Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The DNC "hack" was a leak from within the US and not Russia.

Not to mention every 14 year old.
Could I encourage you to clarify your thinking.
I dont think most 14 year olds could run a spear fishing hack. I do not think they would have the research to know the targets nor the IT skills to build a credible looking false Microsoft security email. I think its the kind of thing that looks easy when its done but generally takes a lot of time and effort to get someone worthwhile and fool them.
I think the Fancy Bears WADA hack shows they are at that level at the very least, as well as some of the other hacks they have pulled off.

Where do you stand on who you think did this, why they did it and what the CIA would stand to gain\lose from fabricating the evidence.

I seem to have a very different reaction to many people and am interested in understanding their thinking.
 
The attribution regarding the WADA hack appears to be as substantive as the rest of it. They're not even 'fabricating the evidence'! They're just telling you their conclusions and leaving it at that.

Steve Grobman, CTO at Intel Security, told CNBC that a lot of the technology needed to execute an attack are available on the black market, for example, and are not necessarily all that expensive.

"A better indication of who an attack can be attributed to," he said, "comes when you actually get to take a look at things like the source code and can understand the level of sophistication something was built with."

Grobman's team analyzed a portion of the technical forensics associated with the World Anti-Doping Agency attack and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to definitively point the finger at the Russian government.

"We investigated the technical details that were publicly available around the WADA hacking case and compared them against other technical indicators and TTPs [tactics, techniques and procedures] we have gathered over the years," he said. "The amount of available technical details combined with some similar TTPs are not enough evidence in our opinion to attribute this campaign to a certain group or state-sponsored operation."
Here's how investigators can tell if a hacker is actually a foreign government
 
So this is your theory as to why the CIA fabricated evidence of Russian involvement.

To be brutally frank. That is 911 troofer level of logic.
Now for the classic "what I really meant was...." re-positioning.

I'd strongly disagree . What's being presented by the likes of the CIA isn't even fabricated evidence . It's mostly just opinion . Assertion not backed up by any tangible proof . It's not even evidence, fabricated or otherwise . which also means nobody can be called on it .
These people have an innate predisposition to view Russia as an enemy , as it's thwarted a series of their ventures and been deeply critical of others to a point were its created political problems for them . They have a vested interest in thwarting rapprochement , as well as in trying to set an incoming administrations policies for it .
A trump presidency throws their entire ideological orientation into disarray . American exceptionalism is an ideology , one shared by many within these intelligence agencies . Clinton, Samantha Power, Nuland Kagan, PNAC etc are the personification of this ideology . The delegitimisation of their electoral defeat serves a wide range of purposes . Not least in the political and media portrayal of Russia as an actual threat to the American people themselves .
That's not troofer logic at all I'm afraid . Mr Gunther is talking sense on this one .
 
Are you on drugs again Ferrel?
This does not really strike me as clear statement of who you think performed this hack and what the benefits\risks are for the CIA to make up evidence or what ever it is you think happened.
There's also the pre-disposition in the defence / intelligence establishment (see the stuff I was posting a couple pages back) to worry about Russian influence / cyber operations as a sort of blowback from the 'color revolutions'
The floor is yours, fire away.
 
I'd strongly disagree . What's being presented by the likes of the CIA isn't even fabricated evidence . It's mostly just opinion . Assertion not backed up by any tangible proof .
So you think that there is no risk of the real hacking providing evidence it was them or that the CIA is too stupid to think this is possible?


These people have an innate predisposition to view Russia as an enemy
You must be very clever to know far more about the world than them. Are they really all just morons stuck in the 80s?


They have a vested interest in thwarting rapprochement , as well as in trying to set an incoming administrations policies for it .
So you think they fabricated the evidence purely to try to run the US foreign policy.

They risked being completely discredited as an agency and having the US Republican Party strip them out of existence simply to embarrass Trump and to prevent the US from teaming up with Russia inspite of Russia being hugely useful in the fight against Islamism and as a counter weight to China.

As you know so much more than them, why would they see a pro China policy as being far more in the US's interest than a pro Russia one?

Are they working for China, or just too stupid to grasp that Russian land power is a huge counter to the Chinese military?
. American exceptionalism is an ideology , one shared by many within these intelligence agencies . Clinton, Samantha Power, Nuland Kagan, PNAC etc are the personification of this ideology . The delegitimisation of their electoral defeat serves a wide range of purposes .
Trump is anti US exceptionalism? Wow, thats a pretty interesting world view.
I am not really sure I see eye to eye with you on this one.

Not least in the political and media portrayal of Russia as an actual threat to the American people themselves .
So the stupid morons at the CIA only have the US media as information sources. Clearly you are much more intelligent than them. They must be pretty dumb not to be able to read books and the like.
China and Islamism are not portrayed as threats in the US media. Fascinating. But again I am not sure I see eye to eye with you here.
 
So you think that there is no risk of the real hacking providing evidence it was them or that the CIA is too stupid to think this is possible?


You must be very clever to know far more about the world than them. Are they really all just morons stuck in the 80s?


So you think they fabricated the evidence purely to try to run the US foreign policy.

They risked being completely discredited as an agency and having the US Republican Party strip them out of existence simply to embarrass Trump and to prevent the US from teaming up with Russia inspite of Russia being hugely useful in the fight against Islamism and as a counter weight to China.

As you know so much more than them, why would they see a pro China policy as being far more in the US's interest than a pro Russia one?

Are they working for China, or just too stupid to grasp that Russian land power is a huge counter to the Chinese military?
Trump is anti US exceptionalism? Wow, thats a pretty interesting world view.
I am not really sure I see eye to eye with you on this one.

So the stupid morons at the CIA only have the US media as information sources. Clearly you are much more intelligent than them. They must be pretty dumb not to be able to read books and the like.
China and Islamism are not portrayed as threats in the US media. Fascinating. But again I am not sure I see eye to eye with you here.

Are you pissed ? Time and time again youve been told there is no fabricated evidence . That there's no evidence , merely supposition . why do you keep referring to this red herring ?
And what are you on about the 1980s for ? Have you missed the past 6 years ?

Point after point of this stuff .

No the CIA do not rely on the US media. Even the most inane dolt can see its the other way about .
 
Trump is anti US exceptionalism? Wow, thats a pretty interesting world view.
I am not really sure I see eye to eye with you on this one.
.

Yes, it's very much the case Trump is anti US exceptionalism . And anyone who'd been keeping up with that campaign and the analysis of it would be aware of that . While also aware Clinton and her coterie are the living embodiment of it . Clinton even attacked him for opposing it .

Clinton: Trump doesn’t believe in 'American exceptionalism'

Donald Trump says he doesn’t believe in "American exceptionalism"

His election is pretty much accepted across the board as the death knell of modern American exceptionalism . And if you doubt that simply google " trump American exceptionalism "

His opponent Clinton on the other hand..she who attacked him for opposing American exceptionalism . She's a very different kettle of fish . A fanatical warmongering fascist .

Hillary Clinton is 100 percent right about Donald Trump not buying into American exceptionalism

The Inverted Politics of American Exceptionalism

I dont think anyone sees eye to eye with you on this one . You're badly misinformed / under informed .

The likes of the CIA are imbued with American exceptionalism as an ideology . A trump victory is a disaster for them in US foreign policy terms .
 
Last edited:
I love this bit from the report

"Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self-proclaimed reputation for authenticity. "

I'm not quite sure what a 'self-proclaimed' reputation is, but doubtless they had to put that in to try to stop people believing Assange when he simply says it wasn't the Russians.
 
Craig Murray is somewhat more withering

When I was sent the latest “intelligence report” on Russian hacking a couple of evenings ago, I quite genuinely for several minutes thought it was a spoof by the Daily Mash or similar, parodying the kind of ludicrous claims that kept being advanced with zero evidence. I do implore you to read it, as when you realise it is supposed to be serious it becomes still more hilarious.
Why Has Israeli Spy Shai Masot Not Been Expelled? - Craig Murray
 
I think one issue with all this stuff is that people are tending to see it only in the emotionally charged and viciously polarised context of Hillary vs Trump. What I was alluding to on the previous page was the pre-existing context in which the US intelligence community are making these claims. What I take to be the frame within which they're interpreting whatever evidence may be available to them. It's this threat model and interpretive framework which they're using to pull isolated bits of data like the DNC hack and Russia Today propaganda together into the picture which they're presenting as 'Russian interference on behalf of Trump'. You may find it convincing or not, but the frame is a key part of the context either way.

There's plenty of evidence from security industry pros over the years indicating the particular hacker groups in question having some sort of alignment with Russian state interests. See e.g. this discussion of APT28 phishing targets.

Focus on Russia and former Soviet states
Most of the targeted accounts are linked to intelligence gathering or information control within Russia or former Soviet states. The majority of the activity appears to focus on Russia’s military involvement in eastern Ukraine; for example, the email address targeted by the most phishing attempts (nine) was linked to a spokesperson for the Ukrainian prime minister. Other targets included individuals in political, military, and diplomatic positions in former Soviet states, as well as journalists, human rights organizations, and regional advocacy groups in Russia.

Other targets worldwide
Analysis of targeted individuals outside of Russia and the former Soviet states revealed that they work in a wide range of industry verticals (see Figure 6). The groups can be divided into two broad categories:

  • Authors, journalists, NGOs, and political activists (36%)
  • Government personnel, military personnel, government supply chain, and aerospace researchers (64%)

Threat Group-4127 Targets Google Accounts

In addition, by way of the broader context of this analysis, there have been concerns about Russian information warfare and intentions pre-dating this election being expressed within the defence analyst community see e.g.

Key Russian officers and officials presented a view of the US and the West as deliberately destabilizing nations in North Africa, the Middle East, and the rest of the world for their own ends. They describe such actions as having failed, and been a key source of terrorism. They see the West as rejecting partnership with the West as a threatening Russia along all of its borders with Europe.

Senior Russian officials are also using the term "Color Revolution” in ways that are far more critical than in the past. For example, the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, has accused the United States and the European Union of an attempt to stage yet another “color revolution” in Ukraine, and said during the conference that, “Attempts to impose homemade recipes for internal changes on other nations, without taking into account their own traditions and national characteristics, to engage in the ‘export of democracy,’ have a destructive impact on international relations and result in an increase of the number of hot spots on the world map.”

Russia and the Color Revolutions - Russia and the “Color Revolution” | Center for Strategic and International Studies

Five final points deserve to be emphasised.

NATO and Western policymakers cannot afford to underestimate the extent to which Russian concepts and approaches in information activities differ from what they may take for granted. Options for action at all levels, strategic, operational and tactical, which appear rational in NATO capitals should not be taken as a guide to what appears sensible or practical in Moscow. This includes the specific question of when, or whether, hostile action in information space or cyberspace constitutes an act or state of war.

As noted above, an overt state of conflict with Russia need not necessarily exist in order for Russian capabilities to be deployed. But this also means that in information space, as elsewhere, activities by NATO nations which appear to them to be entirely innocent and unprovocative can be assessed from Moscow as immediately hostile, and provoke a reaction which once again takes NATO by surprise.

The Russian challenge in the information domain is not static, but constantly and rapidly evolving. This includes absorbing and adapting lessons both from foreign military experience, and from Russia’s own current operations in Ukraine and Syria.

It follows that NATO and its member states must remain agile and adaptable even simply to track the current state of Russian theory and capabilities, let alone to devise plausible countermeasures. At the same time, Russian information activities take place against a background noise of similar processes. Distinguishing hostile information operations commissioned abroad from home-grown legitimate dissent is challenging, but vital.

Finally, in information warfare, there are no rear areas. According to Russian CGS Valeriy Gerasimov, a key feature of modern warfare is “simultaneous effects to the entire depth of enemy territory, in all physical media and in the information domain.”

If and when information warfare with Russia moves to an overt phase, it is not just NATO servicemen that will be the targets; but their families, their communities, their societies and their homelands, no matter how safely far away from Russia they may presently consider themselves to be.

Handbook of Russian Information Warfare - News

Now, whatever you think about the foundation of these claims, I think it's pretty clear that these matters were actively being discussed in the professional publications (as opposed to mass propaganda channels) of: in the former case, the cyber-security industry and in the latter case, those of the Western defence and foreign policy establishment and that they were being discussed long before the contenders for the US elections were decided. I think any sensible analysis needs to be aware of this context rather than just focussing on the immediate propaganda needs of the contending fractions of the ruling class involved in the recent US elections.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps not. Let me just see if I have this right: A think tank co-founded at the height of the Cold War by a guy who was asked by President-elect Reagan to head the NSG is still trying to find ways of resurrecting the Cold War?
Wow!
 
The trouble with this latest fairy tale is that the media has swallowed the state-sponsored story without demanding a scintilla of evidence, and has turned the entire factitious endeavor into a witch hunt aimed at alternative media.

there’s a big difference between being an apologist for Russia and being a critic of U.S. foreign policy. And the two are too often conflated.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01...a-power-worshippers-only-see-black-and-white/

Good article. Worth reading.
 
..the pre-existing context in which the US intelligence community are making these claims. What I take to be the frame within which they're interpreting whatever evidence may be available to them. It's this threat model and interpretive framework which they're using to pull isolated bits of data...

Thanks for those. Interesting reading.

What I'm getting from all that is a sense that they're still really struggling to get a handle on 'Russian thinking', not helped by the fact that they - like most cultural hegemons - struggle to understand that there could even be a 'way of thinking' that differs from their own.

The 'Russian mind' simply makes no sense when viewed through the lens of NATO doctrine... it's all distorted.

You raise an interesting question: What would be hearing now with regards to 'Russian Hacking' had Clinton been headed for inauguration in a couple of weeks? I suspect it would be pretty much the same, if not worse.

-

One more bit of info on the 'Grizzly Steppe' document IoCs: Specifically the block of code it included ('PAS TOOL PHP WEB KIT')

What is this? What does this mean? What do I do with this information?

It's a YARA rule. YARA is a tool ostensibly for malware researchers, to quickly classify files. It's not really an anti-virus product designed to prevent or detect an intrusion/infection, but to analyze an intrusion/infection afterward -- such as attributing the attack. Signatures like this will identify a well-known file found on infected/hacked systems.

What this YARA rule detects is, as the name suggests, the "PAS TOOL WEB KIT", a web shell tool that's popular among Russia/Ukraine hackers. If you google "PAS TOOL PHP WEB KIT", the second result points to the tool in question. You can download a copy here [*], or you can view it on GitHub here [*].

Once a hacker gets comfortable with a tool, they tend to keep using it. That implies the YARA rule is useful at tracking the activity of that hacker, to see which other attacks they've been involved in, since it will find the same web shell on all the victims.

The problem is that this P.A.S. web shell is popular, used by hundreds if not thousands of hackers, mostly associated with Russia, but also throughout the rest of the world (judging by hacker forum posts). This makes using the YARA signature for attribution problematic: just because you found P.A.S. in two different places doesn't mean it's the same hacker.

A web shell, by the way, is one of the most common things hackers use once they've broken into a server. It allows further hacking and exfiltration traffic to appear as normal web requests. It typically consists of a script file (PHP, ASP, PERL, etc.) that forwards commands to the local system. There are hundreds of popular web shells in use.

Errata Security: Some notes on IoCs
 
And the prize for most tortured logic goes to Mathew Gault at War is Boring.
But if you don’t believe Russia swung the election, then you must also accept that the American intelligence community has no idea what it’s doing.
The Kremlin Wants You to Read That Hacking Report
Nope. You could simply suspect them of lying.

Thanks to CrabbedOne for the site full of loons. Very funny reading.:D
 
Well just as you might have thought the CIA couldn't possibly go in any harder on smoke and mirrors...

WASHINGTON — The chiefs of America’s intelligence agencies last week presented President Obama and President-elect Donald J. Trump with a summary of unsubstantiated reports that Russia had collected compromising and salacious personal information about Mr. Trump, two officials with knowledge of the briefing said.

The summary is based on memos generated by political operatives seeking to derail Mr. Trump’s candidacy. Details of the reports began circulating in the fall and were widely known among journalists and politicians in Washington.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-intelligence.html
 
Most comprehensive article yet:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/13/did-the-russians-really-hack-the-dnc/

The salient impression given by the government’s report is how devoid of evidence it is. For that matter, the majority of the content is taken up by what security specialist John Hinderaker describes as “pedestrian advice to IT professionals about computer security.” As for the report’s indicators of compromise (IoC), Hinderaker characterizes these as “tools that are freely available and IP addresses that are used by hackers around the world.”
etc, etc...
 
Who knows? Seems a highly suspicious murder though, and now people have come forward claiming he was the leaker there's likely to have been a motive for someone.
 
Back
Top Bottom