Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Putin Now Argues Russia Could've Been Framed For Election Meddling By The CIA (nbcnews.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the inventing-IP-addresses dept.

In a news magazine show premiering tonight, Megyn Kelly reports that Russian president Vladimir Putin "has denied Russian involvement in the hacking and interference with our U.S. presidential eletion for some time. That changed earlier this week, and the story appears to be evolving yet again." An anonymous reader shared two articles from NBC: "Hackers can be anywhere. They can be in Russia, in Asia...even in America, Latin America," he said. "They can even be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very skillfully and professionally shifted the blame, as we say, onto Russia. Can you imagine something like that? In the midst of a political battle...?" The journalist asked the Russian president about what American intelligence agencies say is evidence that he became personally involved in a covert campaign to harm Hillary Clinton and benefit Donald Trump. "IP addresses can be invented -- a child can do that! Your underage daughter could do that. That is not proof," Putin replied...

Kelly told viewers that Putin -- the former director of Russia's domestic spy agency -- also suggested that the CIA could have been behind the hacking and noted that many people were convinced Russia was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy... Earlier, at a Friday forum moderated by Kelly, Putin likened the U.S. blaming his country for hacking the presidential election to "blaming the Jews"...
"Echoing remarks President Donald Trump made on the campaign trail, Putin also questioned the need for NATO."

24 of 455 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not one smoking gun in the whole thing. Speaking to ambassadors is not a crime.

  2. It's like listening to a Creationist by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "But you see, Evolution can't be right because. . ."

    "No, you're wrong. We've gone over this dozens of times before."

    "Well then, there's this which means. . ."

    "No, it doesn't. You're wrong again. I just explained why you're wrong."

    "But that doesn't include this which. . ."

    "Yes, it does. You're wrong. Get over it. You're plain, flat out wrong. Nothing you say makes sense. All of it's been shown to be false."

    "Nuh uh. I still have. . . . my imagination."

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  3. Foundations of Geopolitics by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Any timeline of these events should probably start with this book. So far things are proceeding as planned, and ultimate success seems likely.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
  4. Inventing IP addresses by Minupla · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm going to assume he's talking about spoofing, or the technique of inserting a packet stream into the internet and making it appear like it's come from somewhere else.

    This is in fact easily done if what you're attempting to do is DDOS a system. Doing it in such a way as to hack a system is NOT childsplay.

    Here's one problem. You're typically (in the childs play scenario. State actor level games are NOT child's play) transmitting in the blind. TCP requires a three-way handshake. Assuming no one involved in the internet today is dumb enough to allow source routing packets, and that everyone is using decent random number generators for their sequence numbers, you can't see the SYN/ACK response from the host (since that'll have gone to the IP you're impersonating)

    Add in ANY type of cryptography and you're totally hosed, as even the oldest version of SSL required you to exchange secrets, and since you're transmitting in the blind you won't see the response secret and it's game over.

    There was a time when it was possible, because TCP sequence numbers were guessable due to poor randomness in a number of TCP stacks. You could make an intelligence guess as to what the next sequence number would be and send some bracketing packets in the hopes of getting lucky (more likely on a slow system then on a busy one).

    And if you take your waybackmachine to the 90s, you'd find that source routing packets were honoured. It's been awhile since I ran into a version of anything that had that turned on by default.

    So unless you can get into the ISP that the victim machine is connected to, not happening for any real world situation. And pawning an ISP is decidedly not childs-play.

    So I give this claim 4-CRC errors out of 5.

    Min

    --
    On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
    1. Re:Inventing IP addresses by king+neckbeard · · Score: 4, Informative

      Given the low evidentiary standards used for blame attribution in these kinds of things, all that was needed to flag Russia is using a Russian based TOR exit node. IIRC, a large number of IPs associated with "Russian hackers" were just TOR exit nodes. The other evidence is activity times and Cyrillic characters and usernames. All stuff accessible to a moderately competent 4channer.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    2. Re:Inventing IP addresses by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're not looking in (or being shown) the right places. As one example, I'll explain the Podesta "hack". Everything I say here comes from a particular thread on Twitter, which does a far better analysis than I will attempt here, or sources linked therein.

      Yes, it was phishing. I wouldn't call the phish email "super-obvious", as it matches Google's style pretty much exactly. The key detail is that the phish link went to a bit.ly site, notably created via the bit.ly API, which requires creating an account. From information leaked from that account by researchers at the time, the same phishing campaign went to about 1800 people, individually targeted but using a common framework.

      It's primarily from that mass of targets that we can determine motive, and from that we can attribute who had that motive. Almost two thirds of the targets were either military personnel or authors. Of the authors, about half were experts on Russia or the Ukraine. Of the military and government personnel, two thirds were U.S.-based, 14% were linked to NATO, and a few key Syrian rebel personnel were targeted as well.

      Basically, the campaign that hit Podesta also targeted a lot of other folks, and the common thread is that Russia would want intelligence on them. There was no malware involved to be dissected, and no attempt to hide the origin of the campaign. In fact, the only way the analysis was possible was because the attackers had not set their bit.ly account private before they were discovered (though they did later). If the account were private, tracing a single victim's attack would have led only to a probably-hijacked server with a .tk domain.

      (end citing the Twitter thread)

      Similarly, other attacks can be attributed by the infrastructure they use. Some recent attacks on election committees, for example, used C&C servers that had previously been used in other attacks against Turkish and Ukranian governments, strongly indicating that the perpetrators of all the attacks were adversarial to Turkey and Ukraine.

      In other attacks where malware and persistence are involved (like the DNC hack), expert analysis usually relies on identifying precisely which APT group is responsible for the attack. Each APT typically operates independently, using their own in-house-developed tools and preferred techniques. That's perfectly reasonable, because when the goal is stealth, an attacker will use the techniques they're most comfortable with to avoid costly mistakes. Once they are identified, though, that becomes a weakness, as the same pattern can be identified in other victim systems.

      It is easy to spoof identifiers. Names, strings, and addresses can all be manipulated. What is more difficult to fake are behavior patterns. When a server starts seeing access requests for files starting every day at 2AM and ending at 10AM, it's a decent indicator that somebody with a seven-hour time zone difference is poking at your systems. Yes, that can be manipulated by having the attack teams work at odd hours, but it's just another bit of data. Then there's the localization of tools, exempted targets, and even the order in which tools are deployed.

      Remember: These aren't amateurs. The attackers involved are professionals, clocking in and doing a job. There are the good ones, there are the sloppy ones, and there are the managers who make stupid decisions they have to deal with, just like in any other government office. They have their routines they follow to make it through the day, and it's through analysis of those routines that analysts learn about the attackers.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  5. The real point by kelanos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Our government has absolutely no transparency and our interests are not represented. Our country is essentially occupied by globalists.

    Everything else is a distraction, and odds are you fall for it at least once in a while as we all do.

    Engaging in the 'left vs. right' war is profoundly unhealthy. No responsible person acts this way.
    The real war is 'rational vs. irrational'. We're all being made to pay for the ignorance of philosophy in education.

    Instead of unifying with people we have most in common with we are fighting each other on behalf of our 'political leaders' that we have very little in common with and are indeed cruelly exploited by.

    The globalist occupation (and every evil thing that goes with it)might seem like too hard of a problem to take on, but it's the condition under which you live. Deal with it or deal with natural selection.

    You can't elect some one to live your life for you.
    Picking a side is not a valid choice.

    1. Re:The real point by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Congress still holds the cards, and you can be sure the moment the GOP begins to legitimately fear loss of one or both houses of Congress due to Trump, they'll give him the toss. Every day, every outburst, demonstrates, apart from any potential collusion with Russia, his complete unsuitability for the position, but the Republicans have to be sure that impeachment and removal won't do them more harm than good. But really, when you look at what is actually happening in Congress, you can see pretty clearly that the Republicans are being obstructionist, in the nicest possible way. Ryan and McConnell act like they're bestest pals of the White House, and yet there's not much happening at all. Oh sure, it will always be blamed on the Freedom Caucus, or the Democrats, or parliamentary procedures, or any ol' convenient excuse, but Trump has few real fans in Congress. They realize they have an infantile halfwit surrounded by some pretty damned questionable people, so they'll obstruct him, but for their own political fortunes, they have to make it look like it's opposition and process, and not them deliberately sabotaging him.

      It seems unlikely the replacement health care will be passed, and really Ryan threw it to the Senate with a big pile of money hoping the Senate can turn this shit sandwich into something palatable. It's even possible it will never get to the Senate floor. Then there's tax reform, good luck with that. Let's talk about all that spending Trump committed to, there isn't going to be a wall, and I doubt there'll be any more infrastructure spending.

      Trump can cause a lot more trouble on the foreign stage, but thus far other than insulting foreign leaders, about his biggest impact is pulling of the Paris agreement, which probably the majority of Republicans were in favor of anyways. As to Executive Orders, well, we'll see what the Supreme Court says, but the fact that he and his mouthpieces were so dimwitted as to tell the entire world they were going to seek a Muslim ban will likely compromise the whole damned ban a non-starter due to the First Amendment.

      I can't imagine Trump will even want the job in a year or so, even if they decide not to remove him.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  6. People forget there are two separate questions by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1) Did the Russians meddle in the election?
    2) If #1 is true, did the Trump campaign collude with the Russians in their election meddling?

    I'm no fan of the guy currently occupying the White House, but given Clinton's statements (while she was Secretary of State) regarding the 2012 Russian election... it's certainly plausible that the Great Bear Wrestler could have directed his hackers to target Clinton without colluding with anyone on the US side of things.

    Part of what muddies the waters here is that Trump's narcissistic ego won't allow him to accept that he won the election despite losing the popular vote. In his fantasies he won by a landslide and received a huge mandate from the American populace. So he won't listen to his intelligence agencies who are certain the Russians meddled; he talks about massive voter fraud without the presence of any corraborating evidence whatsoever, and so on. This sort of behavior creates the appearance of guilt in many people's eyes, whether the guilt exists in reality or not.

    It's certainly possible that his campaign is guilty of collusion with the Russians... but the mere existence of Russian meddling does not conflate to that.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:People forget there are two separate questions by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's probable the Russians would have tried to muck things up without any collusion. Certainly they were doing the same thing in recent European elections, and so far as I know, there's no real evidence in those elections that the Kremlin Approved Party was in any kind of contact. The problem with the Trump campaign is that there are some serious smoking guns here, and whether or not Trump himself has been implicated, he seems to have gone out of his way to surround himself with some people with some pretty troubling ties to the Russians.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  7. Re:Putin never drove a truck into pedestrians... by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, he doesn't do DIY; he deals death wholesale.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  8. Re:Timeline of Treason by Kohath · · Score: 5, Funny

    Jan 19th: Ivanka orders a salad with Russian dressing.

    April 5th: Flynn drinks a beer from Russian River Brewing Company

  9. Re:Timeline of Treason by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's going to come a point when just shouting "the Washington Post are poo-poo heads!" won't cut it. The only thing keep the Trump Presidency in place right now is uncertainty among Republicans about the effects on the mid-terms, but with his approval ratings back in decline and growing numbers of Americans clearly no longer buying into the Cult of Personality that people like you so desperately want to propagate, that "guarantee", if you will, won't last that much longer. Pence, if he isn't taken down by all of this (he has his own Russian problem) can do everything the GOP-dominated Congress wants, and what they want more than anything is to keep it GOP-dominated after mid-terms.

    So go on, keep spouting the denials.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  10. Of all the candidates... by Dracos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why would the CIA (or any of the alphabet agencies) move to put Trump in the White House? That's ludicrous.

    If any sufficiently large group of independent US hackers wanted to get any of the 2016 candidates elected, they probably would have aided Bernie or McMullin.

  11. Re:Timeline of Treason by bit+trollent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is egregious false equivalence.

    Brian Williams jizzed his pants over a missile strike because he is a tool.
    This is different than:
    In Russia, journalists and opposition politicians are imprisoned or killed. The Trump / Russia scandal has left a trail of dead bodies in Russia.

    Russian state run media is not the same as the US media, which may report information given by the government, but isn't controlled by it.

    Open your fucking eyes and quit this false equivalence that puts free media at the same level as state run media in a place where journalism that embarrassed Putin often results in the Journalist's death.

  12. The Washington Post news story has links. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Informative

    The first comment is copied from a Washington Post news story that gives links to all the stories in the timeline, from all the news agencies.

  13. Re: Timeline of Treason by dcollins117 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You have two choices.

    We have many more than two choices. For instance, several house and senate committees could initiate investigations and the justice department could appoint a special counsel to conduct criminal investigations and prosecute government officials found to have committed crimes. Oh, snap, that's actually what they did. As it turns out, there are more than the two choices your limited mind could conjure up.

  14. Re:Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Because the Seth Rich narrative is an obvious scam which only distracts uneducated rubes from Russia, while the rest of us roll our eyes at the fraudulent claims made by known liars and scam artists?

  15. Re:Timeline of Treason by bongey · · Score: 5, Informative

    There comes a time when you need something more than an "Anonymous source from the Washington Post". 2 more months and it will be a YEAR and still NO REAL EVIDENCE of anything but a few illegally unmasked phone calls, that really have "nothing burgers" in the conversation.

  16. Re:Timeline of Treason by acrimonious+howard · · Score: 5, Informative

    Trump fires [Attourney General] Yates after she refuses to enforce his immigration ban[, which was later found to be illegal by the Supreme Court] (NYT, Jan. 30, 2017).

    FTFY

    I'm surprised you got this comment in before the Russian trolls started, nice.

    But you did miss these from the same citation:

    April or May
    The FBI focuses on Kushner as a person of interest in their investigation as that effort intensifies. (WP, May 25, 2017).

    May 10
    Trump fires Comey, citing the recommendation of Sessions (WP, May 10, 2017). In the letter firing Comey, Trump includes a line saying that he appreciates Comey telling him “on three separate occasions” that he is not under investigation (May 10, 2017). The president later tells NBC’s Lester Holt that the firing was because “this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story” (CNN, May 12, 2017). Sources indicate that Kushner was a prominent voice behind the firing (CBS, May 17, 2017).

    May 11
    In a private meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Kislyak, Trump reveals classified information shared with the United States by an ally, later reported to be Israel (WP, May 15, 2017). He also reportedly disparages Comey as a “nut job” to Lavrov and Kislyak and says that he “faced great pressure because of Russia,” which was now “taken off” with the firing of Comey (NYT, May 19, 2017).

    May 12
    Lawyers representing Trump release a statement indicating that the president’s tax returns don’t show income from Russian sources, with a few exceptions (NYT, May 12, 2017).

    May 17
    Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appoints former FBI director Robert Mueller as special counsel to oversee the Russia investigation

    And to Anon Ivan's complaint that many of these come from the Post, the answer is that you can find the same information elsewhere too.

  17. Re:Timeline of Treason by acrimonious+howard · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I like the response to this:

    There's going to come a point when just shouting "the Washington Post are poo-poo heads!" won't cut it.

    WaPo didn't have to go to any great lengths to find factual information that made Trump look bad, and that info is interesting enough to sell copy, so don't hold your breath for it to stop.

  18. Re:Sure thing, Sad Vlad the Mad!! by haruchai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Obama said that to Medvedev not Putin & he was already president.
    And he didn't win TWO presidential elections by narrow margins or through the interference of foreign governments.
    It's amusing to hear a Trump supporter talking about Obama being "excused" for anything when if he'd ever behaved like Trump has been doing his whole life, he would never have become a senator, let alone president.

    Aside from Manafort, there's also Carter Page who was an utter unknown to the general public until Trump mentioned his name as a foreign policy advisor during the campaign. Page has been courted by Russian intelligence for a while but is probably too dumb to be a good spy so has likely been used as a useful idiot.

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  19. Re:Timeline of Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lol, the same Washington Post that told us Iraq had WMDs and thinks PewDiePie is a white supremacist? Fact checking is not a part "real news", I guess.

  20. Re:People still need something to rally behind by Voyager529 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ya, both sides are equivalent. Hilary running her own email server is the same as Trump colluding with a foreign adversary (getting Russian sanctions out of Rep platform, and we've probably not scratched the surface yet).

    Hillary explicitly using unsecured communications channels for classified data, not turning over the server when the investigation started ("Did you wipe the server?" "with a cloth?" "No, with Bleachbit..."), cherry picking which e-mails get to be submitted as evidence...maybe not *quite* the same, but still thoroughly inexcusable..

    Benghazi is the same as Iraq (the cause of 1+million human deaths).

    Iraq, the war that Hillary voted in favor of and Trump spoke out against?

    "Obamacare", ugly as it was, added millions to the number of insured and got rid of the donut hole

    The 2,300 page bill that Nancy Pelosi said we needed to pass to find out what was in it? The bill that wasn't a tax until the question of whether or not it was Constitutional was raised, then it became a tax? That bill? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that people got coverage, but has this turned into an ends-justifies-the-means situation?

    and that's equivalent to Trump Care, which removes those advantages for the non-rich.

    Support for TrumpCare was tough to find, even among Republicans.

    Climate change is going to affect the poor way more than the rich,

    This is true - the costs of addressing climate change are going to roll downhill until they end up manifesting as price increases for household goods, but let's not pretend that taxing companies into compliance is going to come out of the C-level exec's annual bonuses.

    AND green jobs in some states already outnumber fossil fuel jobs,

    Absolutely...and in other states, fossil fuels are still economic powerhouses (Pennsylvania and North Dakota, I'm looking at you), turning it into a numbers game.

    but getting rid of jobs and sacrificing future prosperity, hey it's all equivalent, I don't know which side to support.

    Amongst the reasons Trump won was because he promised that manufacturing and oil drilling and coal mining would end up becoming domestic tasks again. Now yes, to an extent he was just making campaign promises (i.e. he was full of it), but the definition of 'getting rid of jobs' sounds different if you're a career machinist. He tapped into the market for that sort of message.

    To be clear, I'm not a Trump fan, and I didn't vote for him, but the false equivalences are of limited utility in this context.