Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

Apart from the Mills and Brazile things, which tbh are so minor there's no doubt that all the campaigns were doing the same and why not, is any of that actually in the emails, or is it just wild exaggerations like the pizzagate stuff that some people actually believed?

If it's so common then surely you will be able to point to a way in which the DNC, an organisation which is mandated to be neutral during the primaries but wasn't, rigged the election on Bernie Sanders' behalf. Also, if actually rigging the election is fine then why is it a problem that Russia apparently leaked these e-mails? Surely if it's just fine, exemplary behaviour then Clinton should send an e-mail to Putin thanking him?
 
CRI is just parroting the moronic conspiratorial ramblings of fellow hapless idiot Sarah Kendzior, who has been trying to promote this Trump is a Soviet agent narrative based on an 80s newsletter from anti-Semitic cult leader Lyndon LaRouche.
 
If it's so common then surely you will be able to point to a way in which the DNC, an organisation which is mandated to be neutral during the primaries but wasn't, rigged the election on Bernie Sanders' behalf. Also, if actually rigging the election is fine then why is it a problem that Russia apparently leaked these e-mails? Surely if it's just fine, exemplary behaviour then Clinton should send an e-mail to Putin thanking him?

You've made massive leap from a leaked question and someone saying they didn't support Clinton to "rigged the election." Leaked questions and occasional pilfered documents - you'd be ridiculously naive to not know that is politics as normal and nowhere near big enough to change an election outcome.

Exemplary behaviour it isn't, but that's unusual in politics. Are you enjoying yourself, arguing against points nobody's made?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CRI
You've made massive leap from a leaked question and someone saying they didn't support Clinton to "rigged the election." Leaked questions and occasional pilfered documents - you'd be ridiculously naive to not know that is politics as normal and nowhere near big enough to change an election outcome.

Exemplary behaviour it isn't, but that's unusual in politics. Are you enjoying yourself, arguing against points nobody's made?

Well an organisation which is pledged to be netural during primaries rigged an election and that's OK and fine and normal, apparently, though you have produced no evidence that it is, and Clintonite partisans (including on here) called people who believed this to be happening conspiracy theorists and whatever when it was first suggested without the definitive proof we have now. OK, so we're at that point. So the Russians didn't do anything wrong then?

Can we simultaneously believe that there was nothing of substance in the e-mails and that the leaking was enough to alter the course of an election that would otherwise have been delivered to Hillary Clinton? I would think that you would have to either pick the 30 year plot, that Trump is an agent of a country that no longer exists conspiracy OR argue what you are arguing.
 
Okay, think back a bit to the original Wikileaks/Manning/Snowden revelations in, was it 2013? I remember here, and among most left-leaning folk in the UK, the revelations about American actions was welcomed. Assange, Snowden and Manning were seen positively, even as heros for their whistle blowing. Except for a few folks on the left in the US, it wasn't seen the same way there. Most Average Joe's and Josephine's regarded them as traitors, called for their death in blogs and social media posts. For some, it was no doubt just a jingoistic knee jerk reaction. But, some made the point that revelations could compromise the safety of service personnel oversees. Lots of people in America (particularly working class people) have family in the military. Maybe they didn't have full faith in the intelligence services, but they saw the leaks as a direct attack on ordinary Americans doing their duty to their country.

But then many of these same people who posted the vicious screeds and violent memes about hanging Snowden for treason and having Assange extradited and locked up did 180 degree turns to praising Wikileaks as a beacon of freedom and Assange as a hero. Putin transformed from shadowy despot to a leadership role model and Russia became a sister nation with a shared faith.

Something happened in between.

Found this from 2013 explaining the differing views between folk in the US and UK towards the Wikileaks revelations.

Edward Snowden A ‘Hero’ In UK, But Americans Are More Divided (POLL)


And, funny how quite a few GOP politicians called for Assange's extradition and trial for espionage (or even his assassination) in summer of 2013 had no problem with his efforts in favour of Trump three years later. :hmm:

Assange lawyer condemns calls for assassination of WikiLeaks' founder
Legal rep. says threatened U.S. prosecution of WikiLeaks founder is 'grave concern' and claims Sarah Palin may have ruined chance of a fair trial

A lawyer for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Thursday condemned calls for his assassination as "absolutely outrageous and indeed illegal" and claimed remarks by Sarah Palin may prevent him from getting a fair trial in the United States. (But that didn't dent her support for Trump 3 years later -
Sarah Palin, Mike Pence to support Trump in Michigan this weekend)

Meantime, criticism of Assange has mounted. Republican Rep. Peter King of New York called for Assange to be charged under the Espionage Act and asked whether WikiLeaks can be designated a terrorist. (But no qualms about supporting Trump - this in October 2016: Rep. Peter King: Republicans opposing Trump could cause 'civil war' in party.)

Mike Huckabee, like Palin a potential Republican presidential candidate, also said the person who leaked the information to Assange should be tried for treason and executed. (But hey ho, he didn't have any qualms about Wikileaks in October 2016 - was one of Trump's chief cheerleaders throughout the campaign - Mike Huckabee predicts Donald Trump victory.)

 
I saw stuff about the pro Trump websites in Veles, Macedonia on multiple sites, including ABC news and The Times, along with interviews from some of the people who ran them. If you search Veles + Trump, you'll find them. <snip>
OK, so I did that.

It looks spun-to-fuck. Same story, same tropes, obviously from the same PR source, showing up in multiple channels. Selling some sort of pre-digested PR line rather than informing people sufficiently to make their own judgement about what's going on.

No doubt there's a bit of truth to it, but even so, it's as obviously spun as the coordinated 'Afghan women having their nails pulled out' shit that Laura Bush and Cherie Blair came out with 'spontaneously' and simultaneously.

This sort of obviously spun stuff is counterproductive if you want to regain peoples trust.
 
Last edited:
OK, so I did that.

It looks spun-to-fuck. Same story, same tropes, obviously from the same PR source, showing up in multiple channels. Selling some sort of pre-digested PR line rather than informing people sufficiently to make their own judgement about what's going on.

No doubt there's a bit of truth to it, but even so, it's as obviously spun as the coordinated 'Afghan women having their nails pulled out' shit that Laura Bush and Cherie Blair came out with 'spontaneously' and simultaneously.

This sort of obviously spun stuff is counterproductive if you want to regain peoples trust.

I don't see especially the Macedonia story as anything like say, the Kuwaiti babies tossed out of incubators by Iraqi invaders. I found that one really interesting because the people behind it weren't actually motivated by politics at all. They produced content that got the most clicks, thus generated the most revenue. They found made up stories that were pro-Trump did better than those that were pro-Clinton, so they pitched that way. Clearly such content was popular among those with a leaning toward Trump, who circulated and recirculated it so that people swore on their lives stuff was true. Take the story about H Clinton choosing to defend the child rapist and laughing about it. Snopes debunked it months ago, but it was still being circulated and discussed as fact days before the election.

But see, this is the thing. I don't believe there was any ONE factor that led to the outcome of the election. I don't the "single issue" theorists - prime one around here seems to be it was because the Democrats ignored disaffected white working class men and Sanders would have walked it. It was a shit load of different factors that formed a critical mass. I can't see how H Clinton was no better or worse than any candidates the Democrats have fielded. All my lifetime, I've never thought about a presidential candidate "you know, that person is so brilliant - I agree with everything they stand for." I'd heard sharp criticism of candidates from and about both sides before, but never with the kind of venom that Clinton seemed to attract.

I think there were a whole range of factors that influenced how and if people voted. Can't accept a woman president. Won't vote anyone who supports abortion or gay marriage. Didn't like Bill Clinton so won't vote for his wife, period. Clinton's too liberal. Clinton's too conservative. She's a war monger. No smoke without fire about these leaked emails or other rumours. She's too establishment. She'll raise taxes. She was mean to Bernie Sanders. She's got a mysterious illness. She's too strong on women's rights. She's a secret Lesbian. I have to vote with my conscious so I'm voting for a third party candidate. I will vote the way my pastor says I should vote. Donald Trump will be a stronger leader. Trump knows about business and that's more important than politics. Whatever Trump's done, it's still not as bad as what she's done. I can't bear to vote for either so I'll stay home. I want to vote for Clinton, but I've been disenfranchised by the new rules for voting in my state.

I can't see why it seems to some beyond the realms of possibility that Russia might have tried to influence the outcome of the elections in a way that favours their interests. They've done this before and hey, the US has done it, too in other parts of the world. And y'know, if Russia had even the smallest hand in it, might they be keen to widen their influence over the US, and what might the outcome of that be? Inherently benign?

For some though, the only reason Trump was elected was something Clinton did, or didn't do, period. Whatever happens in future, that will be Clinton's fault, too. They'll try to dine out on that for the rest of their lives I guess.

And now, anytime someone doesn't like a thing they hear or read, regardless of any evidence, they can just call it "fake news" and reject it.
 
I don't see especially the Macedonia story as anything like say, the Kuwaiti babies tossed out of incubators by Iraqi invaders. I found that one really interesting because the people behind it weren't actually motivated by politics at all. They produced content that got the most clicks, thus generated the most revenue. They found made up stories that were pro-Trump did better than those that were pro-Clinton, so they pitched that way. Clearly such content was popular among those with a leaning toward Trump, who circulated and recirculated it so that people swore on their lives stuff was true. Take the story about H Clinton choosing to defend the child rapist and laughing about it. Snopes debunked it months ago, but it was still being circulated and discussed as fact days before the election.

But see, this is the thing. I don't believe there was any ONE factor that led to the outcome of the election. I don't the "single issue" theorists - prime one around here seems to be it was because the Democrats ignored disaffected white working class men and Sanders would have walked it. It was a shit load of different factors that formed a critical mass. I can't see how H Clinton was no better or worse than any candidates the Democrats have fielded. All my lifetime, I've never thought about a presidential candidate "you know, that person is so brilliant - I agree with everything they stand for." I'd heard sharp criticism of candidates from and about both sides before, but never with the kind of venom that Clinton seemed to attract.

I think there were a whole range of factors that influenced how and if people voted. Can't accept a woman president. Won't vote anyone who supports abortion or gay marriage. Didn't like Bill Clinton so won't vote for his wife, period. Clinton's too liberal. Clinton's too conservative. She's a war monger. No smoke without fire about these leaked emails or other rumours. She's too establishment. She'll raise taxes. She was mean to Bernie Sanders. She's got a mysterious illness. She's too strong on women's rights. She's a secret Lesbian. I have to vote with my conscious so I'm voting for a third party candidate. I will vote the way my pastor says I should vote. Donald Trump will be a stronger leader. Trump knows about business and that's more important than politics. Whatever Trump's done, it's still not as bad as what she's done. I can't bear to vote for either so I'll stay home. I want to vote for Clinton, but I've been disenfranchised by the new rules for voting in my state.

I can't see why it seems to some beyond the realms of possibility that Russia might have tried to influence the outcome of the elections in a way that favours their interests. They've done this before and hey, the US has done it, too in other parts of the world. And y'know, if Russia had even the smallest hand in it, might they be keen to widen their influence over the US, and what might the outcome of that be? Inherently benign?

For some though, the only reason Trump was elected was something Clinton did, or didn't do, period. Whatever happens in future, that will be Clinton's fault, too. They'll try to dine out on that for the rest of their lives I guess.

And now, anytime someone doesn't like a thing they hear or read, regardless of any evidence, they can just call it "fake news" and reject it.

They voted for Obama..twice..you mad cunt .
 
Being from Chatham House it's naturally going to be a bit prone to seeing reds under beds, but this is probably a bit more substantive than individual 'troll farm' media stories.

https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/...search/2016-03-21-russias-new-tools-giles.pdf

It's reasonably well-referenced and offers a context, albeit a defence establishment one, for understanding the evolution of Russian influence operations over the last decade or so. It's also likely to be the sort of context which the US intelligence community are coming from when making the charges of Russian interference in US politics being discussed above.

There's also this from the same author: 'Handbook of Russian Information Warfare'

In which we find the following quote.
Of great importance here is the use of the global internet network to exert a massive, dedicated impact on the consciousness of the citizens of states that are the targets of the aggression. Information resources have become one of the most effective types of weapon. Their extensive employment enables the situation in a country to be destabilized from within in a matter of days… In this manner, indirect and asymmetric actions and methods of conducting hybrid wars enable the opposing side to be deprived of its actual sovereignty without the state’s territory being seized.
V. Gerasimov - Chief of the Russian General Staff.

And this from one of his colleagues:
…the main aim of information-psychological conflict is regime change in the adversary country (through destroying the organs of government); by means of mass influence on the military-political leadership of the adversary achieving as a minimum an increase in the amount of time available for taking command decisions and lengthening the operational cycle; by means of influence on the mass consciousness of the population – directing people so that the population of the victim country is induced to support the aggressor, acting against its own interests.

Having seen many of the techniques described by the author of the above papers used by swarms of 'Bushbots' during the run-up to the Iraq invasion, I'm struck by the irony of the situation we're now in, in which the defence establishment are shitting themselves about Russian pulling the same sort of stuff and unable to come up with any coherent answer to it.

The problem being of course, once you let the mass disinformation genie out of the bottle ...
 
Last edited:
Being from Chatham House it's naturally going to be a bit prone to seeing reds under beds, but this is probably a bit more substantive than individual 'troll farm' media stories.

https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/...search/2016-03-21-russias-new-tools-giles.pdf

It's reasonably well-referenced and offers a context, albeit a defence establishment one, for understanding the evolution of Russian influence operations over the last decade or so. It's also likely to be the sort of context which the US intelligence community are coming from when making the charges of Russian interference in US politics being discussed above.

There's also this from the same author: 'Handbook of Russian Information Warfare'

In which we find the following quote.
V. Gerasimov - Chief of the Russian General Staff.

And this from one of his colleagues:


Having seen many of the techniques described by the author of the above papers used by swarms of 'Bushbots' during the run-up to the Iraq invasion, I'm struck by the irony of the situation we're now in, in which the defence establishment are shitting themselves about Russian pulling the same sort of stuff and unable to come up with any coherent answer to it.

The problem being of course, once you let the mass disinformation genie out of the bottle ...

I remember talking about the potential influence of PressTV and Russia Today back in 2011 and was pretty roundly dismissed so I stopped talking about it. I wonder how possible it is to know how much this stuff works to be honest. It is interesting how RT is able to straddle the line and add in a bit of ambiguity and in doing so is able to effectively attract both a far-right and a left-wing (of sorts) audience. It's all very adaptable, for example their Spanish language output is definitely not designed to appeal to the xenophobic, nativist tendencies that the RT English output prioritises.

The use of these sorts of tactics are pretty widespread in the West, as you mention with the 'Bushbots'. As I have mentioned on the other thread the Clinton campaign spent $1 million on trolls on twitter, reddit and facebook who mostly spent their time attacking Sanders supporters. This effort consisted of both algorithmic stuff like bots, but also I suspect quite articulate individuals who worked in similar conditions to the ones described in the Russian troll farms.

I suppose the question here is how well does all this work? Is it even possible to measure it? Russia lost control of Ukraine, Clinton lost the election.
 
You can tell how well the technical stuff, e.g. using bot armies to skew search results, works by doing analysis on data from Google Trends and similar sources. The political impact of influence operations is possible, but much more expensive, to measure. In effect it's a specialised variant of market research requiring them to set up and conduct masses of controlled interviews, focus groups and so on.

Here's what I got from reading that Chatham House guy's stuff above and quite a few of the sources that he's referencing:

The Russians have identified the same patterns of behaviour in relation to Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya etc as most anti-war westerners in terms of manufacturing causes for military intervention through PR spin campaigns in the mass media. They've also noticed information warfare techniques being heavily used in the 'Orange Revolutions', which they consider direct interference in their own sphere of influence and are totally paranoid about the Internet being used to foment dissent and organise regime change within that sphere.

So they've studied the techniques very very closely.

Their own initial attempts to do this sort of thing were pretty crude see e.g. the Chechen wars and to a lesser extent Georgia, but by combining what they've learned by actively studying the stuff the US/UK have been doing since the start of this century with recycled KGB thinking on influence operations and by absorbing talent, technique and technical assets from their flourishing (thanks to gangster capitalism being installed there in the late 20th century) cyber-crime underworld, they're starting to get fairly nifty in the last five years or so.

This is now a matter of intense concern among western strategic think tank types and likely also among the defence establishment.

What some of those researchers have noticed however, is that the 'Open Society with an educated populace proof against propaganda' defence against the newly discovered threat of Russian subversion via influence operations is seriously undermined by our own political classes being utterly addicted to the use of these techniques on their own electorates. (The 'Handbook of Russian Information Warfare' linked above makes this case very clearly in the last chapter or two.)

After spending several decades systematically cultivating a mass of credulous idiots easily swayed by 'strong man' rhetoric and political stunts and encouraging the media to abandon any lingering trace of social responsibility in favour of cheap sensation, they're noticing with horrified surprise that this body of technique works just as well for anyone with access to enough money and resources to play the game.
 
Last edited:
After spending several decades systematically cultivating a mass of credulous idiots easily swayed by 'strong man' rhetoric and political stunts and encouraging the media to abandon any lingering trace of social responsibility in favour of cheap sensation, they're noticing with horrified surprise that this body of technique works just as well for anyone with access to enough money and resources to play the game.

Like your post up until this bit really, I'm not sure that this stuff works because we are a 'mass of credulous idiots', I think it works because the material conditions are such that it is very easy for, willing and able, outside forces to tip the scales. The anti-refugee stuff, the populist economic stuff etc wouldn't have found nearly as wide an audience in the West prior to 2008. People are desperate, and an audience of desperate people are an easier audience to sell these narratives to, if the credulity is coming from anywhere it is there.
 
US government have released a report which may be meant to be the outcome of the inquiry Obama announced a couple of weeks ago.

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

It's a bit puzzling. The report doesn't really add anything to the conclusions already arrived at by Crowdstrike, the organisation the DNC hired to do cleanup and the information that's been in the public domain for years about the two probably Russian hacker organisations in question.

About half of it is concerned with explaining what CERT thinks good security practice looks like. It's all perfectly sensible stuff and would obviously be helpful advice to any organisation subjected to the attentions of unduly aggressive penis pill vendors.

I'm sceptical that it's going to do anyone much good if whoever it was who nicked a bunch of stuff off the NSA recently (apparently to troll them with) were to come calling.

The rest basically says what we already know, that evidence characteristic of the tools and techniques of the APT28 and APT29 hacker groups was found in the DNC network.

It doesn't really make any sort of compelling case linking that activity to a broader scheme for interfering with the results of the US elections.

I have to say I'm a bit confused by this. Is this actually the outcome of the inquiry Obama announced and whose conclusions have already been anticipated by various politicians and media channels?

Or is that still to come?
 
Last edited:
US government have released a report which may be meant to be the outcome of the inquiry Obama announced a couple of weeks ago.

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

It's a bit puzzling. The report doesn't really add anything to the conclusions already arrived at by Crowdstrike, the organisation the DNC hired to do cleanup and the information that's been in the public domain for years about the two probably Russian hacker organisations in question.

About half of it is concerned with explaining what CERT thinks good security practice looks like. It's all perfectly sensible stuff and would obviously be helpful advice to any organisation subjected to the attentions of unduly aggressive penis pill vendors.

I'm sceptical that it's going to do anyone much good if whoever it was who nicked a bunch of stuff off the NSA recently (apparently to troll them with) were to come calling.

The rest basically says what we already know, that evidence characteristic of the tools and techniques of the APT28 and APT29 hacker groups was found in the DNC network.

It doesn't really make any sort of compelling case linking that activity to a broader scheme for interfering with the results of the US elections.

I have to say I'm a bit confused by this. Is this actually the outcome of the inquiry Obama announced and whose conclusions have already been anticipated by various politicians and media channels?

Or is that still to come?

I had a quick read through this last night... My initial impression was that it's a half-arsed blend of scary technical sounding words blended with a pile of decade-plus-old copypasta (Applies to: Internet Information Services (IIS) 5.0, Microsoft Windows® 2000 operating system, last revised 2006, ffs) into a horse-shit smoothie that hopefully no-one will bother skimming past page 5. Interesting disclaimer at the top, too.

It's as if the holiday homework assignment was to produce a 'Peter and Jane' guide to computer security, but this pupil didn't get started until they were on the bus on Monday morning.

But that's probably me just jumping to conclusions. I might get round to reading it properly later. :)
 
Well, I'm not quite sure what I think about all this right now.

On the one hand, there's plenty of evidence from old school anti-malware people like f-secure about APT 28 & 29, evidence that they've been active around political targets and somewhat plausible stuff from Crowdstrike saying their traces were found in the DNC systems (followed by a leap to much broader conclusions sans any such evidence)

There's the Guccifer 2 and the Shadow Brokers stunts, and all kinds of inconclusive analysis around them pointing in different directions.

There's also evident concern among defence analysts not directly connected to the DNC stuff about Russian capabilities and intentions (especially in the light of Russian views on the 'Colour Revolutions') and on the challenges of effectively countering Russian influence operations while retaining the ability of our elites to continue to use much the same techniques themselves to shape the democratic process.

On the other hand though, there are strong indications of a PR spin campaign happening around this stuff in the US, especially post-election.
 
Last edited:
On the other hand though, there are strong indications of a PR spin campaign happening around this stuff, especially post-election.

Putin has also alluded to the idea that Russia 'helped a bit', but he would want people to that, wouldn't he?
 
With 50% of Clinton voters believing that Russia actively hacked into voting machines to change vote tallies, I get the feeling that many are not going to be too concerned about the specifics of any of this.
 
Bernie Gunther

Did you catch the Biddle piece in the Intercept a couple of days back?

we know intelligence is being gathered on a fine enough level to pin the breach of a single inbox on the Russian government. If the NSA could use signals intelligence to track a specific hack of an American email account in 2005, it’s not too much to assume that, 10 years later, the agency possesses the same or better capability.
 
As I understand it (and I'm no expert on defeating forensics) there are ways to make it very technically difficult to trace exfiltration across the network. What amounts to a private onion router system implemented as malware much like a botnet is one that I've heard of and I'm sure there are plenty of others.

Even apart from that though, someone can just put it on a USB drive in some neutral operational location and stick it in a Jiffy bag, then post it.

At least one of the groups in question is most likely cyber-criminals-for-hire from what the anti-malware people say about it. So hard to differentiate from the noise of Russia's thriving cyber-criminal underworld. Of course, that group also has a reputation for not giving a fuck whether they're noticed or not (someone is always going to click on their next phishing mail)

I don't think that it's established for sure that there's going to be a clear trail that spooks can follow across the internet back to GRU HQ, or to Wikieaks for that matter.
 
Last edited:
There's also a perfectly plausible scenario of hackers AND leakers. The russkis, Chinese etc may well have been hacking accounts simply to know what's going on . It doesn't mean it was them that leaked it though . There's plenty of motives and opportunities from within the Democrat camp for internal leaks . A lot of pissed off people .
 
The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up.
souce: Taibbi above.

That's one problem with it (he lists several others) and I share his concern here.

The way this is being sold to the media has a whiff of dodgy dossiers about it.
 
Last edited:
Anybody who believes the latest report issued by Obama as “proof” provides anything of the sort is very easily impressed by some entirely meaningless diagrams. William Binney, who was Technical Director at the NSA and actually designed their surveillance capabilities, has advised me by email. It is plain from the report itself that the Russian groups discussed have been under targeted NSA surveillance for a period longer than the timeframe for the DNC and Podesta leaks. It is therefore inconceivable that the NSA would not have detected and traced those particular data flows and they would be saved. In other words, the NSA would have the actual hack on record, would be able to recognise the emails themselves and tell you exactly the second the transmission or transmissions took place and how they were routed. They would be able to give you date, time and IP addresses. In fact, not only do they produce no evidence of this kind, they do not even claim to have this kind of definite evidence.
Exit Obama in a Cloud of Disillusion, Delusion and Deceit - Craig Murray
 
Russia Hysteria Infects WashPost Again: False Story About Hacking U.S. Electric Grid

THE WASHINGTON POST ON FRIDAY reported a genuinely alarming event: Russian hackers have penetrated the U.S. power system through an electrical grid in Vermont. The Post headline conveyed the seriousness of the threat:

washposthead-1000x95.png

The first sentence of the article directly linked this cyber-attack to alleged Russian hacking of the email accounts of the DNC and John Podesta – what is now routinely referred to as “Russian hacking of our election” – by referencing the code name revealed on Wednesday by the Obama administration when it announced sanctions on Russian officials: “A code associated with the Russian hacking operation dubbed Grizzly Steppe by the Obama administration has been detected within the system of a Vermont utility, according to U.S. officials.”

The Post article contained grave statements from Vermont officials of the type politicians love to issue after a terrorist attack to show they are tough and in control. The state’s Democratic Governor, Peter Shumlin, said:

Vermonters and all Americans should be both alarmed and outraged that one of the world’s leading thugs, Vladimir Putin, has been attempting to hack our electric grid, which we rely upon to support our quality-of-life, economy, health, and safety. This episode should highlight the urgent need for our federal government to vigorously pursue and put an end to this sort of Russian meddling.

Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy issued a statement warning: “This is beyond hackers having electronic joy rides – this is now about trying to access utilities to potentially manipulate the grid and shut it down in the middle of winter. That is a direct threat to Vermont and we do not take it lightly.”

The article went on and on in that vein, with all the standard tactics used by the U.S. media for such stories: quoting anonymous national security officials, reviewing past acts of Russian treachery, and drawing the scariest possible conclusions (“‘The question remains: Are they in other systems and what was the intent?’ a U.S. official said”).

....

WHAT’S THE PROBLEM HERE? It did not happen.

There was no “penetration of the U.S. electricity grid.” The truth was undramatic and banal. Burlington Electric, after receiving a Homeland Security notice sent to all U.S. utility companies about the malware code found in the DNC system, searched all their computers and found the code in a single laptop that was not connected to the electric grid.

Apparently, the Post did not even bother to contact the company before running its wildly sensationalistic claims, so they had to issue their own statement to the Burlington Free Press which debunked the Post’s central claim (emphasis in original): “We detected the malware in a single Burlington Electric Department laptop NOT connected to our organization’s grid systems.”

So the key scary claim of the Post story – that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid – was false. All the alarmist tough-guy statements issued by political officials who believed the Post’s claim were based on fiction.

Even worse, there is zero evidence that Russian hackers were responsible even for the implanting of this malware on this single laptop. The fact that malware is “Russian-made” does not mean that only Russians can use it; indeed, like a lot of malware, it can purchased (as Jeffrey Carr has pointed out in the DNC hacking context, assuming that Russian-made malware must have been used by Russians is as irrational as finding a Russian-made Kalishnikov AKM rifle at a crime scene and assuming the killer must be Russian).
 
Various security professionals, quoted here in Ars, are apparently as confused as I was by that US govt report.
"This ultimately seems like a very rushed report put together by multiple teams working different data sets and motivations," Robert M. Lee, CEO and Founder of the security company Dragos, wrote in a critique published Friday. "It is my opinion and speculation that there were some really good government analysts and operators contributing to this data and then report reviews, leadership approval processes, and sanitation processes stripped out most of the value and left behind a very confusing report trying to cover too much while saying too little."

The sloppiness, Lee noted, included the report's conflation of Russian hacking groups APT28 and APT29—also known as CozyBear, Sandworm, Sednit, and Sofacy, among others—with malware names such as BlackEnergy and Havex, and even hacking capabilities such as "Powershell Backdoor." The mix up of such basic classifications does little to inspire confidence that the report was carefully or methodically prepared. And that only sows more reasons for President elect Donald Trump and his supporters to cast doubt on the intelligence community's analysis on a matter that, if true, poses a major national security threat.
White House fails to make case that Russian hackers tampered with election
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom