Slashdot Mirror


Payback? Russia Gets Hacked, Revealing Putin Aide's Secrets (nbcnews.com)

Ukrainian activists have compromised 2,337 messages in the Microsoft Outlook accounts of two assistants to a top aide of Vladimir Putin. An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes NBC News: A Ukrainian group calling itself Cyber Hunta has released more than a gigabyte of emails and other material from the office of one of Vladimir Putin's top aides, Vladislav Surkov, that show Russia's fingerprints all over the separatist movement in Ukraine. While the Kremlin has denied the relationship between Moscow and the separatists, the emails show in great detail how Russia controlled virtually every detail of the separatist effort in the Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine, which has torn the country apart and led to a Russian takeover of Crimea...

"This is a serious hack," said Maks Czuperski, head of the Digital Forensic Research Lab of the Atlantic Council, which has searched through the email dump and placed selected emails online. "We have seen so much happen to the United States, other countries at the hands of Russia," said Czuperski. "Not so much to Russia. It was only a question of time that some of the anonymous guys like Cyber Hunta would come to strike them back."

A senior U.S. intelligence official told NBC News that the U.S. "had no role" in the breach -- but when asked if the material was authentic, replied there was "nothing to indicate otherwise."

24 of 228 comments (clear)

  1. Breaking news! by ls671 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Breaking news!

    Reports state that Vladislav Surkov has been seen en route to Siberia.

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  2. Good! by ooloorie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I approve of governments hacking each other and sharing each other's dirty little secrets with the public. Adversarial systems work well in the service of justice and honesty.

    I hope someone hacks Merkel's and May's E-mails too and publishes them. Unfortunately, the Germans are likely too careful to let that happen.

    1. Re:Good! by RandomSurfer314 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've never been a fan of Merkel (wrong party anyway), but I'm pretty sure that her emails wouldn't reveal anything but hard work and things we already know. Whether you agree with her or not, this woman earns some respect, especially since she has clearly chosen her Christian and humanist ideals over her political future when she decided a refugee politics that is compatible with the German constitution instead of carving in to dumb populism.

    2. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Typical leftist M.O. Cloak their evil acts in a facade of humanitarianism, and if anyone disagrees with the policy, scream that they're a racist, xenophobe, bigot, *ist, *ophobe, or literally hitler.

    3. Re:Good! by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      The only one I hear claiming that is Clinton

      Really? Here, let me help you out with that.

      The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

      Continuing...

      she has the poorest record of telling the truth of any politician ever

      Have some nice charts

      Anyway, as for this hack: I actually doubt this was the US. One, the US generally gives "won't confirm or deny" statements in situations like this, rather than outright denial. Second, Ukraine has an awful lot of computer talent on their own, and all the motive in the world. A lot of people in the US don't realize that the industry that's booming the most in Ukraine right now is IT; they're a popular outsourcing destination for Europe.

      --
      "He's a god; it'll take more than one shot." â" Lady Eboshi, Mononoke Hime
    4. Re:Good! by Rei · · Score: 2

      I actually feel bad for the more moderate GOP elements. I grew up in a conservative family in the US (no longer live in the US - but US politics affects us all). While there's many in the party who love Trump, there's also a lot who despise him and all he stands for - but feel they have no other option.

      While I have no sympathy for people who cast their vote out of bigotry (against races, religions, sexualities, genders, etc), for people who cast it out of ideology, I can fully understand, even where I don't agree. Example: much of my family is anti-abortion; I'm not. But there's no bigotry behind pro-lifers; it just comes down to a different worldview. To people like me, that which gives us our humanity, that which makes us "us" - personality, feelings, memories, reasoning, etc - all arises in the brain. No brain, no moral issues. To most pro-lifers, the root of humanity is a soul, gifted at conception. No amount of "reasoning" about the details of abortion will cause a person to just jump from one side of this divide to the other when the basic worldview premises that underlie the ethics are so disjoint.

      Should I be hateful toward pro-lifers because they have a different worldview than me - even though they seek actions that harm me and people I care about? No - because they're not doing so out of hate or bigotry. I will politically resist them, but I still feel bad for them, and economic conservatives, and so forth in this election who ended up with this guy as their candidate, who they don't want to support but feel they have to. When Trump (barring a historically unprecedented upset) loses next week, I certainly won't be gloating. But as for any people voting for him out of ethnic, religious, sexuality or gender bigotry... yeah, enjoy venting your impotent rage, deplorables.

      --
      "He's a god; it'll take more than one shot." â" Lady Eboshi, Mononoke Hime
    5. Re:Good! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I approve of governments hacking each other and sharing each other's dirty little secrets with the public.

      Indeed. For an example of what happens when we don't do this, look at Europe exactly 100 years ago. WW1 was caused by secret agreements, and massive misunderstanding of other countries intentions. For instance, the Germans were shocked when Britain entered the war against them. They shouldn't have been. There were even misunderstandings between allies. The Austrians expected the Germans to defend their eastern border while they invaded Serbia. Instead, Germany sent 90% of its army against France, leaving the Austrians to face the full force of the Russian offensive into Galicia. If the spies had done their jobs, perhaps the war could have been avoided.

      It would be best if countries would volunteer to be transparent, but that is not realistic. So leaks, hacking, and spying are the only way to prevent excessive secrecy, and the corruption and misjudgement that goes with it.

    6. Re:Good! by RandomSurfer314 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You write that because you have a preconceived dogmatic political agenda and are unable to step out of it even for a moment. I've met many people on the right and on the left who have this problem (lack of understanding other political positions), especially those at the extremes of the spectrum. Okay, you think she doesn't have any Christian and humanist ideals. So what, maybe you're right, but that's not what I'm talking about. Still she has managed to get through some policies against the will of most in her own party, against most of the opposition and against many in the population, knowing very well that step would ruin her career. That alone deserves some credits, because most other German politicians are way more opportunistic.

    7. Re:Good! by sgtsquid · · Score: 2

      Yes, Trump is a monster. Specifically, he is the Boogie Man, who we make up stories about to scare little children. Let's just avoid talking about the alternative, shall we?

    8. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except that Merkel is not a leftist, at least for European standards. She heads a centre-right coalition with strong Christian roots. This given, she's probably more on the left of the political spectrum than Hillary Clinton, but that's because the US political system is strongly shifted towards the right.

    9. Re:Good! by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

      Re, late term abortion: just over 1% of abortions are late term. Of these, the overwhelming majority are due to severe fetal deformities/other issues - commonly fatal. I ask people to put themselves in the mother's situation. You're pregnant, most of the way through your pregnancy and you receive the most devastating news you could get. Perhaps your child's brain never developed. Perhaps their lungs are deformed, and your only experience with your child will be watching them gasp and suffocate before they die. These are the real-world situations mothers face when having to make the decision about a late-term abortion. Random combinations of genes don't always play nicely. Meanwhile, you're still pregnant. You've still got people coming up, smiles on their faces, "Oh, when's the baby due? I bet you're so excited!", and having to explain to them every time that your child will die at birth.

      What's the purpose of dragging it out? To make the mother suffer? To make the child suffer?

      Another misconception is that late term abortions are D&E. They almost never are. Not only is it medically preferable to induce labour whenever the uterus is capable of it, but there comes a point where D&E isn't even a realistic medical possibility. If an induced miscarriage leads to a potentially viable child - evaluated by the same medical standards as for non-induced delivery - by law doctors are required to perform any life-saving procedures, within the same decisionmaking confines.

      The Trump view of people "ripping babies" out of uteruses at "nine months" for no reason and killing them isn't even remotely close to the actuality. It's a unicorn. To be fair, Clinton misstated it also, describing the life of the mother as being a common cause for late-term abortion (it isn't).

      Anyway, I think I've accidentally derailed things a bit here, and should apologize for that.

      Sweden, eh? Iceland is my home - if you move, welcome to the Nordic club. :) Today's actually our election day here, and we may end up with a Pirate-headed government. I know the guy who's one of the most likely PM candidates if the pirates end up leading a coalition government; I think most Slashdotters would love him. Worked first setting up fab labs around the world and infrastructure for sharing medical/educational info in poor countries, then spent the past several years working on a project to datamine government reports to root out indications of secret diversion of money (corruption, weapons smuggling, things of that nature).

      --
      "He's a god; it'll take more than one shot." â" Lady Eboshi, Mononoke Hime
    10. Re:Good! by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      One of the standard rhetorical tricks in a debate, particular one on a very emotive issue, is to appeal to the most extreme cases. Clinton may have got some details wrong, but the one thing she was right about is just how very rare these extreme late term abortions Trump was talking about are. Abortions carried out after 21 weeks make up 1.4% of all abortions in the US, and the number of extreme late term abortions at 24 weeks or more probably amount to less than a tenth of a percent. But because abortions that occur earlier don't really allow for the kind of shocking imagery the pro-life crowd likes to wave around, they go for the outliers, and Clinton was right to point out that these extremely rare cases are complicated, and that the government shouldn't be intervening in such medical decisions. Otherwise you end up with something like the Savita Halappanavar case in Ireland.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    11. Re:Good! by johanw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Trump really doesn't care about abortion but he has to take a stand against it to get the votes of the huge number of christian fundamentalists in the US.

    12. Re:Good! by ooloorie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Russia is using its hacks to run a smear campaign against one candidate

      (1) That is Hillary's claim, not fact.

      (2) What has come to light isn't a "smear campaign", it is actual facts about Hillary and her lies and deceptions, facts that US voters are entitled to.

      (3) The simplest explanation why there is nothing like this being released on Trump is that (a) Trump has not engaged in Hillary's level of corruption and deception, and/or (b) Trump's staff isn't terminally incompetent when dealing with E-mail, like Hillary and the DNC.

      to interfere with the Democratic election in another country

      And if that "interference" consists of exposing fraud, corruption, and deception by one of the candidates, I think it's a good thing.

      Furthermore, foreign governments have a legitimate interest in not having to deal with a lying, crooked war-monger like Hillary. I would see no reason to fault them for that even if Hillary's beliefs about who is doing this are true.

    13. Re:Good! by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

      You get your news about Russia from RT? Heh. If you're not a paid shill, use some basic common sense and read about Russia from a neutral country's media -- say China.

      So a corporatists scale of those who want to steal everything on the left and those who want to kill everyone on the right.

      Democrats and republicans have long been in agreement on killing everybody (everybody who looks at us wrong or has oil, anyway). They both want to steal too, the difference is who they want to take from and give to. Both parties want to use the government to pad corporate profits, but they support different corporations, with the republicans fighting mainly for fossil fuels and democrats fighting more for the tech sector and IP. And republicans want to gut programs for the poor to give tax breaks to the rich while democrats want to increase taxes on the rich to subsidize more programs for the poor (and of course they typically compromise by giving the rich their tax breaks and the poor their programs, hence the national debt).

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    14. Re:Good! by Gussington · · Score: 2

      This is true. I can not vote for someone who supports abortion.

      Out of interest what level is your biology education? I find there is a strong correlation between strict anti-abortion views and level of science education.
      Also worth pointing out, Trump is pro-choice, like most other things he is just saying what you want to hear to get your vote. If he wins, he won't go near that issue. How will that make you feel?

      I consider the abortion of a human life to be murder.

      Good thing that abortions are usually done on foetuses, not humans (see above)

      Holding that belief how could I possibly vote for someone who supports abortion? Homosexuality and Transgender issues I can compromise on, even gay marriage but murder of the innocent is a line I can not cross.

      Yet you'll happily support policies which result in the actual deaths of actual humans every day. This is the logical inconsistency with pretending you don't support killing. Real people are dying all the time and you won't lift a finger, but a women has chooses the exercise her rights over her own body all of a sudden you're all angry about it.

  3. Re:Wikileaks by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 2

    Emails seem to be from 2014, so I would not say this is conclusive evidence one way or the other about Russia and WikiLeaks.

    I would expect WikiLeaks to show up in Russian emails regardless of their involvement. If I was Putin, and not involved in the hacking, I would be delighted to receive credit for mucking up US politics. I can easily imagine Putin bragging or laughing it up with his cronies over email.

  4. THIS IS WAR! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And CNN has one big hard on! Wolf is said to be walking around like Ron Burgundy.

  5. nbc, carrying the capitalism by nimbius · · Score: 2

    emails show in great detail how Russia controlled virtually every detail of the separatist effort in the Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine,

    yes, because youll need the assistance of the country to which your people wish to defect in order to achieve anything. its unfortunate that the country split like this, but NATO isnt entirely faultless in this. by encouraging aggressive expansion contrary to post world war 2 agreement it gave a lot of crimeans good cause to be afraid.

    which has torn the country apart and led to a Russian takeover of Crimea...

    and done an excellent job to prevent western powers from expanding NATO into an oil producing country rich in natural resources. the difference is a hacking group in the Ukrane exposed what everyone knew to be true: logistics, supplies, tactical and political guidance was coming from the kremlin in order to secure a defecting minority province. this was the pretext similar to both the US wars in Iraq...liberation and the support of a minority anti-government group. In the case of the US hack, the american people were made to know that which they had no idea. American voters were shown that Bernie Sanders had absolutely no chance of a fair election, and that the political party loyal to clinton was doing everything from influencing coverage at sites like Facebook to outright spinning at major news outlets to cover up an email scandal that for any other american would have been a multiple life-term felony (chelsea manning for example)

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  6. Re:MH17 by KiloByte · · Score: 4, Informative

    You mean, other than than Girkin bragging about the shootdown on VKontakte? Or the photo of the BUK battery with one missile missing.

    Ukraine banned commercial only from flying low (below 32000 ft) because there was no suspicion Russia would provide their troops with weaponry useful only against planes with no direct combat roles, as those troops were thinly disguised as "not active duty soldiers".

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
  7. Re:MH17 by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Informative

    And there's the Russian troll. How's St. Petersburg? The weather getting chilly over there?

    A commercial flight had flown over the exact same area several hours before without incident. Since the Russians hadn't had the Buk missile system in place at that time the flight flew on its way without incident.

    Once the Buk system was in place Russian troops, with the help of their terrorist allies, shot down MH-17. They bragged about shooting down a "Ukrainian" plane, even posted videos of themselves celebrating the act. Their joyous phone calls and postings on social media were also recorded.

    Only after they realized they had shot down a commercial airliner did they then frantically try to deny they're the ones who shot it down. They tried to remove their videos and postings but copies had already been made. When the plane fell to the ground the Russians and their terrorist allies then disturbed the crime scene by going through the passengers personal belongings, including taking people's credit cards and cash.

    To further try and cover up their crime they refused access to the Dutch investigators for several days.

    Unfortunately for the Russians, all the evidence pointed to them shooting the plane down, including pictures of the Buk system which came into Ukraine with all its tubes filled, then leaving immediately after the shoot down with at least one empty tube.

    This video shows MH-17 falling to the ground after the shooting, being filmed by either a terrorist or Russian troop. Also, near the end of the video, at the 6:25 mark, a recording of a Russian newscaster reporting on the shoot down and stating the terrorists had shot the plane down. Since you speak Russian you will be able to understand her words and may even recognize her from your daily propaganda newscasts.

    Of course you'll deny what she's saying but it doesn't matter. The world knows the truth. Russia is supporting the terrorists in Ukraine and Russia was involved with, if not responsible for, the shooting down a civilian airliner.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  8. Re:Dumbfuckery? by j-beda · · Score: 2

    Zero evidence has been presented that Russia is "guilty" of anything ... But American Exceptionalists seem eager....

    I came across this the other day in a different context and found it interesting. I had never heard about "whataboutism" or "tu quoque" for the Latin lovers out there.

    "Whataboutism"

    Whataboutism is a term describing a propaganda technique used by the Soviet Union in its dealings with the Western world during the Cold War. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the response would be "What about..." followed by the naming of an event in the Western world.[1][2] It represents a case of tu quoque or the appeal to hypocrisy,[3] a logical fallacy which attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position, without directly refuting or disproving the opponent's initial argument.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  9. Re:MH17 by RandomSurfer314 · · Score: 2

    Disinformation by ambiguity only works when your military commanders don't brag about what they did on social media, when they are not identifiable by name and picture easily, when they don't chat about the shot down plane and the rocket launcher over wiretapped mobile phones, and when the launcher isn't filmed and photographed all the way from and to the launch site and all the way back to Russia.

  10. Re:MH17 by Uberbah · · Score: 2

    And there's the Russian troll. How's St. Petersburg? The weather getting chilly over there?

    There's no lack of self-awareness like an American Exceptionalist accusing people of foolishly buying Russia propaganda. When you're sucking down supertanker-loads of third grade bullshit brought to you by the same people who said Saddam had ties to Al Queda and WMD's. People who questioned that propaganda were also accused of being Saddam lovers. SSDD.

    They bragged about shooting down a "Ukrainian" plane, even posted videos of themselves celebrating the act. Their joyous phone calls and postings on social media were also recorded.

    Yes. Social media, not verified images from a drone, surveillance plane or satellite. Which the U.S. would have in spades, as much as it was wanting an excuse to boost troop levels in Eastern Europe to the highest levels they've been since WWII, and expand NATO to Ukraine after successfully overthrowing the elected government.

    But we're all friends here, so I'd like to tell you about this great oceanfront property in Kansas that I'm selling to American Exceptionalists at a discount rate. It even comes with wifi, so you can spend your days online calling people naive for not believing every word that comes out of the military industrial complex.