Domain: bitly.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to bitly.com.
Comments · 7
-
seems exactly what bromium have been doing...
-
Re:Overkill to going to fix this?
I can see it all now, hacked cars all across America, warning their half somnolent passenger/drivers of the imminent splatter about to feature on the windscreen, accompanied by the dulcet tones of: http://bitly.com/98K8eH
-
Re:Extra confusing..
> purportedly phished
At least for the Podesta emails, we have good reason to believe that. I've covered this several times previously in comments, but we have some pretty good evidence when you line things up with the timing of it:
* A spear phishing email to Podesta conveniently dated not long before the dump ends.
* The stats page for the bit.ly phishing link says the link was used twice in the right time frame.Slashdot finally covered this story via thehill.com, some weeks after I had already dissected it in comments and in that they appear to admit to getting phished, blaming it on a "typo" (which is highly suspect, but whatever).
I'd write more submissions about this sort of thing, but there appears to be an organized effort going around marking anything they don't like as "SPAM" in the firehose (like this), as I've also seen happen abusively to other submissions on this site. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm tagging herbal viagra ads as 'binspam', not stories I disagree with. I'd much rather disagree with someone openly than sneak around and try to hide inconvenient facts. If the facts stop agreeing with me, I'd much rather start rethinking my positions than playing blame games.
Finally, for those having trouble keeping all the dumps straight, I left this comment some time ago that will help to clarify. There have been a lot of dumps and there are some people who like to confuse and conflate these issues.
-
Re: Article disagreement
They leaked some old ones, actually: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?_r=0
As for this story, it makes no sense. The email in question is here and for some reason, I was unable to find any links to it in either article. As an aside, why do media outlets fail so badly at citing sources like this? It should be utterly basic journalism, but the major papers routinely fail to do this very basic step and wonder why bloggers eat their lunch... This was first reported many weeks ago, they're severely behind the times on this. I mean, you know it's bad when you're scooped by Slashdot commenters.... sheesh!
Back on topic, the relevant part of the response to the spear phishing email says this:
This is a legitimate email. John needs to change his password immediately, and ensure that two-factor authentication is turned on his account. He can go to this link: https://myaccount.google.com/s... to do both. It is absolutely imperative that this is done ASAP.
If you or he has any questions, please reach out to me at [redacted]
It's definitely an illegitimate email, but there's more wrong with the statement above than just typing "a legitimate email" instead "an illegitimate email." Being illegitimate means they DON'T yet have his password, so there would be no reason to change it and no good reason to advise that! Two-factor authentication, however, is very reasonable.
We know from the stats on the bit.ly link to the phishing page that Podesta didn't follow his instructions to go to https://myaccount.google.com/security though, and it's true that we can't hold Charles Delavan responsible for that part.
-
It's easier if you know there are 3 sets of leaks
The Russian hacker thing is especially bad because I've seen how many people can't comprehend that there are no less than 3 different leaks in play here. Or especially they conflate Hillary's private email server with the DNC leaks. Yes, there probably are some emails common to all the dumps--Podesta certainly emailed Hillary & the DNC and vice versa--but they could not have been obtained all in the same way, as we will see below:
Hillary's emails
Allegedly hacked from her home server, but we have no logs of this. She turned over paper copies. Some redacted emails (on paper) were released by the FBI. This has never been fully turned over to the public (or to the people investigating Benghazi). Trump joked that Russia (or whoever) could always release these after the fact, but nobody ever has released them all, including Hillary herself. We have posts by
/u/stonetear on Reddit, who was a staffer there, talking about selectively wiping emails in the right time frame. All of this is public evidence that has been seen (and archived) by many people, unless someone wants to claim that /u/Spez edited that in to make Hillary look bad :)Podesta's Gmail account
This was hacked by a very simply spear phishing email. It's DKIM validated by both Hillary & Google's servers, so anyone claiming this is fake can be proven wrong mathematically. Google signs them with the b and bh parameters (body & body hash) so no, it doesn't just cover the headers, but the body too. And no, there is a way to revoke the keys. Go look up the selector in the DKIM header if you know how, both keys are still there as of right now.
We also have good reason to believe they fell for this, both because we can see the staff saying this is real and because bit.ly has that link being clicked on twice in the relevant time frame as you can see from their stats page for the link: https://bitly.com/1PibSU0+
That bit.ly link resolves to a
.TK URL the lameness filter hates which is obviously fake. You can see it from the previous stats page if you're curious. The TK domain is Tokelau, which a territory of New Zealand, if you were wondering. The phishing email itself claims there were hack attempts from the Ukraine.DNC Leaks
This is alleged to have been leaked by a DNC insider. Wikileaks pointed out the suspicious death of DNC intern Seth Rich who was murdered but not robbed in the middle of the night. They have put up a reward for information on his killer(s). At this time, no one has been identified as the leaker, though there are a lot of stories quoting anonymous insiders claiming circumstantial evidence. There was also the 17 agencies of the USIC (i.e., the Coast Guard & co.) whose director put out a statement saying this was exactly the kind of thing Russia might do, but they did not give any specific evidence therein.
You can find more discussion about that here: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/
-
Torrent?
Sadly no torrent links to download this thing. Anyone have one? Their download link http://bitly.com/12core641 redirects to Sourceforge of all terrible places.
-
Re:Why use HTTP Compression?
I'm not stupid enough to click something suspicious like that.
What I took from this is that you're "stupid enough" not to know how to preview short URLs.