Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday August 17 2017, @04:33AM   Printer-friendly
from the hack-this dept.

The New York Times reports In Ukraine, a Malware Expert Who Could Blow the Whistle on Russian Hacking :

KIEV, Ukraine — The hacker, known only by his online alias "Profexer," kept a low profile. He wrote computer code alone in an apartment and quietly sold his handiwork on the anonymous portion of the internet known as the Dark Web. Last winter, he suddenly went dark entirely.

Profexer's posts, already accessible only to a small band of fellow hackers and cybercriminals looking for software tips, blinked out in January — just days after American intelligence agencies publicly identified a program he had written as one tool used in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee.

But while Profexer's online persona vanished, a flesh-and-blood person has emerged: a fearful man who the Ukrainian police said turned himself in early this year, and has now become a witness for the F.B.I.

It's an in-depth review of several people, hacking groups, Russian organizations, and delves into hidden sites where malware can be bought and sold. In this case, it is claimed that Profexer wrote a program to exfiltrate information from a hacked machine, made a free copy available, but charged for updates/training. The claim is that Russia made use of his program, among others, and then practiced using it on Ukraine. Images of servers used in Ukraine voting are being reviewed.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived.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 frojack on Thursday August 17 2017, @05:41AM (11 children)

    by frojack (1554) on Thursday August 17 2017, @05:41AM (#555154) Journal

    It was the New York Times. You seem to have mistaken it for a reliable source.

    http://canadafreepress.com/article/new-report-sorry-dems-there-was-no-russian-hack-it-was-an-inside-job [canadafreepress.com]

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Troll=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=2, Informative=1, Funny=1, Total=6
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Whoever on Thursday August 17 2017, @05:47AM (8 children)

    by Whoever (4524) on Thursday August 17 2017, @05:47AM (#555157) Journal
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @06:08AM (6 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @06:08AM (#555164)
      A whole article based on a single weak premise. Those timestamps could be created by copying the files at a later point at a different location.

      That said, I see little evidence that what was leaked was not true. So I find it amusing if the Russians are actually behind this and were attempting to influence the voters with the _truth_ (albeit obtained illegally). And that's somehow "hacking the election".

      In contrast much of the US "mainstream news" and "polls" were trying to influence the voters with lies.

      Funny if the Russians were committing acts of vigilante journalism while the Americans were busy doing propaganda.
      • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @10:56AM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @10:56AM (#555223)

        That said, I see little evidence that what was leaked was not true. So I find it amusing if the Russians are actually behind this and were attempting to influence the voters with the _truth_ (albeit obtained illegally). And that's somehow "hacking the election".

        Ah, but you see, the problem is that it was true. What, you thing R's aren't doing the exact same shit? The difference is that with D's now there was proof, and they're too incompetent to effectively deny the truth and redirect the attention to something else (that's what the Pussy-grabber in Chief is really good at). If both side's shenanigans were leaked, the outcome may have been different, although I still wouldn't bet on it (again, D's are incompetent).

        If the hackers also targeted RNC, but it turned out they did nothing bad so there was nothing to leak, then you'd be right.

        But if you tell only half of the truth, it's still deception.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @02:24PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @02:24PM (#555321)

          You proceed from an unproven assumption then. Unless you have indications that the persons responsible for infiltrating the DNC email server ALSO infiltrated the RNC, there is no "telling of half of the truth" then. You cannot tell what you do not know. The only provable knowledge you have is that the DNC was hacked. Everything else is conjecture. The whole ordeal smacks of sour grapes that the DNC was caught with its pants down. Voters who were persuaded to vote for Trump by knowing the truth of the DNC were obviously not really DNC supporters in the first place.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @03:19PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @03:19PM (#555358)

            Unless you have indications that the persons responsible for infiltrating the DNC email server ALSO infiltrated the RNC, there is no "telling of half of the truth" then.

            Uh, yes there is, that's the point. I'm saying they didn't hack the RNC (or if they did, they didn't release the information), and the entire problem is in the target selection. As in, why hack the DNC and not the RNC?

            I can think of two possibilities:
            1) It was just a coincidence, the hacker stumbled upon some info that enabled the hack, and they released the info out of the goodness of their hearts.
            2) The hacker wanted to bring the Democrats down to help Trump and/or Republicans, so they explicitly targeted the DNC to get dirt on them.

            If it was one person or a small group acting on their own, it could be either one of those. However, if it was a nation-state (Russia or whoever), I really don't see #1 as all that likely.

            (Also, just to be clear: I dislike both parties, but the Dems are closer to my position on most issues. I find the Dems clearly incompetent, and often hypocritical. However, I find Republicans completely despicable. For me, voting for Dems would be like stepping in shit barefoot; voting for GOP like bathing in it; and voting for Trump like diving in.)

            • (Score: 2) by Oakenshield on Thursday August 17 2017, @06:38PM

              by Oakenshield (4900) on Thursday August 17 2017, @06:38PM (#555490)

              I can think of two possibilities:

              1) It was just a coincidence, the hacker stumbled upon some info that enabled the hack, and they released the info out of the goodness of their hearts.

              2) The hacker wanted to bring the Democrats down to help Trump and/or Republicans, so they explicitly targeted the DNC to get dirt on them.

              3) They attempted to hack the RNC and were unsuccessful.

              4) Releasing only one side to pit both sides against each other (one blaming the other and the other indignantly defending against conjecture) preventing any united front forming against any perpetrators.

              5) For the Lulz

              There is no shortage of possibilities or guessing.

        • (Score: 2) by Sulla on Thursday August 17 2017, @03:28PM (1 child)

          by Sulla (5173) on Thursday August 17 2017, @03:28PM (#555363) Journal

          I think it is a shame that both weren't hacked so that we could see that, but as it were we were unfortunately only provided the truth about one of our two corrupt parties. What would you prefer us to do, ignore the criminal things included in the emails because "the other side does it too" instead of delivering a sizeable blow to their organization as punishment when we discovered it?

          I would love to see the RNC hacked and similar information released. I suppose the fun thing we would see from the RNC is the panic that their goal of getting rid of the outside candidate failed because Trump still won the primaries.

          As it is all we had was the DNC going out of its way to stomp out Bernie and give the finger to all of his supporters. I still want to know why paper ballots in Louisiana were +1 in Bernie's favor but electronic was +~5 Hill, when electronic voters should have been stronger Bernie and paper stronger Hill.

          --
          Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @05:30PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @05:30PM (#555449)

            What I find fun is they brought Trump upon themselves. They HYPED the hell out of him right until it was clear he had the RNC nomination. Then turned on him. I watched it in real time.

            Pied piper spectacularly blew up in their face. Now They are playing the 'nazi' card to the hilt. Both of these terms are from their leaked emails. That was downloaded at 20MB (not megabit) per second. Either they have a decent network or someone copied it to a USB drive. Which is how wikileaks said they received it.

            What is more likely a disgruntled burnout was pissed at how they were cheated or rando russian guy blew it all up?

            What is more amazing is people are not mad about what was leaked but that it was leaked at all. That is the sad thing. The shit going on in those emails should get some people in jail or at least an investigation. To pretend these are the people who should be leading us is really stretching the idea that Hillary was a good candidate.

            The DNC does not want to face facts. They ran a shitty unlikable candidate (much like the RNC did for Mcain and Romney). For nearly a month she basically did not do anything and costed on the rest of the DNC doing her job. There were tons of people voting against Trump and for the 'hillary I guess' votes. Yet Trump was filling stadiums by himself (and still is). She couldnt fill a gymnasium unless she trotted out some celebrity to draw in a bit of a crowd for her. She was just unlikable. Once the DNC can accept that fact they will figure out why they lost.

    • (Score: 1, Disagree) by hemocyanin on Thursday August 17 2017, @02:01PM

      by hemocyanin (186) on Thursday August 17 2017, @02:01PM (#555307) Journal

      The Washington Post has devolved into nothing but a contractor for printing Establishment-DNC press releases. I have it /etc/hosts.

  • (Score: -1, Redundant) by aristarchus on Thursday August 17 2017, @06:08AM (1 child)

    by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday August 17 2017, @06:08AM (#555163) Journal

    You know, just fuck you, frojack! You are supposed to be my friend! You are supposed to stand up for real journalism! But now this. Man, are you so far gone that you cannot see that Trump is a deep plant Nazi from before you were even born, and you are playing right into it? Frojack! Frrrooojack! Give us a sign, bro! Let us know that this was a "hostage post"! Blink twice if they are threating to cut off your johnson! We will understand!

    Well, the Millitanty Bunntard may not understand, but he is so far gone to the "other" side. . . . .

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday August 18 2017, @08:41AM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Friday August 18 2017, @08:41AM (#555774) Journal

      Fucking frojack is "redundant"? Well, I guess I shoulda seen THAT coming, so to speak.

      Meta question: Are the Republicans now the party of white racism, or not? Somebody explain it to me.