FBI and Homeland Security Detail Russian Hacking Campaign In New Report (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and FBI have released an analysis of the allegedly Russian government-sponsored hacking groups blamed for breaching several different parts of the Democratic party during the 2016 elections. The 13-page document, released on Thursday and meant for information technology professionals, came as Barack Obama announced sanctions against Russia for interfering in the 2016 elections. The report was criticized by security experts, who said it lacked depth and came too late. "The activity by [Russian intelligence services] is part of an ongoing campaign of cyber-enabled operations directed at the U.S. government and its citizens," wrote the authors of the government report. "This [joint analysis report] provides technical indicators related to many of these operations, recommended mitigations, suggested actions to take in response to the indicators provided, and information on how to report such incidents to the U.S. government." The government report follows several from the private sector, notably a lengthy section in a Microsoft report from 2015 on a hacking team referred to as "advanced persistent threat 28" (APT 28), which the company's internal nomenclature calls Strontium and others have called Fancy Bear. Also mentioned in the government document is another group called APT 29 or Cozy Bear. The Microsoft report contains a history of the groups' operation; a report by security analysts ThreatConnect describes the team's modus operandi; and competing firm CrowdStrike detailed the attack on the Democratic National Committee shortly before subsequent breaches of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign were discovered.

Comments

This Calls for Swift Retribution

[Kunedog]

Not so fast, comrades! We'll teach you to inform our electorate!

Before the election:

[Anonymous Coward]

"What... Trump says the election is rigged? Calm down folks, it's not like anyone could HACK us or anything, sheesh"

-after election-

"the russians!"

Re:Before the election:

[D00MSlayer]

Do you even read the articles you post?

Last week, Baxter told The News 87 optical scanners broke on Election Day. He said many jammed when voters tried repeatedly to stuff single ballots into scanners, which can result in erroneous vote counts if poll workers don’t adjust counters. ...
Detroit’s ballot was two pages because it included dozens of candidates for the local Board of Education. The number of pages can cause machines to jam and lead them to count too many ballots, said Genesee County Clerk John Gleason.

This is what happens when you don't have an effective, reliable, and efficient voting system.

Also, the recount was ended by the Michigan Supreme Court because Stein's recount request wasn't valid.

Put the conspiracy Kool-Aid down, homie.

The problem with lying all the time

[nehumanuscrede]

is that, when you really need folks to believe you, it just doesn't happen.

Maybe if the US Government understood this fact, we might actually care what they have to say.

Its a talking point

[Anonymous Coward]

Please look at what they provided. There is literally no evidence given in the document, not even an attempt. They make up some names, put them in a diagram and say that is proof. They didn't even try.

This document is one of those DNC talking points that isn't valid. Now the DNC supporters will be screaming that the FBI released proof of the attack, but not one of them will even look at it to see that the document doesn't contain anything even attempting to prove it. Its just a placeholder to give DNC supporters talking points to use. Watch over the next week how many of them cite this document is unquestionable proof and will refuse to hear anyone question it.

"The FBI and DHS have shown proof that the Russians did it."
"Are you questioning the integrity of the FBI by saying the document is lying?"

Mark my words, you will hear the above non-stop now.

Re:Its a talking point

[Mashiki]

Please look at what they provided. There is literally no evidence given in the document, not even an attempt. They make up some names, put them in a diagram and say that is proof. They didn't even try.

Yep. It's 13 pages of absolute garbage containing no proof of anything. If people need an example of propaganda and fake news though? That's the bullshit being pumped right there.

And since we're running dry on the news cycles right now, you're likely going to be spot on. The flappy heads in the media will push--and push hard that this is proof. You're also likely going to hear the various progressive groups trying to use it as an attempt that "Trump is illegitimate" or some other steaming pile of BS. The kicker? Part of the source is a 3rd party investigation...from an outside group, that was paid for by the DNC. Not actual intelligence analysis, not actual attributable information.

Re:Its a talking point

[T.E.D.]

Please look at what they provided. There is literally no evidence given in the document, not even an attempt. They make up some names

That's because you don't have both a security clearance and a need-to-know. Revealing *how* they figured out that different attacks came from the same group, and where that group is based, would allow such groups to figure out how to hide their tracks from the FBI better. That would obviously be injurious to the US and ....

...OH! I see what you are doing now. Nice try, Anonymous Comrade.

Re:Its a talking point

[Mashiki]

Notice the part where they're refusing to disclose any information to the house intelligence committee which has those security clearances? Enjoying that gigantic red flag yet?

Re:Its a talking point

[dgatwood]

Yeah, this feels eerily reminiscent of 2003 and Iraq's supposed WMDs.

Re:Its a talking point

[Mashiki]

Bzzt. You're talking about two distinctly different things now. Sorry, no they haven't been. And the intelligence officials are refusing to disclose anything.

Re:Its a talking point

[Mashiki]

Its you who are talking about two completely different things as if they are the same. Not that I blame you overly. Reading through that other Fox link, it looks like some people have gone through a lot of effort to frame things in just that way. This is why good brain hygene demands that you avoid Fox News.

No. You seem to misunderstand that the context is the election -- that this entire premise the article itself, the context of the discussion is based around that. Not going back to 2008. So you of course then caught the part in the article where it stated that they're refusing to offer any information to intelligence committees? Yep, very good. This is why you read more then one source and step outside of your echo chamber, usually more then once every 5-8 years. And it's also why it's so easy when someone is a partisan hack, and starts whining over only one source of media. Or uses things like "faux news."

palpable irony.

[nimbius]

that we, the united states, have worked to skew elections and overthrow governments for nearly fifty years as though it were nothing more than another element of common foreign policy. However, whenever a foreign nation tries to influence our elections, its somehow a capital offence the world must take seriously.

If sanctions didnt work for Ukrane, they wont work here. Although they do an amazing job of allowing you to avoid the fact of the matter which is that Hillary Clinton was a turd of a candidate who rigged the parties primary, and enjoyed limited popularity outside major metropolitan areas. She never set foot in places like Wisconsin, took a gamble that LA was somehow bigger than all the midwest, and lost.

Re:palpable irony.

[MrLogic17]

Sanctions have never worked, at any time they have been implemented. Sanctions as a politician's tool to say they did something without actually making a tough decision. Especially with 20 (make that 19 now) days left in his presidency, this move means nothing. It's all getting rolled back anyway. Too little, too late.

All this report does is confirm that the Russians didn't hack the election. They might have released a few E-Mails, but Hillary did her own part to make E-Mail a meaningful factor in the election. Democrats and media types who didn't read the report will cite is as (yet another) excuse as to why the democrats lost the election, totally missing the point.

Re:palpable irony.

[PopeRatzo]

that we, the united states, have worked to skew elections and overthrow governments for nearly fifty years as though it were nothing more than another element of common foreign policy. However, whenever a foreign nation tries to influence our elections, its somehow a capital offence the world must take seriously.

I've been hearing this argument a lot from Republicans lately. It's interesting that suddenly so many patriotic people on the Right are on a "blame America" tour. [Note: I'm not talking about you here, nimbius, I'm talking about the argument.]

This massive reversal of roles has me thinking that their outrage is less than genuine.

If sanctions didnt work for Ukrane, they wont work here.

And yet, people on the Right are absolutely certain that sanctions work when it comes to Cuba, Iran, etc, and that Obama is unpatriotic for removing them. The hypocrisy all around is stunning.

Hey Obama and friends...

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you borrow your foreign policy from the 80's?

DNC hacks - perks for the rich, perks for the poor, make the working class pay for it all.

This is why you lost the election.

Re:So where is this report?

[Anonymous Coward]

Never mind, I'm a fucking idiot and was looking at the wrong article link.

Re:Why should anyone trust the report?

[INT_QRK]

The report in no was alleges "foreign influence." It simply describe a cyber intrusion of Democratic Party assets and individuals in technical detail, ascribes the techniques and tools used in the intrusion to entities believed to be (or affiliated with) the Russians, and recommends sensible, albeit completely standard, countermeasures to similar future such attacks. The report in no way addresses, suggests, or concludes how any information gained in the attack was used to “interfere” with the recent election. Critically, there report does not ascribe any of the damaging Wikileak documents, which were the documents that most appear to have had a damaging effect on Clinton, to the attacks that were subject of the report. The report is what it is. It isn't what it isn't, a report addressing election "interference."

Not that the incoming US President will...

[rmdingler]

If true, this raises the ethical question of America justifying meddling in the next Russian Presidential Election in 2018, or the one after that.

I bet the rest of the World can pause and find this amusing, since we Americans probably sought to influence more elections the last century than any nation... looking at you Central & South America.

I'm as bewildered as the next fellow as to how we ended up our newest Commander-in-Chief, but I also believe it's time he and the former administration started working together like big boys.

talking about Russia but not Soros...

[RobRyland]

An article talking about Russia trying to influence American politics, but not mentioning George Soros or foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation...
That is propaganda.

Bigoted much?

[Xenographic]

This report was ripped to shreds yesterday.

It's mostly OWASP copypasta with recommended mitigations and a few interesting tidbits.

I'm also not clear on why this submission linked to a copy of the report. Best compare it with the original report in case there are any differences..

Re:Bigoted much?

[ggendel]

I guess you don't want to read past the first comment in your link. I don't see anything "ripped to shreds".

Re:Bigoted much?

[Xenographic]

A lot of the technical comments got hit by a downvote brigade last night.

Read down to look at the people actually talking about tools & methods.

Re:Bigoted much?

[msauve]

Just read the report. It's a stinking pile of BS. Nowhere does it even attempt to provide evidence which would link Russia to the DNC hacks. It makes a claim of "technical details regarding the tools and infrastructure used [by Russia]...", outlines some script kiddie type stuff, but provides absolutely NO information or specifics which would link the DNC hack to Russia. The vast majority of the small 13 page "report" is boilerplate security stuff, not specific in any way to either the DNC hack or Russia.

Re:Bigoted much?

[Xenographic]

The burden of proof is on the one making allegations of Russian hacking. We know what nation state level hacking looks like thanks, ironically, to Snowden. We know the NSA can intercept your new router in the mail and install a durable backdoor on it that will survive everything you do to it. We know the NSA has TEMPEST vans that can snoop on your screen and keyboard.

The idea that a nation state is left to rely upon low level phishing scams seems laughable at best. Just look to past examples to see that they had better stuff than this.

Here are a few past examples of real hacking. Note how much more sophisticated these attacks were:

* Theremin's bug
* MI6 spies on Russia with fake rock

Please tell me again why Russia has fallen back to kiddie level phishing scams? Remember, the burden of proof is on the people saying "it's Russia" and I'm not going to let anyone shift that.

When some people tell me that Russel's teapot is in orbit and others say it's not, I'm going to wait for evidence. I can't just average them out and conclude that a teacup or possibly a saucer is up there flying around, if not a whole teapot.

Re:Bigoted much?

[Minupla]

At the end of the day, you don't get style points in the spy game. If script kiddie level efforts give you the results you want and you don't really care about not being caught, script kiddie level stuff it is.

Governments have engaged in similar script kiddie level attacks in the past, both before and after the digitial age ("You've won a contest, come collect your prize here!", criminal shows up to collect prize, gets a pair of handcuffs)

This stuff is low-risk, high reward. Attackers only need to get lucky once, defense has to be good every time.

Min

Re:Bigoted much?

[dgatwood]

The idea that a nation state is left to rely upon low level phishing scams seems laughable at best. Just look to past examples to see that they had better stuff than this.

Why spend the effort to bug a room or compromise someone's computer when your adversaries are willing to type their passwords into anything that looks even remotely like a password dialog box? I'm sure a lot of nation-state-level hacking happens using such trivial means, but we don't hear about it because the victims are too embarrassed by the level of carelessness required to be compromised like that.

Fortunately, most folks in America's ruling parties are both too computer illiterate to recognize phishing and too clueless to recognize that they should be embarrassed about being unable to do so. Otherwise, most members of the public would never realize just how incompetent our government officials are (on both sides of the aisle).

Re:Bigoted much?

[__aaclcg7560]

That was page after page that basically translates to "APT sent spam to a large list of recipients and target fell for it."

The DNC IT guy thought phone calls from the FBI alerting him to the attacks were a hoax. He also told the staff to change their passwords via the phishing email they received. Of course, he had no common sense or InfoSec training whatsoever.

https://transcender.wordpress.com/2016/12/23/politihack-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-about-russians-influencing-the-us-election-and-learned-to-love-cybersecurity/

Meanwhile, at the RNC, the attacks failed because their IT guy was on the ball. Go figure.

Re:Bigoted much?

[Xenographic]

Your example is one used by police against low level idiot criminals, not against nation states.

The real examples from the long history of actual spying, both by Russians and Americans is significantly more sophisticated, as is clearly evident to anyone with even a passing familiarity regarding the known methods. They have no reason to resort to a pathetic attack like this and it's exactly the kind of noisy thing that gets caught. They don't want temporary access before getting shut out, they want durable access.

Just compare this with a catalog of real spy tools to see what a joke these "hacks" are in contrast. The OWASP copypasta and codwords reads like a low grade PCI auditor's report and even the more pathetic clients usually do better than this.

If anything, doubling down on t his just shows us that the DNC being in power is a threat to US security due to their dangerous incompetence. All of their secrets would be open to every 2-bit script kiddie, let alone actual nation states.

Re:Bigoted much?

[hairyfeet]

How about a former British Ambassado saying Russia Not the WikiLeaks Source that it was someone in the DNC disgusted by how corrupt they were? BTW anybody want to bet it was the guy that got a bullet in the back of the head in that fake robbery where they execute the victim without actually bothering to carry out the robbery part of the robbery?

As for Pizzagate? Dude don't know WTF he is talking about but Podesta is OBVIOUSLY talking in code because frankly most of the sentences make absolutely ZERO SENSE in English. Maps to Pizza? Wanting to know which is a Domino, a Pizza or a Pasta? You read the actual emails and they make zero fucking sense and the few that aren't in code, like the one with the hot tub and the 7 and 9 and 11 year old? Yeah there is something fucking going on there, because why would a grown man be getting into a hot tub with a bunch of strange kids,...something is seriously whack there and the fact that the MSM has all, almost from the nanosecond that it hit, started reading from the same "fake news" script, just like they did when they lied their asses off about Hillary's health AND again with her enjoying DNC rigging against Bernie? Yeah the whole fucking thing stinks and to anybody who says it couldn't be true? Two words....Dennis Hastert

Re:Bigoted much?

[king neckbeard]

It does discount some of the early things we were told, like that this could ONLY have come from the top levels of the Kremlin. The lack of sophistication means that is an outright lie, and we should be suspect of any claims from the same and similar sources.

I'd basically say that it COULD be the Russian government, but the degree of overselling the evidence comes of as suggesting that they probably didn't. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

How is this even an issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

The DNC is not the US Government. Voting machines weren't hacked. While hacking the DNC might be against the law, influencing elections is not. I just want some one to tell me how the Russians releasing emails is not unlike the Koch brothers buying advertising? At least the emails were truthful. As long as business can set up their super-PACs to influence elections can we really object to a foreign government doing the same?

Re:How is this even an issue?

[Lakitu]

As long as business can set up their super-PACs to influence elections can we really object to a foreign government doing the same?

Are you fucking serious? Citizens can influence their own government and own elections all they want, it's an inalienable birthright of their citizenship. It's the very basis of government as enshrined in the Constitution.

Foreign governments leveraging their power to change government policy and elections isn't influence, or someone's opinion, it's espionage and can be punished by deportation or death. How many foreign leaders can you name that came out and said something like "I prefer x candidate over y candidate"? None, because none of them are as fucking stupid as so many people partaking in these discussions are.

What you're suggesting is that not only is it not illegal or unlawful, but that it also cannot be illegal or unlawful. It's total nonsense. What you're asking is akin to asking "why can't Russia just run a Russian as a candidate for POTUS, and then influence the election to get him elected?"

Re:How is this even an issue?

[king neckbeard]

Oh please, Billionaires and multinational corporations should be viewed as the same level of threat to our democracy as foreign actors. In fact, they are a great deal more effective.

Summary of the "report"

[Anonymous Coward]

Pages 1-3: overview of recent activities of some hacking groups
Page 4: list of these groups
Pages 5-12: suggested security measures (copied from "Cybersecurity for dummies"?)
Page 13: contacts

Again, no evidence of Russian involvement. Or anything that can be called a detailed analysis.

Re:Why should anyone trust the report?

[allcoolnameswheretak]

I am really appalled at how many people don't take the Russian interference seriously and blame it on some kind of Democrat/Obama conspiracy. This has been happening in eastern European countries for decades and Russia has now been targeting also western Europe since the annexation of Crimea and the war in Ukraine. Russia is funding right-wing populist parties and helping them out with propaganda all across the western hemisphere in an attempt to discredit our democracies and our free press.

Don't believe it? Google "russia populist funding". Here are the top three links:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
http://www.economist.com/news/...

It's really scary how much success they are having in sowing distrust in our institutions and our free press. Every time I read someone here decrying some mayor western news outlet as "Fake News" I am reminded of the effectiveness of Putins troll army.

Only fitting I should encounter xenophobia...

[Xenographic]

Do note the same Guardian had to retract earlier statements.

Oh, they had to edit the ODNI statement too.

Best keep watching for more revisionist history.

Clinton Lost.

[0100010001010011]

Full Stop. This was not "Trump Winning" or "Russia Hacking" it was the DNC being so completely out of touch with parts of the country they knew they would win than they still don't accept that they lost there. Michael Moore nailed it in 5 Reasons Trump Will Win.

The whole election loss can come down to a few swing states. A few extra thousand voters one way or another in a state that is solid Red or Blue isn't what got Trump elected. (Just like Clinton getting massive numbers in California didn't win her the election, that's not how the rules were set before the game)

I'll just point out the 2 states I'm most familiar with, Wisconsin and Michigan. Not coincidentally both of those states they had completely wrong in the Primary as well. Both states were "Sure" Clinton states and Sanders proved them wrong. Clinton didn't visit Wisconsin once for the general election. She sent a bunch of proxies. She did hit Michigan late but more or less completely ignored it prior to their number crunchers going "eh maybe we're wrong". The Russians didn't tell her not to go to Wisconsin. The Russians didn't push Sanders over the top in the Primaries. The Russians didn't collude to keep Sanders out of the nomination. [And even IF they did, I don't think 'Those guys did something illegal to illustrate something I was doing illegal" is a justifiable defense in court]

Stein and Johnson ran in both 2012 and 2016 so you can use them as a 'control' between the candidates. Personally Michigan's Green bump in 2012 and the corresponding Democrat drop should have been an indication 4 years ago that something was up.

Wisconsin's numbers:

Republican Presidential votes:

• 2008 - 1262393
• 2012 - 1407966
• 2016 - 1405284

Democratic Presidential votes:

• 2008 - 1677211
• 2012 - 1620985
• 2016 - 1382536

Libertarian Presidential votes:

• 2008 - 8858
• 2012 - 20439
• 2016 - 106674

Green Presidential votes:

• 2008 - 4216
• 2012 - 7665
• 2016 - 31072

Michigan's numbers look similar.

Republican Presidential votes:

• 2008 - 2048639
• 2012 - 2115256
• 2016 - 2279543

Democratic Presidential votes:

• 2008 - 2872579
• 2012 - 2564569
• 2016 - 2268839

Libertarian Presidential votes:

• 2008 - 23716
• 2012 - 7774
• 2016 - 172136

Green Presidential votes:

• 2008 - 8892
• 2012 - 21897
• 2016 - 51463

Re:Clinton Lost.

[Lakitu]

Does that make it OK that the DNC was hacked and its private communications were released in an attempt to influence the election?

The oversensitivity with regards to Trump's election win is sad. Anyone calling his win illegitimate or whatever is an idiot and should be treated as such, but for some reason a whole bunch of people want to continue living out their partisan fantasies after the election is over.

The fact that so many people can then use this as an excuse to not even care about espionage conducted against our election process is nothing short of pathetic.

Re:Clinton Lost.

[dgatwood]

Anyone calling his win illegitimate or whatever is an idiot ...

Call me an idiot, then. By all rights, Trump lost by more than a 2% margin. The only reason he was declared the "winner" is that the electoral college is fundamentally rigged to be biased in favor of low-population states, so people in rural areas, which have leaned heavily Republican for as long as I've been alive, get more of a vote than urban areas, which means that the entire system is biased in favor of Republicans.

And not just a little, either. If we define a California vote (the state whose votes are weakest) as a single vote, then every voter in Wisconsin effectively gets four votes. The whole "one man, one vote" thing is so far from being reality that it borders on pure comedy. The fact that Democrats ever win presidential elections is, frankly, amazing given how much the electoral college weakens California's votes.

To put it another way, any win in which almost three million more people voted for the loser than the winner is an illegitimate win, made possible by a system that even Trump himself admitted is rigged. And instead of recognizing that he "won" purely on a technicality and recognizing that he should try to unify the country, he is picking the most extremist, bats**t crazy right-wingnuts for his cabinet, as though somehow he has a "mandate" when in reality, he lost badly.

The last time this happened, the lying right led us into two failed wars that we're still not fully out of and created a worldwide economic depression that we're still digging our way out of. Here's hoping Trump isn't quite as idiotic as his pro-nuclear-weapons rhetoric suggests, because if he is, and if the war hawks have their way, the future of our world will depend on dolphins evolving legs.

Re:Clinton Lost.

[penandpaper]

Do you think the Senate is a good idea to protect against the flaws of democracy?

If so, why would those some protections not be a good idea for a different branch of government?

POTUS leads a union of states, not a mob.

Simple solutions suggested - easy to harden

[petes_PoV]

When I read the report, the list of mitigations it offers seems like the every-day advice that all computer security outfits continually tell all their users and admins to do.

If the degree of "russian hacking" can be so easily foiled, it doesn't sound much like they were using master criminals or IT experts - just script-kiddie stuff that follows people around the internet every day. One would hope that if they have solid evidence that this originated ONLY from the russian intelligence services that they are a lot more certain of it than they appear to make out here. If that was the case, it seems like the fix is easy and well known.

One also assumes that the US intelligence services are doing exactly the same to the "bad guys" and are getting similar sorts of results.

Of course the more interesting question would be: If this is what they discovered what about all the advanced hacking that they haven't uncovered - both in techniques and targets? If an election can be hacked so easily, what are the REAL experts influencing and stealing?

Re:Why should anyone trust the report?

[Kierthos]

Trump's doing a decent job of making himself look like a thundering idiot. Also, I'm not sure when it happened, but at least when I was a kid, the idea that "the Rooskies" might have interfered with a U.S. election would not be so casually dismissed by the party of Reagan.

Except that they're really not the party of Reagan any more, are they? I mean, I know why McConnell isn't rocking the boat. He got paid with his wife being offered a Cabinet position. And Ryan is too busy thinking of ways to shit on poor people to actually give a fuck (in that way, he is still part of the party of Reagan, because he's continuing with all that "welfare queen" folderol). But the rest of the party? Where's the indignation?

Oh right, they're too busy celebrating that they're going to be back in power to actually give a fuck about how they got there or the consequences. (You can also see that in the "repeal and replace" plan they have for the ACA.)

Yes but how did hack lead to Trump win?

[poity]

What happened that we truly know of:
  1. In the summer of 2015, someone (evidence points to Russian) spear-phished passwords from unsavvy staffers on the DNC email server
  2. Almost a year later, Wikileaks publishes a dump of DNC emails. It is assumed by many to have come from the previous infiltration, though there are other ways Wikileaks could have obtained the data, and no definitive link connecting the two events have so far been presented.
  3. Through the email dump, the American public is able to see the DNC's inner workings, including:
    - party officials colluding to hinder Bernie Sanders
    - party insider helping the Clinton campaign to cheat during debate
    - astroturf campaign to create illusion of spontaneous public protest against opponent
    - journalists coordinating with party officials to ensure party messaging is on track
4. Some voters may have reconsidered their voting decisions, or even the decision to participate in this cycle, due to the above information.
5. Critical states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania which were assumed to be safe states for Clinton (and who as a result did not campaign aggressively there), instead fall to Trump during the general election, ensuring a GOP win.

What the press & defeated party instead want you to think:
  1. Russia hacked America
  2. Trump is now the President
  3. "... we're not saying Trump administration is a creation of the Russian state... *wink wink nudge nudge* but the Trump administration is obviously a creation and stupid dumb puppet of the Russian state... for realz tho... also, don't listen to fake news"

There is an immense effort right now to make us take mental shortcuts, to skip certain events in our memories, to forget that certain misdeeds were done not by Russians but by Americans.

Re:Yes but how did hack lead to Trump win?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is evidence of spear phishing going on (and Podesta falling for it at least once) however you left out one big critical point:

The murder of Seth Rich, his access, and what may have prompted his assassination, along with Assange's specific assertion that an insider had given him information at least once and that it wasn't "the Russians".

If the DNC didn't get hacked because they were just stupid, then they got hacked because someone went sour on their ethics. There is no need for the whole "it's the Russians" loop in any of this... especially when you look for "ok, what did the Russians DO with the information they stole?" "Uhm...well nothing?"

There is no credibility at all in the Russian theory of this.

The 80s want their foreign policy back

[Xenographic]

Exactly. Oh, I think there's a list of TOR exit nodes in there, too.

Why do our mighty Russian hackers rely on pathetic phishing scams instead of putting in hardware backdoors by intercepting new hardware in the mail? Why can't they park a TEMPEST van a few miles away and read the passwords from the keyboard? They have Snowden, who revealed the NSA's TAO programs and things like how we're tapping Merkel's phone in Germany.

Are we seriously to believe that these Russian boogeymen are on the same level as your average 419 scammer and the poor, hapless DNC couldn't defend themselves?

I also note that a lot of places talk about "election hacking." That's not at all the same thing as someone in the DNC losing their email to a common scam, there's no evidence of vote tampering and even 538 pointed out how silly that was.

What I find rather apalling...

[gosand]

is that people cast votes, and our elections are won or lost, on whether or not a candidate comes to their state and tells them what they want to hear.
It boggles my mind that it still works. We live in an age where information - real, massaged, and fabricated - is available 24/7. Yet politics is still just politics, where you don't have to be a good candidate to win. You just have to be a better shyster.

We should have a "neither" option, and if neither wins, we go back and start over.

I know why that won't work, because the entire system has been built by those who gain the most from it. And it is not the American people. It just makes me sad that as "the greatest nation" we still can't get the basics right.

Re:Why should anyone trust the report?

[Fire_Wraith]

It shows just how massive the partisan divide is. It seems to have completely slipped peoples' minds that "breaking into the DNC to look for dirt to use against the Democratic Presidential Candidate" is EXACTLY what started a little controversy called "Watergate." But, because it's politically advantageous, a number of people seem to be dead set on ignoring or dismissing any evidence about what happened this time.

Let's be _absolutely_ clear: This isn't about sour grapes because the Democrats lost. This isn't about attacking Trump (though he and his supporters treat it as such, which is disturbing in its own way). This _is_ about what happens next time, because if you establish a precedent that it's basically okay for foreign governments to hack and dox political campaigns in the USA, they're going to keep doing it. Worse, others like China or Iran might just decide to join in. Worse still, candidates might preemptively cozy up to Russia or whomever in hopes of getting assistance against their opponent(s).

Incumbent wins

[fulldecent]

An alternate reading of this news produces the following news:

  * Government agencies and political parties have continued the discussion without a modicum of doubt on document authenticity.
  * Agencies have successfully dominated news cycles on this topic and zero discussion has been made regarding DNC primaries tampering.
  * No mass media has mentioned, let alone considered why, Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Communications Director Luis Miranda, Chief Financial Officer Brad Marshall and Chief Executive Amy Dacey all resigned from DNC.

That is the real news in my opinion.

Re:Incumbent wins

[radl33t]

Sorry what is the news here ? Petty corruption in the internal management of a private organization? Zero fucks given, here.

The bigger story is beyond the election, the media, fake news, or the new administration. With or without the influence of foreign actors, a fast increasing majority of Americans are expressing their total lack of faith in all of our institutions and actively propagating this belief. Game over. There is no plan here, no way to recover, this self-destructive behavior, whether it be a short-sighted power play by Trump/GOP, a desperate and pathetic attempt to maintain power by Obama/DNC, or a petty manipulation by foreign actors. I'm not sure we are there yet, but at some point there will be no going back from this path. That is something everyone should be contemplating before they participate in this shit show.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Why should anyone trust the report?

[TheRaven64]

There are two issues:

• Is Russia attempting to influence elections?
• Did Russia hack the DNC?

The problem is that we're conflating the two. The answer to the first one is pretty much certainly yes. The answer to the second is a lot less clear and, given that the attack didn't require anything like the capabilities of a state-level adversary, the response is a problem. The evidence that we have for the hack shows that a script kiddie, probably in Russia, hacked the DNC. Russia might have done it as a state-sanctioned operation, but so might one of hundreds of individuals (including a load of bored teenagers).

The real story with regard to the emails is that the DNC (and, most likely, the GOP) has really crappy infosec and is basically wide open and many parts of the US government are probably in a similar situation. The NSA has been tasked with a dual mission of attack and defence and has prioritised attack the point that it has completely failed at defence.

Blaming Russia and kicking our Russian diplomats led to retaliation and made the US look stupid. Everyone knows that attribution for cyber attacks is incredibly hard and all that this has done is shown that the relevant agencies in the USA doesn't know how incompetent they are because they don't even understand the problem properly.

Re:Why should anyone trust the report?

[Greystripe]

So the MSM and the DNC collude to elect a specific candidate of their choice and you want to go off on Russia for something a DNC insider leaked? You are OK with the sitting President and his party make every effort to delegitimize the incoming President? Meanwhile if there truly was a concern with Russia interfering in our elections the focus would need to be on preventing future interference. Also the DNC leadership should have been notified that their security was weak when it actually mattered. Doing it now only gives every appearance of a temper tantrum by a party in denial.

Re:Escalation? No thanks.

[__aaclcg7560]

Just go back to paper ballots. Problem solved forever.

That's not the issue at hand. The Russian's did the Internet equivalent of the Nixon White House trying to bug the DNC offices in the Watergate building.

Re:My fellow Americans...

[iggymanz]

Trump has had some connection with several major world leaders, you're just fixated on Putin.

Reminder the USA is the one war mongering and destabilizing countries, and that included the Ukraine

When you get a phishing email you think govt?

[raymorris]

> But of course you believe that these unsophisticated, low level attacks are a sign of a nation state

Pretty sure I just said the exact fucking opposite. I said I've seen no evidence that the Russian government was responsible, and my guess is that most likely it was a non-government group who is friendly with some politicians.

> It tips them off to the fact that you're in their network.

Really? When you receive a phishing email saying "click here to reset your Gmail password", your first thought is "OMG the Russians are in my network!"? Really? What the hell does "tips them off to the fact that you're in their network" even mean in this case - he gave them his GMAIL password.

> corrupt DNC ... campaign money to Hillary, spending twice as much as Trump, ... all Democrats ... The party would scatter if they didn't have a Russian boogeyman

Oh I see, you're an uber fan rooting against the other team. You're not interested in paying any attention whatsoever to what's going on, you're just cheerleading. Carry on, then.

Re:Why should anyone trust the report?

[MightyMartian]

The incoming president has spent weeks making a fool of himself on Twitter. Trump has never needed any help in that department.

You know, I remember those Goldman Sach's speeches

[rsilvergun]

They were full of platitudes and bull shit. Hilary took their money and gave them a shit sandwich in return. Meanwhile you're guy is about to hand the Crimera over to Russia without a peep.

Maybe the world is a little more complex than you want it to be? Maybe your anti-Clinton straw men are full of shit instead of straw?

APT XSS SQLI == Ruski's did it

[WaffleMonster]

13 pages... more like 3 pages followed by nonsense and boiler plate security "advice".

The pages offer only assertions unsupported by any provided evidence and describe techniques that are widely used by everyone. They don't even bother to explain linkages between APT xx and the Russian government.

I don't trust TLA's. They have a long history of being weasels and publically selling lies to support themselves and their masters political agendas. My view the government should either provide actual evidence to support its assertions or STFU.

Re:My imaginary friends can beat up yours!

[Xenographic]

No, I'm saying they use durable means of gaining access. Ones that last more than the 2 days or whatever it was exactly the access to Podesta's email lasted. Sending emails that say "you're hacked!" did get them access, but it got that access cut off immediately after and assuming he followed their directions, he has 2FA on his Gmail now.

This is exactly why pros don't give you big noisy indicators telling you that you have been owned.