Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Saturday January 07 2017, @11:03AM   Printer-friendly
from the putin-his-nose-where-it-doesn't-belong dept.

A new declassified report released by US intelligence officials says Russian President Vladimir Putin "ordered" a campaign to influence the 2016 US presidential election.

The 25-page public version of the report was released on Friday after the officials briefed President-elect Donald Trump and top lawmakers on Capitol Hill on a longer, classified version.

The report said Russian efforts to meddle in vote represent the most recent expression of Moscow's long-standing desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order.

[...] After his briefing, Trump stopped short of embracing the intelligence community's assessment that Russia interfered in the presidential campaign, saying only that any hacking attempts had "absolutely no effect" on the outcome of the election.

Having hours earlier dismissed the hacking controversy as a "political witch hunt," Trump later issued a statement whose main aim appeared to be to deflect questions about the legitimacy of his November 8 victory over Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton.

Full text of report available in many places, including at scribd.

Ironically, Wikileaks, an organization usually in favor of information sharing, was upset about dissemination of this report.

In a Friday tweet, WikiLeaks slammed the CIA for leaking information to NBC.

"The Obama admin/CIA is illegally funneling TOP SECRET//COMINT information to NBC for political reasons before PEOTUS even gets to read it," the tweet read.

An NBC report last night touted "an exclusive, inside look" at the report connecting the Russian government to breaches of the Democratic National Convention and other groups and individuals during election season sourced to two intelligence community sources.

WikiLeaks and Assange have championed the dissemination of sensitive or classified in the past, publishing United States diplomatic cables and military information, emails from the 2014 Sony hack and internal documents from multiple other governments and political parties.

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/313002-wikileaks-opposed-to-cia-leaking-report-info-to-nbc

Previously on SoylentNews: Reactions to Russian Hacking Activity


Original Submission #1Original Submission #2

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday January 07 2017, @03:32PM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Saturday January 07 2017, @03:32PM (#450742) Homepage Journal

    But either some other group has been running a really long con - using identical methods, tools and infrastructure for attacks against targets that russia has strong motive to attack...

    Or there are tens of thousands of hacking groups that could have pulled off the exact same phishing attack that got the DNC emails. Odds are extremely good that at least some of them weren't Hillary supporters. Hell, for all you know it could have been any one of the admins here at SN. We all had means and opportunity. I certainly had motive.

    Podesta's emails by contrast were hacked because he had a shit password. To which he added a 1 at the end after the hack and was promptly hacked again.

    Seriously, there is no evidence whatsoever that Russia had anything to do with the emails. And even if they did, what matters is the contents of the emails not how they were attained. Unless, do you think politicians should be able to hide their corruption and shady dealings, by chance?

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @04:31PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @04:31PM (#450758)

    > Or there are tens of thousands of hacking groups that could have pulled off the exact same phishing attack that got the DNC emails.

    You are filtering facts to suit your worldview. It isn't just the exact same phishing attack. Its what they did after they got in. All of the work after the initial penetration used the same methods and tools (including identical encryption keys for communicating with the command-and-control infrastructure) as other previous hacks that had already been connected to russia. So either someone went to an enormous amount of work to frame russia because they could see the future and know it would get tons of news coverage 6+ months down the line or ... it was russia.

    > Podesta's emails by contrast were hacked because he had a shit password.

    No. The fact you would say that shows you have not been paying attention at all. He was not hacked because he had a bad password, he was spear-phished and conned into handing over his password to a fake change-your-password page. [cyberscoop.com]

    If you can't even get that basic fact right, why should anyone believe you when you say "there is no evidence whatsoever?" You just proved you haven't even been looking for evidence.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @06:29PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @06:29PM (#450792)

      or ... it was russia.

      So fucking what? Not that anybody is buying it.

      The leaked emails themselves show it was the DNC, not Russia that were guilty of using dubious means to influence the primaries. It's fine if Obama thinks US election systems are critical infrastructure, could he therefore explain why the recounts revealed initial miscounts in favor of Clinton? The entire "Russian Hackers" narrative collapses in on itself under the weight of it's own bullshit!

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @06:44PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @06:44PM (#450797)

        The leaked emails themselves show it was the DNC, not Russia that were guilty of using dubious means to influence the primaries.

        No they don't. All they show is that some DNC staffers talked shit about Bernie and that Donna Brazille sent Clinton's team a debate question that was never even used.
        You got something else? Let's see it. Links to sources, not bullshit like:

        therefore explain why the recounts revealed initial miscounts in favor of Clinton?

        Yeah, a whole 131 votes out of nearly 3 million. [madison.com] The only thing noteworthy about that is the difference was so small, that's an incredibly low error rate for such a complex and disparate process.

        The entire state of Michigan

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @06:55PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @06:55PM (#450801)

          You got something else? Let's see it.

          Nope, we've read the emails and know what they say. I am calling you, now where is your evidence?

          Yeah, a whole 131 votes out of nearly 3 million. The only thing noteworthy about that is the difference was so small, that's an incredibly low error rate for such a complex and disparate process.

          My point exactly. To the extent there were irregularities, they contradict this direct tampering of a foreign power narrative that some individuals would have us believe.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @07:24PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @07:24PM (#450804)

            Nope, we've read the emails and know what they say. I am calling you, now where is your evidence?

            You want me to provide evidence that the emails do not contain any terrible secrets?
            Okay, here you go, here's every single heinous revelation from the emails: “ ”

            To the extent there were irregularities, they contradict this direct tampering of a foreign power narrative that some individuals would have us believe.

            Nobody serious is saying that the voting machines were tampered with. Just more mendacity from you.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @07:57PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @07:57PM (#450817)

              You want me to provide evidence that the emails do not contain any terrible secrets?

              No, I want you to provide evidence that Russian state actors were responsible for Hilary Clinton losing the election.

              Okay, here you go, here's every single heinous revelation from the emails: “ ”

              "Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region". [wikileaks.org] Also note the phrase "restructure the Sunni resistance in Syria", ie: ISIS.

              That's enough about Hillary Clintons terrorist supporting donors and her own endorsement of head-choppers in Syria. Now sir, your evidence?

              Nobody serious is saying that the voting machines were tampered with. Just more mendacity from you.

              What is being said and what is being implied are different. Both are clearly a complete joke. [youtube.com] Perhaps not so much of a joke as accusing somebody of lying for refusing to accept blatant lies and insinuation? Are we going to have a "Mendacity^3" whereby you describe the content of your own comments in the subject line?

              • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @09:21PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @09:21PM (#450841)

                > No, I want you to provide evidence that Russian state actors were responsible for Hilary Clinton losing the election.

                Since I never said that, its weird you want me to prove it.
                Tell you what, you prove that the CIA killed kennedy and then I'll give you what you want.

                > Also note the phrase "restructure the Sunni resistance in Syria", ie: ISIS.

                Hello, McFly that paragraph begins with talk of attacking ISIS, it literally says "once we engage ISIL, as we have now done in a limited manner, we and our allies should carry on until they are driven back suffering a tangible defeat." The email says attacking ISIS and you read that as supporting ISIS. Could you be any more of a dumbass?

                > What is being said and what is being implied are different

                I am not going to argue with random bullshit you make up in your own head. You are beyond dumbassery at this point.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @11:04PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @11:04PM (#450872)

                  No, I want you to provide evidence that Russian state actors were responsible for Hilary Clinton losing the election.

                  Since I never said that, its weird you want me to prove it.

                  Is this even the same AC I was talking to? Let's assume it is and remind them that this is the nexus of the story we're discussing here. I am however delighted you agree with myself and former CIA and counter-terrorist operatives on the issue of the report in question. [noquarterusa.net]

                  Hello, McFly that paragraph begins with talk of attacking ISIS, it literally says "once we engage ISIL, as we have now done in a limited manner, we and our allies should carry on until they are driven back suffering a tangible defeat." The email says attacking ISIS and you read that as supporting ISIS. Could you be any more of a dumbass?

                  Is your contention that the Sunni resistance in Syria is not ISIS? Clinton was careful with her words but we know the truth. She was openly admitting the US strategy: Fight ISIS in Iraq, support ISIS in Syria. It is right there if you care to read HRC's own words with a basic understanding of who is who. If you do not understand who the "Sunni resistance" in Syria was, let me help you. [wikipedia.org]

                  What is being said and what is being implied are different

                  I am not going to argue with random bullshit you make up in your own head. You are beyond dumbassery at this point.

                  Once again, we are discussing a US intelligence report that has been roundly dismissed as lacking in evidence by just about everyone. You present no evidence to support your claims, you accuse me of lying twice and then resort to calling me a "dumbass" whilst presenting no evidence to support your claims. Do you actually want to argue your case or are you just getting off on your butthurt?

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @11:44PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @11:44PM (#450889)

                    > Is your contention that the Sunni resistance in Syria is not ISIS?

                    It wasn't originally. The reason it eventually became ISIS is because they were backed into a corner and no one else stepped up to help them out.

                    > Once again, we are discussing a US intelligence report that has been roundly dismissed as lacking in evidence by just about everyone.

                    Everyone in your head. Actual people in the real world? No, just the opposite.
                    But you can't even keep your arguments straight from one post to another, so no one wonder you've got these delusions.

                    Still waiting on that proof about the Kennedy assassination.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2017, @12:29AM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2017, @12:29AM (#450905)

                      Everyone in your head. Actual people in the real world? No, just the opposite.

                      Where are these people that are being mislead by #FAKENEWS ???

                      But you can't even keep your arguments straight from one post to another, so no one wonder you've got these delusions.

                      You challenged my assertion about the Clinton campaign and I provided you with evidence from HRC herself, but look here:

                      And particularly with Syria which has everyone quite worried, Jordan because it's on their border and they have hundreds of thousands of refugees and they can't possibly vet all those refugees so they don't know if, you know, jihadists are coming in along with legitimate refugees.
                      - HRC - Jewish United Fund of Metropolitan Chicago Vanguard - October 2013

                      Interesting that she later announces [politifact.com] the US can somehow vet 65,000. Why would an individual with any knowledge or awareness of the situation make such a claim? [wikileaks.org]

                      Still waiting on that proof about the Kennedy assassination.

                      That's your job, it's your claim so knock yourself out!

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2017, @01:20AM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2017, @01:20AM (#450911)

                      While I'm here:

                      Is your contention that the Sunni resistance in Syria is not ISIS?

                      It wasn't originally. The reason it eventually became ISIS is because they were backed into a corner and no one else stepped up to help them out.

                      Half truth. [wikipedia.org] I suspect you know this already.

                      Syria was not only the birthplace of civilisation but also a truly beautiful country and the Assad regime was equally brutal both to those who would challenge the regime and the countries long enshrined secular values. Even in a state of "civil war", it is safer than many nations. [independent.co.uk] Are you not ashamed of what we've done? [twitter.com] Are you not ashamed of the virtue signalling celebrity retards who support the pro-salafist PR groups? The rest of us in the West are and we voted accordingly!

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2017, @02:25AM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2017, @02:25AM (#450917)

                      It wasn't originally. The reason it eventually became ISIS is because they were backed into a corner and no one else stepped up to help them out.

                      Missing your insults, I keep checking for replies but none are forthcoming. Get some facts [theantimedia.org] and come at me bro; I want to see you attempt to justify HRC supporting ISIS in Syria.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Saturday January 07 2017, @06:21PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Saturday January 07 2017, @06:21PM (#450787)

    Podesta's emails by contrast were hacked because he had a shit password. To which he added a 1 at the end after the hack and was promptly hacked again.

    It's worse than that:
    1. He gave away his bad password to a phishing attack.
    2. Even if the bad guys had his password, they shouldn't have been able to get in, because they should have used multi-factor authentication. Either IT was incompetent, or Podesta refused to listen to them.

    The Podesta emails were hacked because the Total Cost of Pwnership was very low, and the perceived value of the target was very high. No matter how you slice it, busting in didn't require a state-level actor, and the Democrats are flat-out lying when they imply that it did. And I write that as somebody who is in no way a supporter of Trump or the Republicans.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @06:35PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 07 2017, @06:35PM (#450795)

      > No matter how you slice it, busting in didn't require a state-level actor, and the Democrats are flat-out lying when they imply that it did.

      That's deflection of the worst sort.
      The intelligence agencies and private security companies are saying that they believe it was russia because the tools used to effect the phishing attack were identical to those used by other Russian-connected phishing attacks. Same phishing template, same squirrely domain registration hosted on the same server. Whatever the democrats, or any other group, are implying does not change those facts. Your argument is nothing more than attacking a strawman.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2017, @06:32PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 08 2017, @06:32PM (#451121)

    tens of thousands of hacking groups?

    I take it you have nothing to do with infosec professionally. There are far far fewer groups that are competent enough to be called a hacking group.