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This discussion has been archived.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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @05:46AM (11 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @05:46AM (#555156)

    What is going on? First we were attacked by neo-nazis, neo-confederates, and neo-libertariantards, but now this? What are we supposed to infer from this, other than the election was hacked, Donald Trump is the Anti-Clinton, and that the FBI now has in its hands enough evidence to prove that Donald Trump, his sons and associates, committed high treason against the United States of America, in order to make more money. I await impeachment. Life imprisonment for the entire Trump Klan, especially Tiffany. Oh, you think she had nothing to do with this, since she is the only Trump spawn of an American? Hmm, maybe that is a point. OK, leave Tiffany out of this. Besides, what kind of Russian operative would have the name, "Tiffany"?

    (jmorris, on the other hand, sounds just like the name a Russian operative might have on a discussion list on the internets. Hmmm. Or "khallow". And of course, such a username as "Runaway1956"? To local? To specific? To tied to his Daddy whomping his ass? Perfect Russian operative codename! )

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @06:11AM (10 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @06:11AM (#555165)

    What are we supposed to infer from this, other than the election was hacked

    What do you mean when you say "the election was hacked"? Because as far as I know, the worst-case scenario is that Russia leaked DNC emails to Wikileaks, they released it to the public, and then the public reacted to those emails; that had some degree of effect on certain people's voting choices. But the DNC emails should've been public anyway, and so should RNC emails. Unless you have evidence to show that the actual vote counts were altered, saying that the election was hacked is absolutely ludicrous and misleading.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday August 17 2017, @09:03AM (4 children)

      by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Thursday August 17 2017, @09:03AM (#555193) Journal

      Well, the public also reacted to fake news presented as truth by Trump and his associates. [theguardian.com]

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday August 17 2017, @01:40PM (2 children)

        by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Thursday August 17 2017, @01:40PM (#555286) Journal

        Flamebait? The discussion was whether or not releasing the DNC emails qualifies as "election hacking." I countered with a slightly different (but related) and equally controversial strategy that fed into Trump's victory. If the email release is "hacking" then this almost certainly is. I included a link to an article from a respectable news source to back up my assertion. I fail to see the flamebait.

        Did I touch a nerve? Could it be that Trump's defenders are as thin-skinned as he is?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @04:10PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @04:10PM (#555386)

          Mods have turned to absolute garbage. Pay no mind.

        • (Score: 2) by Fluffeh on Monday August 21 2017, @03:15AM

          by Fluffeh (954) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 21 2017, @03:15AM (#556856) Journal

          It sometimes takes a while for mods to be corrected from obvious shills. They normally come good in the end though.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @09:30PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @09:30PM (#555576)

        That is still not "election hacking".

    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday August 17 2017, @04:15PM (4 children)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday August 17 2017, @04:15PM (#555389) Journal

      the worst-case scenario is that Russia leaked DNC emails to Wikileaks,

      And how did they get those emails? That's right, HACKING. It's not a difficult concept.

      • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @04:37PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @04:37PM (#555403)

        None of that has been proven, or even cross examined. Show yer evidence or shut the fuck up! It's not a difficult concept

        • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday August 17 2017, @04:59PM (1 child)

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday August 17 2017, @04:59PM (#555427) Journal

          Evidence...

          We'll see it at the trial. The FBI is not in the habit of disclosing it's methods and findings while an investigation is ongoing.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @02:14PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 19 2017, @02:14PM (#556358)

            Well, maybe you should until the trial before going off with all the wild accusations. Assange says it didn't come from the Russians, and he is a lot more believable than any of the mass media right now. Whether the actual truth comes out in the trial, we may never know. A lot of people would unintentionally get caught in that net, so they won't reveal too much. They will throw somebody under the bus and call it a day. And the democrat/republican party won't lose a single vote over it.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @09:33PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 17 2017, @09:33PM (#555578)

        Don't be an idiot. Even though hacking was required to get the DNC emails, describing this as "election hacking" is extremely misleading since it makes many people believe that the vote counts themselves were altered. There was a poll a while back that apparently showed that many democrats believed that the election itself was hacked (like votes being changed from Clinton to Trump). Throwing around phrases like 'The election was hacked!' is supremely misleading and, frankly, dishonest.

        Say that cracking was used to get the DNC emails, but don't say that the election was hacked. That is not so difficult to comprehend.