SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
We had two submissions on reports that maybe the Russians were not behind the hack of the DNC (Democratic National Committee):
Evidence that Undermines the "Election Hack" Narrative Should get More Attention
Bloomberg reports:
The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have been investigating the now conventional wisdom that last year's leaks of Democratic National Committee files were the result of Russian hacks. What they found instead is evidence to the contrary.
[...] The VIPS theory relies on forensic findings by independent researchers who go by the pseudonyms "Forensicator" and "Adam Carter." The former found that 1,976 MB of Guccifer's files were copied from a DNC server on July 5 in just 87 seconds, implying a transfer rate of 22.6 megabytes per second -- or, converted to a measure most people use, about 180 megabits per second, a speed not commonly available from U.S. internet providers. Downloading such files this quickly over the internet, especially over a VPN (most hackers would use one), would have been all but impossible because the network infrastructure through which the traffic would have to pass would further slow the traffic. However, as Forensicator has pointed out, the files could have been copied to a thumb drive -- something only an insider could have done -- at about that speed.
Adam Carter, the pseudonym for the other analyst, showed that the content of the Guccifer files was at some point cut and pasted into Microsoft Word templates that used the Russian language. Carter laid out all the available evidence and his answers to numerous critics in a long post earlier this month.
A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack
The Nation reports:
Former NSA experts say it wasn't a hack at all, but a leak—an inside job by someone with access to the DNC's system.
[...] On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC's server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second. These statistics are matters of record and essential to disproving the hack theory. No Internet service provider, such as a hacker would have had to use in mid-2016, was capable of downloading data at this speed.
[...] "A speed of 22.7 megabytes [per second] is simply unobtainable, especially if we are talking about a transoceanic data transfer," Folden said. "Based on the data we now have, what we've been calling a hack is impossible." Last week Forensicator reported on a speed test he conducted more recently. It tightens the case considerably. "Transfer rates of 23 MB/s (Mega Bytes per second) are not just highly unlikely, but effectively impossible to accomplish when communicating over the Internet at any significant distance," he wrote. "Further, local copy speeds are measured, demonstrating that 23 MB/s is a typical transfer rate when using a USB–2 flash device (thumb drive)."
[...] "It's clear," another forensics investigator wrote, "that metadata was deliberately altered and documents were deliberately pasted into a Russianified [W]ord document with Russian language settings and style headings."
[...] By any balanced reckoning, the official case purporting to assign a systematic hacking effort to Russia, the events of mid-June and July 5 last year being the foundation of this case, is shabby to the point taxpayers should ask for their money back.
[...] Editor's note: After publication, the Democratic National Committee contacted The Nation with a response, writing, "U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded the Russian government hacked the DNC in an attempt to interfere in the election. Any suggestion otherwise is false and is just another conspiracy theory like those pushed by Trump and his administration. It's unfortunate that The Nation has decided to join the conspiracy theorists to push this narrative."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NewNic on Tuesday August 15 2017, @06:07PM (11 children)
People have residential Gigabit Internet speeds now and had them in 2016. It's also possible that the data was staged to a server in a datacenter with even greater speeds.
Also, based on the figures on this page, USB 2.0 speeds are potentially much greater than 22.7MB/s:
https://superuser.com/questions/317217/whats-the-maximum-typical-speed-possible-with-a-usb2-0-drive [superuser.com]
This analysis should not get any attention because it is worthless and can be refuted with very little effort.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @06:36PM (1 child)
Depends on the drive. Theoretical is like 50MB but I have a 32g drive that does 14 max. A decent quality drive should be in the 20-30 range. Its more the speed of the flash memory.
Its not conclusive proof by any means but its much easier to achieve with a drive than network trickery, especially going back to russia where the ping and overhead are huge. It would be easy for the DNC to say this was our symmetric gig package for the server so try again or to hand the servers to someone other than crowd strike. As it stands they were shady about the whole thing. In the leaked emails they were shady too. Their un-trustworthiness is all I can take away from the whole situation.
(Score: 1) by i286NiNJA on Tuesday August 15 2017, @07:21PM
Ping times to russia are 150-300ms and aren't indicative of throughput... but it's totally irrelevant because an APT is not going to log into TOR from russia. They're probably going to try and keep their intrusion staging separated from whatever tunneling they hide behind. See they know that the USA has some unquantified traffic analysis capability so they don't want a persistent data stream between them and their target.
Anyhow we can jerk off about what's happening but making some sort of claim about hard disk transfer rates and american ISP speeds is complete bullshit.
https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&q=+"It+is+not+our+business+to+determine+his+merits%2C+that+is+up+to+US+voters%2C"&oq=+"It+is+not+our+business+to+determine+his+merits%2C+that+is+up+to+US+voters%2C" [google.com]
Putin is most certainly running a program to interfere with elections... here he is making a sarcastic comment well before there was any discussion of russian interference.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @06:40PM (1 child)
The "analysis" that it was a Russian hack was unsupported and easily refuted but that didn't stop any of the corporate media and Hillary shills from repeating that meme.
(Score: 1) by i286NiNJA on Tuesday August 15 2017, @11:33PM
The first part I'd buy. It's going to be difficult to get concrete evidence.
But how do you refute being hacked by an advanced persistent threat? It's practically impossible.
So I know you're a liar.
(Score: 1) by jpmahala on Tuesday August 15 2017, @06:47PM (3 children)
Um, did you even read the article which you linked to? According to comments, it seems that transfer speeds for most USB 2.0 devices fall typically between 18-32MB/s.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @06:51PM (2 children)
Incorrect, most devices fall between 10-20, you must be thinking of 3.0. I have yet to see a 2.0 usb drive do better than 15 myself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 15 2017, @09:45PM (1 child)
Try not running Ubuntu on a TRS-80.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @02:40AM
I've been doing that my entire life!
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Arik on Tuesday August 15 2017, @07:29PM (2 children)
You realize there's a difference between actual and theoretical throughput right? The narrative has them 'hacking' through multiple nodes to cover their tracks with the actual destination being somewhere in eastern Europe. There are a whole bunch of factors here that would significantly decrease actual throughput and make the claimed speed (that's in excess of 180 megabits per second) inconsistent with that scenario. On the other hand it's about exactly what is commonly seen when using a keydrive.
"It's also possible that the data was staged to a server in a datacenter with even greater speeds."
But it's not possible that this was done without it being observed by our vigilant watchers. If it was done that way they'd know exactly how it was done, they would have evidence instead of weasel words in their 'assessments.'
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NewNic on Tuesday August 15 2017, @08:10PM
The point of my comment is not to prove that it was a Russian hack, but to show that the "evidence" that it wasn't a Russian hack is just, if not more, lacking.
These "Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity" are massively overstating their case.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 16 2017, @01:14AM
Dunno what's going on, has someone done something to TCP algorithms since the 90s, have ISPs cut back insane overselling of their bandwidth, or whether CDNs are actually within millisecond distances from all mid-sized cities but to my experience downloading tens of megabytes per second isn't anymore a holy shit moment if you happen to have a gigabit link.