Slashdot Mirror
John McAfee Thinks North Korea Hacked Dyn, and Iran Hacked the DNC (csoonline.com)
"The Dark Web is rife with speculation that North Korea is responsible for the Dyn hack" says John McAfee, according to a new article on CSO:
McAfee said they certainly have the capability and if it's true...then forensic analysis will point to either Russia, China, or some group within the U.S. [And] who hacked the Democratic National Committee? McAfee -- in an email exchange and follow up phone call -- said sources within the Dark Web suggest it was Iran, and he absolutely agrees. While Russian hackers get more media attention nowadays, Iranian hackers have had their share... "The Iranians view Trump as a destabilizing force within America," said McAfee. "They would like nothing more than to have Trump as President....
"If all evidence points to the Russians, then, with 100% certainty, it is not the Russians. Anyone who is capable of carrying out a hack of such sophistication is also capable, with far less effort than that involved in the hack, of hiding their tracks or making it appear that the hack came from some other quarter..."
Bruce Schneier writes that "we don't know anything much of anything" about yesterday's massive DDOS attacks. "If I had to guess, though, I don't think it's China. I think it's more likely related to the DDoS attacks against Brian Krebs than the probing attacks against the Internet infrastructure..." Earlier this month Krebs had warned that source code had been released for the massive DDOS attacks he endured in September, "virtually guaranteeing that the Internet will soon be flooded with attacks from many new botnets powered by insecure routers, IP cameras, digital video recorders and other easily hackable devices."
"If all evidence points to the Russians, then, with 100% certainty, it is not the Russians. Anyone who is capable of carrying out a hack of such sophistication is also capable, with far less effort than that involved in the hack, of hiding their tracks or making it appear that the hack came from some other quarter..."
Bruce Schneier writes that "we don't know anything much of anything" about yesterday's massive DDOS attacks. "If I had to guess, though, I don't think it's China. I think it's more likely related to the DDoS attacks against Brian Krebs than the probing attacks against the Internet infrastructure..." Earlier this month Krebs had warned that source code had been released for the massive DDOS attacks he endured in September, "virtually guaranteeing that the Internet will soon be flooded with attacks from many new botnets powered by insecure routers, IP cameras, digital video recorders and other easily hackable devices."
John McAfee Thinks People Care What John McAfee Thinks
Russia is perfectly capable of covering up their tracks. However, to assume that they would want to do that is to miss about 90% of what that country is about right now. Their Ministry of Defence has issued and awarded medals in commemoration of the close overflight of USS Cook, and the "stupid Americans shit themselves and deserted in droves when they saw what our planes could do to their rustbuckets" is not even a meme anymore - it's an established fact.
Oh, and McAfee is a fool.
Otherwise, there would be nothing for him to say
Wild speculation from a crazy guy? Thanks Slashdot.
But isn't McAfee that guy who bragged about hiring a hooker to do his taxes while he screwed his accountant?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
There's lots of senseless finger-pointing going around. Anonymous doesn't get anything by shutting down Netflix (Americans aren't going to pressure the State Dept. over it to restore Julian's internet). So, who benefits by shutting down Twitter while Wikileaks is rolling out anti-Clinton hits and the Twitterverse is trying to work out what the leaks mean? North Korea? Only if they're doing it for the lulz. Or promises of favorable treatment under a Clinton administration.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
If it really is state-level actors, then why is Stuxnet the only US-sponsored or US-led attack on others? I don't see any stories about the NSA being suspected about taking out all of Russia or Iran or China's internet in retaliation. It'd be simple eye-for-an-eye between states and it's not as if the NSA is too moral to retaliate. The NSA is also the world's most powerful IT weapon.
The hooker was a CPA and just earns on the side during the off-tax part of the year.
Ahh to be working through college again!
NSA whistleblower says DNC hack was not done by Russia, but by U.S. intelligence
That's what I saw on FB
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
What that narcissist fugitive murderer thinks
No, she's not the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being, she just happens to be the only sane one running for President.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Other than he likes to get his name in the press
Stop posting all the crap this guy talks. It's like old rancid meme, no one wants to hear about it anymore.
This is a country with virtually no internet, comparatively few computers (per capita) and, as such, minimal infrastructure to nurture and support high-level programmers.
How then, would North Korea be responsible for major hacking when other countries with vast numbers of programmers could be responsible? China, India, Pakistan, Russia and any number of underground American anarchistic groups are vastly more equipped to do so.
Let's say, for a moment, that North Korea DID hack DYN. Where would they get the expertise? Well, who's their neighbour? China. Why does their neighbour tolerate North Korea rather that simply rolling over it? So they can use North Korea as a pawn/puppet to launch clandestine attacks.
I'm not suggesting China did it, I am just suggesting that it is highly unlikely that North Korea did it.
*** Don't be dull.***
Why do people give this guy attention?
He will say anything to get it.
How have you not learned yet?
His "dark web sources" are just fellow meth heads on AlphaBay.
Iran has no reason to hack the DNC. The Democrats have given them all that they could have ever hoped for and more.
> she just happens to be the only sane one running for President.
Howard Stern, Donald Trump, and Lady Gaga have quite a flair for being outrageous,a natural showmanship. In other words, they are clowns. None are good choices for president, IMHO.
On the other hand, we have Hillary. Here's how WebMD describes Antisocial Personality Disorder, also known as sociopathy:
--
Symptoms usually include antisocial behavior in which there is little concern for the rights of others such as indifference to the moral or legal standards of the region or community. A key to the disorder is long lasting, persistent, manipulative, exploitive actions and manners that determinedly ignore others
--
"little concern for the rights of others such as indifference to the moral or legal standards", " long lasting, persistent, manipulative, exploitive actions" - that sure seems to describe what Hillary has been manifesting since at least 1977. While Trump is most assuredly a clown, Hillary is very likely a sociopath, so "the only sane one" would have to go to the clown, Trump.
http://www.recode.net/2015/9/2...
Who?
The United States has traditionally been on the side of Saudis and friends in the Middle East. The Saudis want Assad gone. Iran wants Assad to stay. Israel wants its enemy, Syria, to be as damaged as possible. Syria has fought several wars with Israel, and has no peace agreement.
When I was younger, I always wondered why the Saudis donated money to the Bush sr., and Clinton presidential libraries. I think Syria shows why.
The problem is al qaeda is on the side of the Saudis. Hezbollah merely threatens Israel. Trump would effectively ditch the Saudis, unless they pay America for mercenary work.
The odd place is Afghanistan. Iran hates America. Iran also doesn't like the Taliban.
Let alone the brain damage, I don't find snorting coke all that respectable at all. That's just a giant waste of money, earth and human lives. What's wrong with you. Always pissing away a few days worth of grocery for what exactly? Can't you just get wasted like everyone, and not fund murders with your "hard won" monies.
I also like tea. Costs like 2 or 3 cents a gram and you can even brew the motherfucker twice if so inclined. Chicory coffee mix is cheaper.
Now what about making most drugs legal, I'm sure the cost of amphetamines and stuff would plummet and you could get so high quality low dose of some mix for cheap. But fuck cocaine still. Go sniff some sweaty ass crack or have sex with your dogs for the thrill.
McAfee is fucking nuts. Remember this is the man that moved halfway across the world to take viagra and cocaine non-stop and killed his neighbor's dog.
Sure he had some credibility decades ago, but now he's like Tommy Chong -- a shambling incoherent mess from years of heavy drug abuse who makes little to no sense. Why report on anything he says?
The problem with your attempt to define Hillary as a psychopath / sociopath (both deprecated terms, they're not long enough) is context. In the setting of politics, media and business those traits are actually highly functional. That's how you get ahead in those fields. Then you run into the Peter Principle but that is another problem.
You missed the preamble to the personality disorders. They are spectrums and they can only be really defined as a disorder when they cause harm. As far as politicians are concerns both Hillary and Donald are at the top of their respective fields. For the rest of us, not so much.
Hillary is certainly sociopathic as it relates to the vast majority of humans - but that's why she is where she is. Donald is most assuredly a narcissist and again, it's gotten him to the Republican candidate for the President of the United States, something hundreds if not thousands of other people are actively aspiring to. The line between all of the personality disorders is a pretty soft one, there is often a lot of overlap.
It is an unfortunate part of the structure of human nature, but that's how we roll. We're not Vulcans. Which version of crazy to you want running the country?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Maybe this insightful commentary really comes from McAfee's tax accountant - or from a prostitute in Bangkok... :-D
Isn't it time the tech community wrote him a Dear John letter?
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
So what are your qualifications to diagnose psychiatric conditions, and how many times have you met with Clinton to confirm your observations? I mean, you wouldn't just be some asshole on the Internet googling up WebMD and then simply forcefitting your personal beliefs on Clinton into what really is a very general description from an online site, would you?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Six measures Trump vows to take during first 100 days as president:
1. "A Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress."
2. "A hiring freeze on all federal employees."
3. "A requirement that for every new federal regulation, 2 existing regulations must be eliminated."
4. "A 5-year ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government."
5. "A lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government."
6. "A complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections."
Oh yeah, compleeeete insanity /s
The whole stinking system is corrupt and here's finally someone who says they're going to do something about it. No wonder the establishment is in full-on panic mode and is doing everything in their power to sway public sentiment against him: Lying, vote rigging, smear campaigns, media collusion, manipulation of public polling results, incitement of violence at his rallies, suspiciously convenient victims crawling out of woodwork to accuse him of crimes only now.
It's only a matter of time before they get so desperate that they attempt the unthinkable. If he wins, they'll actually have to face an unrigged justice system, and they are absolutely terrified of that.
They've completely steamrolled both Hillary and Obama's foreign policy, why would they be afraid of a Hillary presidency?
Iran or North Korea are crazy enough to think Trump will destabilize anything to a significant degree (other than the Good Ol' Boys network as it exists right now).
This message has been brought to you by the coalition of Republicrat douchebags.
Seriously, I can't fucking believe this is modded up, as if these are the only two people in the country who are running.
Plenty of countries have abolished first past the post elections. The first step in doing it over here is demonstrating an actual desire for a third party. Vote Johnson or Stein or whomever else you fancy. Don't let anyone win you vote by default because they claim to be the only not-Trump party. Lots of parties are the not-Trump party.
Will Slashdot please stop linking to anything but this guys obituary (which I will bet good money will come before the next presidency). He was an asshat with questionable morals before he decided Heart of Darkness was a self-help guide and went full-tilt crazy. Seriously, watch Gringo: The dangerous life of John McAfee, there are some striking parallels between McAfee and Kurtz.
Item 1 is likely never going to fly, and I question the legitimacy of it anyways. If voters in a district or state like their representative, why shouldn't they be able to run for an open ended number of terms? There are some decent reasons for limiting the President's terms, but none of those really apply to Representatives or Senators. It's like declaring "All engineers and doctors must retire after ten years!" Beyond that, I doubt there would ever be enough approval among the states to get it through.
Item 2 is silly. You can't say what needs may come in the future. Mindless freezes won't do anybody any good.
Item 3 is the same kind of idiotic item 2 is. Why should there be some upper limit of regulations? There's no real coherent philosophy here at all.
So while some policies might make some sense, others are just stupid, and item 1 at least is almost certainly never going to happen. And considering Trump's long history of pretty dubious deals, what makes you think he's the man to do any of it, when even his own tax plan would both increase the debt and largely only help people like Donald Trump, which means he'd simply be adding to the kinds of policies that screw over the average person.
But you've also left out some items:
Item 7 - Abuse his position of head of the executive branch to pursue his political opponent.
Item 8 - Sue the women claiming he sexually assaulted him. This one is particularly stupid because, of course, suing them means they in turn get to delve into his sexual history via discovery, which could lead to both civil and criminal charges against him. This is what I'd call the Oscar Wilde Blunder; mainly because it resembles what Wilde did when he was openly accused of homosexual acts by the father of his lover; the Marquess Queensbury. Wilde decided to sue the Marquess, and of course, the trial inevitably lead to Wilde being outed, and then charged and convicted of moral turpitude. So if I were Donald Trump, win or lose, i'd probably stay away from civil trials over his alleged sexual escapades.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I wouldn't consider charging into a world war that will involve nuclear weapons the actions of a sane person.
Please call her what she is, which is George W. Bush in a dress. If you're voting for her, that's pretty much what you're voting for.
Who gives a damn what that flake says?
From a timing perspective, it seems to me that it is either Russia or Wikileaks. The US was threatening some sort of retaliation against Russia for the DNC hacks, and, of course, it is annoying to have one's internet cut-off (Wikileaks).
> Donald is most assuredly a narcissist and again, it's gotten him to the Republican candidate for the President of the United States
Definitely. One staffer who worked directly with three or four presidents said is his book that all four had very similar personalities. The most striking thing was their arrogance, ego. The bastards all thought they could and should be president! Trump is no exception.
> The problem with your attempt to define Hillary as a psychopath / sociopath ... can only be really defined as a disorder when they cause harm.
Certainly you're not suggesting that Hillary's complete disregard of other people's welfare in the face of her own ambitions has done no harm. Ambassador Stevens and the others who begged for proper security would disagree. Certainly the typical "psycho killer" does sufficient harm to others that it qualifies as a disorder, one need not harm themselves directly. Though it seems rather likely that her marriage to philanderer Bill is probably not so much fulfilling as it is a tool of her selfish ambition, so I'm sure thatbtype of thing has done her sufficient personal harm. From what we've seen publicly, it doesn't appear that she's capable of normal close relationships with others; other people are merely tools, means to her ends. That's certainly harmful.
John McAfee should have been Donald Trumps running mate.
Source Address Validation?
Cable modem's have the capability, if big C's s/w asked them to do it.
While Trump is most assuredly a clown, Hillary is very likely a sociopath, so "the only sane one" would have to go to the clown, Trump.
What color is the sky in a world in which running a visa mill, bragging about having sexually abused many women, raping at least one woman, and Trump's typical deliberate corporate malfeasance are not sociopathic behavior? Does photosynthesis work on your planet?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
> bragging about having sexually abused many women, raping at least one woman
But enough about Bill Clinton. How about having a full-time attacking the victims in order to reduce the damage to your husband's political reputation?
Except there isn't going to be a world war. Putin isn't suicidal, and isn't going to start lobbing nukes at the US or its allies.
For fucks sake, we went through this for forty years during the Cold war, and there were a few moments then where tensions did get dangerously hot, and nothing happening now even comes close. Yes, Russia is saber rattling, and NATO is back, just like the old days, but just like then, it's as much for domestic consumption as anything else, and the Russia of 2016 is a pale shadow of the Soviet Union.
Among all the anti-Clinton talking points, including that she's some sort of Mafia don who takes out hits on people, this one is probably the most moronic and hyperbolic.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Until the US has a different voting system for presidents, you're stuck with the two big party candidates, with third party candidates simply acting as proxies. Besides, voters don't elect a president, they elect an electoral college whose members are pledged to vote for a certain candidate.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
the mighty sjw returns
Until the US has a different voting system for presidents, you're stuck with the two big party candidates, with third party candidates simply acting as proxies.
That's only true if you're going to be stubbornly myopic about the whole thing. The more votes third parties get, the more politicians will sit up and realize that they might be able to make a name for themselves (and get revenge at an ossified party structure that many of them probably despise) by sponsoring legislation to abolish first past the post ballots, or at least start supporting an alternative wing of their party a bit more openly.
Besides, voters don't elect a president, they elect an electoral college whose members are pledged to vote for a certain candidate.
All the more reason not to throw away your vote on Trump or Hillary.
1. Take power away from and even punish the free press.
2. Allow more countries to have nuclear weapons
3. Cede Eastern Europe to Russia
4. Punish women for having abortions
5. Contest the election when he loses
6. Try to force our ally to fund building a ridiculous wall between our countries
No one who reads Slashdot should be supporting Trump. This is news for nerds, not news for rubes.
Time makes more converts than reason
Except Putin is a former KGB agent who has been coalescing power for more than a decade. This is not the same situation and treating it as such is naive.
Time makes more converts than reason
See subject: It truly makes me laugh (& so does anyone else) @ your antics - why? You're not 1/10th as accomplished as he is nor will you EVER be... & you know it.
* Takes a serious scumbag to even attempt to "put down" your betters when YOU haven't done shit...
(He MAY "march to a different drummer" than most do but as the saying goes? "The road not taken" & look where he is + what's he's managed to do in 1 lifetime - THEN, look @ yourself... ok?)
APK
P.S.=> It TRULY must really suck to be like "your kind" (loser "ne'er-do-wells") who apparently are PERFECT & without sin (yea, right... lol)... apk
The nearsightedness is refusing to fix the fundamental problem. It's the Congress. If it represented a full picture of society, a more inclusive presidency would follow.
Fix the root, not the crown.
"Lady Gaga ..."
Yolandi Vi$$er for president!
So clearly it couldn't have been us!!!
I think you don't understand, she is sane about selling our future to wall street... is not something I would overlook.
Glad I left the US years ago, you lot have run it into the ground.
"So what are your qualifications to diagnose psychiatric conditions"
Do you have qualifications to make the diagnosis?
Because if you don't, then there is no point in questioning someone else when you wouldn't (by your own logic) have the knowledge to make a diagnosis in that field either. I.e. you wouldn't know if you could or couldn't use "WebMD" to make an accurate diagnosis.
A lot of people disagree with you. That's the problem with opinions.
I'll address the points I know something about:
2. Allow more countries to have nuclear weapons
They're sovereign nations. Other nations don't have a say in whether said sovereign nations can have nuclear weapons or not, especially if those other nations already have nuclear weapons (fucking hypocrites).
3. Cede Eastern Europe to Russia
America doesn't own any of Europe. America has no sovereign power outside its borders. America should stop being World Police and take care of its own people.
5. Contest the election when he loses
A correction: Contest the election if he loses, and if he believes that the result was not fair. And all that means is that a court challenge would ensue where upon he would need to provide evidence of foul play.
6. Try to force our ally to fund building a ridiculous wall between our countries
You mean finish the wall. It already exists for about a third of the border.
WTF Does he not even consider the possibility that the hacks aren't meant to be truly secret, merely deniable. It would hardly make a very effective threat/warning if the target didn't realize where the attack came from.
It wouldn't make much sense for Putin to say, "Nice democracy you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to it," if we believed the DNC hack came from the North Koreans.
Besides, we didn't want stuxnet attributed to us but that didn't able us to guarantee everyone believed someone else did it.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
He's so much of a nut job, if this guy offed a couple folks, he'd be on the same level as Charles Manson.
I'm more concerned over the discussion that the DNC hack is being seen as an attack on America, warranting retaliation. Those who support such an act are as big of a sweaty nut job as McAfee.
To Slashdot: don't feed the troll.
...googling up WebMD ...
How dare you accuse a member of the alt-right of using expert opinion? He would never consult WebMD for what he could pull out of his behind.
Lol, sane according to you.
I'd ask what qualifications you have to make that determination but that would be just too rich.
This seems unlikely to me.
Considering Clinton supported and is a fan of the nuclear deal Obama made with Iran to lift sanctions, it would appear that she would be the favorite candidate for Iran self interest.
Considering that Trump has said publicly that he thinks that deal was horrible and that he could have done much better getting the US a better deal (presumably a worse deal for Iran), and the hard line he has taken with what he thinks of Iran and nukes etc... I seriously doubt Trump would be a better candidate for Iran's self interest, and can't really believe that anyone within the Iran power structure would think so. Unless of course they think he would be more disruptive to the US than even the damage he might do to Iran.