteed citizenship by the 14th.

Or that it's better to have a good relationship with Russia.

Deny it, barfo.
 
Actually it's not. They aren't under any obligation to prove their case to you.



Ooh, like 200-level statesmanship? Wow. Putin's such a genius.

Not responding to sanctions... man, they'll be writing books about that for years. Call it "The Art of Accepting Sanctions", maybe.

If only Putin could rule this country, he's so frickin' awesome! I mean, sooner than 12 days from now. Why wait?



To you. But then he would have come out looking small to you no matter what happened, because you are predisposed to that position.

barfo
Better than Obama statesmanship. It's frankly an embarrassment for the outgoing president, as it was when Putin rescued him from his cross the line pledge in Syria.

The government is telling the truth. Prove they're not lying and I will believe you.

Without any proof, it's a bunch of butt hurt losers acting like crybabies over an unproven conspiracy theary.
 
Without any proof, it's a bunch of butt hurt losers acting like crybabies over an unproven conspiracy theary.

The intelligence agencies and many republicans in congress are butt hurt losers?

What did they lose and when did they lose it?

barfo
 
Errata security.

http://blog.erratasec.com/2017/01/dear-obama-from-infosec.html#more

Dear Obama, From Infosec

Dear President Obama:

We are more than willing to believe Russia was responsible for the hacked emails/records that influenced our election. We believe Russian hackers were involved. Even if these hackers weren't under the direct command of Putin, we know he could put a stop to such hacking if he chose. It's like harassment of journalists and diplomats. Putin encourages a culture of thuggery that attacks opposition, without his personal direction, but with his tacit approval.

Your lame attempts to convince us of what we already agree with has irretrievably damaged your message.

Instead of communicating with the America people, you worked through your typical system of propaganda, such as stories in the New York Times quoting unnamed "senior government officials". We don't want "unnamed" officials -- we want named officials (namely you) who we can pin down and question. When you work through this system of official leaks, we believe you have something to hide, that the evidence won't stand on its own.

We still don't believe the CIA's conclusions because we don't know, precisely, what those conclusions are. Are they derived purely from companies like FireEye and CrowdStrike based on digital forensics? Or do you have spies in Russian hacker communities that give better information? This is such an important issue that it's worth degrading sources of information in order to tell us, the American public, the truth.
 
Barfo I think your argument has been reduced to "I know you are but what am I?"
You are fully investing your faith into an unproven claim, then turning around and calling the skeptics "conspiracy theorists". Generally that term is reserved for the ones eating up the unfounded "bombshell" revelations. And yes, the burden of proof is absolutely on the person making the claim.
If my neighbor swears up and down his cat is purple, but refuses to show me, I'm not the "crazy conspiracy theorist" for calling bullshit. I'm not required to give proof to prove there is no proof lol, that is asinine. There is either evidence or there is not. In this case there's not. There is just my proverbial neighbor (and his buddies) claiming he has a purple cat.
 
Barfo I think your argument has been reduced to "I know you are but what am I?"
You are fully investing your faith into an unproven claim, then turning around and calling the skeptics "conspiracy theorists".

Ok, two things you got wrong there. First of all, I'm not claiming any knowledge of where the truth lies. Maybe the whole thing is made up. I don't know, and neither does Deny.
I'm merely pointing out that he doesn't know, but is acting as if he does.

Secondly, what Deny is claiming is literally a conspiracy theory. He is proposing that there is a giant conspiracy, involving multiple agencies of government, the speaker of the house, the majority leader of the senate, members of both parties, etc. If his theory is right, there is a conspiracy. So of course I'm calling him a conspiracy theorist. It's what he is, whether he's right or wrong about the existence of the conspiracy.

And anytime someone proposes a conspiracy theory, it is relevant to ask how and why? Conspiracies take a lot of effort, you have to keep all those in the know from letting the (purple) cat out of the bag. So why would any of the players here be motivated to conspire in this way? I don't see any significant gain for anyone involved. I don't think 'butt hurt' is really a sufficient motivation, though. Maybe some do.

barfo
 
Ok, two things you got wrong there. First of all, I'm not claiming any knowledge of where the truth lies. Maybe the whole thing is made up. I don't know, and neither does Deny.
I'm merely pointing out that he doesn't know, but is acting as if he does.

Secondly, what Deny is claiming is literally a conspiracy theory. He is proposing that there is a giant conspiracy, involving multiple agencies of government, the speaker of the house, the majority leader of the senate, members of both parties, etc. If his theory is right, there is a conspiracy. So of course I'm calling him a conspiracy theorist. It's what he is, whether he's right or wrong about the existence of the conspiracy.

And anytime someone proposes a conspiracy theory, it is relevant to ask how and why? Conspiracies take a lot of effort, you have to keep all those in the know from letting the (purple) cat out of the bag. So why would any of the players here be motivated to conspire in this way? I don't see any significant gain for anyone involved. I don't think 'butt hurt' is really a sufficient motivation, though. Maybe some do.

barfo

You seem to have already framed the most extreme version of your opposition's argument, then proceeded to debunk it before they even made that claim. At this point we are just asking for legitimate evidence, there aren't any theories attached to it yet. The argument hasn't got that far yet because the claim hasn't been substantiated.
 
You seem to have already framed the most extreme version of your opposition's argument, then proceeded to debunk it before they even made that claim. At this point we are just asking for legitimate evidence, there aren't any theories attached to it yet. The argument hasn't got that far yet because the claim hasn't been substantiated.

Denny, at least, says:

Without even scant proof, the only assumption is the government is lying to us.

In what way am I exaggerating his position? He says he assumes that the government is lying to us.

His assumption is that there is a massive conspiracy aimed at blaming the Russians, for reasons he can't quite explain, but that somehow involve 'butt hurt'.

You say the 'argument hasn't got that far yet', but this is post #869 in this thread...

barfo
 
Well if they continue to withhold this supposed boatload of evidence for much longer, my assessment will be that they are lying as well. Why they would lie, I don't know.
My prediction is they continue to jerk the public around for a couple more weeks until Trump takes office, then the current administration can duck out without having to prove shit, and the whole thing fizzles out into the nothingness it always was.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top