Slashdot Mirror


Top-Secret NSA Report Details Russian Hacking Effort Days Before 2016 Election (theintercept.com)

Russian hacking groups played a larger role in the 2016 election than anyone realized, according to a highly-classified NSA document published today in The Intercept. The document reveals that a Russian intelligence operation sent spear-phishing emails to more than 100 local election officials days before the election, which ran through a hack of a U.S. voting software supplier. The Russian cyber espionage operation was functional for months before the 2016 U.S. election. From the report: It states unequivocally in its summary statement that it was Russian military intelligence, specifically the Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate, or GRU, that conducted the cyber attacks described in the document: "Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate actors ... executed cyber espionage operations against a named U.S. company in August 2016, evidently to obtain information on elections-related software and hardware solutions. ... The actors likely used data obtained from that operation to ... launch a voter registration-themed spear-phishing campaign targeting U.S. local government organizations." This NSA summary judgment is sharply at odds with Russian President Vladimir Putin's denial last week that Russia had interfered in foreign elections: "We never engaged in that on a state level, and have no intention of doing so." Putin, who had previously issued blanket denials that any such Russian meddling occurred, for the first time floated the possibility that freelance Russian hackers with "patriotic leanings" may have been responsible. The NSA report, on the contrary, displays no doubt that the cyber assault was carried out by the GRU.

21 of 456 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Even if there was hacking.... by naubol · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... is there any evidence that it changed the outcome?

    And if there were, what difference would that make, now?

    I'm betting zilch.

    So, let's do nothing? Are you that worried it might delegitimize your guy? Is this where we're at, that we're so partisan we can't repel a foreign invader? That's straight out of the colonial playbook. Divide and conquer.

    --
    Reality is a slackware box running on a 386 tucked away in god's sock drawer.
  2. Hmmm by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So we go from "they hacked us" to "they tried to hack us"? Not quite the same accusation. Next it will go from "It was the Russian government" to "it was someone using an IP from Russia"...

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Hmmm by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you look at the actual public evidence, that's all we've got.

      Exactly. The document in question takes a quite conclusive tone on the matter, but does not divulge any raw intelligence data or the methods used to assess that data.

      Now, either the NSA personnel who produced this document are a hell of lot less smart than you are, or the document is a fake, or there is private information that the rest of us don't have.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:Hmmm by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Three words to live by: time will tell.

      I'm old enough to remember Watergate, and that started pretty thin too. Here's the thing about people: they really suck at keeping secrets, especially when the pressure is on. That's how this works. The opposition gets out ahead of the evidence, but eventually -- if there's something to the story -- someone will crack. Then slowly, slowly the president's supporters will edge away, until he's left with nothing but a handful of useless, deluded stalwarts.

      Now I've also seen a lot of bullshit "scandals" over my lifetime. That's because, like I said, the partisan opponents get ahead of what can be definitively proved. But that serves a purpose. If you really have faith in the President, you have nothing to worry about. You can't take down a president with nothing but hatred, you need to get something that sticks; something with legs to do real damage.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:Hmmm by bmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      regarding your last paragraph:

      I don't want our sitting president, DJT, ousted.

      He is unable to get anything done. Even Republicans within his own party balk at the idiocy that comes out of the WH as a "budget" And that's being nice.

      His 4am shitter tweets are a sight to behold. I'm not talking about the new Scrabble 7 letter word - I'm talking about all the rest of them that any sensible PR person would be screaming at him about.

      He is a disgusting human being who is only liked as he is because he can play the media like Perlman plays the fiddle and sometimes he's funny. But beyond that, his overall behavior that I have seen since the 80s has been atrocious.

      I could go on.

      Yes, we could remove him. He's arrogant enough to leave a trail a mile wide, thinking nobody will walk down it.

      Yes, we could remove him, but next in line are Pence and Granny Starver Ryan. And if you look at the list, it's assholes all the way down. But they're competent politicians. They know how to say the nice things while stabbing you in the back and you'll thank them for the stab. Trump is fucking incompetent, as we have seen over the past months (it feels like years). The only people left who truly support him are impervious to facts.

      As a member of the opposition (I am no longer a dem, because they are Reaganism in Drag, with the drag getting a little threadbare, but as such they are slightly less evil), I want Trump to be stuck to the Republican Party and have them own him at least until the 2018 elections and hopefully to the 2020 elections (to be tossed on his ass by the R party or him rage-quitting)

      Because he is so /useful/ to the opposition as an idiot. He brings the media. The media, being stenographers these days, sometimes shines light on the shenanigans unwittingly. More so now than in the past because Trump is entertainment and ratings. For example, we've had Darrel Issa trapped on a rooftop at his town-hall, and similar things have been happening to other congressdroids. People are pissed. I want them to remain pissed. Anger directed in a useful direction is good. They're now getting angry at the people who wish them harm. In order for this to keep going, Trump must remain in office to generally draw attention to government.

      Russiagate is a distraction from the real issues - that both the Democratic and Republican parties are Neoliberal economically and considering the last administration, the Democrats are Neoconservatives on foreign policy (we're in how many wars now?) and Heaven Forfend that the public actually gets wind of this.

      --
      BMO

    4. Re:Hmmm by Ksevio · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You sound like you're on board the Trump train, but you're really stretching this one.

      Here we have a classified report (not intended for the public) that points fingers at a specific agency (the article didn't say how they learned that, but we can be pretty sure it wasn't by IP), and your only response is to try to discredit the entire government.

      There's a point where being skeptical moves into denial.

  3. Re:Even if there was hacking.... by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The attempted/failed wiretapping of the Democratic National Committee's office in the Watergate Hotel during the 1972 Presidential Campaign didn't change the outcome of that election either.

    I guess we should have ignored all that stuff back then.

  4. Did they change votes counted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If the Russians actually hacked into the voting machines at the poles and flipped Hillary votes to Donald votes, then yes they hacked the election. Since I have yet to hear this pushed forward, it sounds like all they did was reveal more dirt on Hillary.

    Russians may have swayed public opinion but that's no different then what our news media does every day. Heck, the news media likely lost Hillary the election because of those polls. Democrats stayed home because they figured, "we got this and I liked Bernie more anyway".

    But sure, let's just keep saying they hacked our election. If they didn't change votes cast then they didn't hack the election.

    And no, I sure as hell didn't vote for Trump or Hillary.

  5. Re:Even if there was hacking.... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... is there any evidence that it changed the outcome?

    And if there were, what difference would that make, now?

    I'm betting zilch.

    They use terms like 'played a larger role' to imply it without having to actually back it up.

  6. Re:Hysteria by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Rush Limbaugh theorem states that the media isn't an arm of the Democrat Party, rather, that the Democrat Party is an arm of the media. Think about it, which side is more organized and sends a cohesive voice nightly or hourly?

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  7. I miss the old slashdot by stinerman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well I knew that slashdot jumped the shark awhile back, but when most of the comments are defending the Russians, it's reached an all new low.

  8. Re:Leftist Media 101 by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If anything, that she was arrested lends credibility to the document being real.

  9. Re:Even if there was hacking.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    what's funny here is the NSA is complaining about Russian spying... when the NSA has been violating the privacy of billions around the world for decades.

  10. Re:Even if there was hacking.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Move back to paper.

  11. Re:Even if there was hacking.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    what's funny here is the NSA is complaining about Russian spying... when the NSA has been violating the privacy of billions around the world for decades.

    Yes and the pentagon would complain if the russians bombed us despite the pentagon bombing brown skinned people all over the world for decades.

  12. Re:Even if there was hacking.... by fluffernutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about understand exactly what happened, lock things down and educate people so it is at least harder to pull off next time? Or is that too common sense?

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  13. Re:Even if there was hacking.... by grcumb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So you would do what? Bomb Russia?

    Oh, I don't know. How about not roll back the sanctions you placed on them for doing exactly this?

    How about getting the President to listen to his own National Security Advisor, and Secretaries of State and Defence, and vocally support Article 5 of the NATO treaty?

    How about the administration not try to hide communications with them from their own government?

    How about quit fucking lying about having no contact with them? If they're no threat, and if it's no big deal, then why lie? That's a real question—why so much deception? It makes no sense.

    How about quit treating the whole situation as utterly innocuous, and without indulging in dated anti-Soviet rhetoric or blowing it off as it's perfectly normal, come to grips with the fact that Russia is a strategic competitor, and is opposed to many American interests?

    How about admitting that the Putin administration has a stake in deligitimising democratic norms and processes, because doing so helps him maintain a increasingly tight grip on the Russian population, and maybe, you know, not fucking help with that?

    --
    Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
  14. Re:Hysteria by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This continued media frenzy became tiresome some time ago. Can we move on to something new to be outraged about?

    You seem to be conflating "important" and "entertaining".

    Important stuff is often quite boring, at least at the outset before you understand what's going on.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  15. Re:Hillary lost because of RUSSIA! by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Partisan politics-as-usual bullshit
    Focusing on Clinton instead of the BIGGER PICTURE

    Listen buddy: IDGAF about Hillary; I didn't vote for the old bat and I didn't vote for Cheeto-head either, but I do give a good god-fucking-damnit about whether some Russian military assholes, on the orders of the head Russian asshole, HACKED OUR GODS-BE-DAMNED ELECTION PROCESS AND GOT AWAY WITH IT! Is that so fucking hard for you and EVERYONE LIKE YOU to understand!?

    Meanwhile your boy Cheeto-head, the Pussy-Grabber-in-Chief, is FUCKING OVER THE COUNTRY with his ham-fisted attempts at being President. You still happy with your choice for POTUS, boy?

  16. Re:Russians meddled - but Clinton lost the first t by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem is that results like 2016 don't have any single cause. There are many things that had they been different could have changed the outcome.

    Blame isn't like a hot potato: there's plenty for everyone. Clinton has her share of the blame. Her weak and passive messaging, and her over-reliance on dubious analytics in the face of clear field intelligence were both mistakes. Absent either of them and she would have won -- it was only a matter of swinging 100,000 strategically placed votes, about 1/100th of 1% of the votes cast.

    This doesn't mean other things didn't cause her loss too, but the bottom line was that she was facing Donald Trump, a boorish reality TV clown and easily the stupidest and most ignorant man ever to win the presidency. She should have blown the doors of the election far beyond the reach of a few unlucky breaks or marginal meddling to matter.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  17. How is this new? by lessthan0 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This seems like a lot of crying and hang wringing over standard operating procedures.

    Did Russia try to penetrate our voting systems? Probably.

    Did the US plant stuxnet in Iranian nuke plants? Probably
    Did the US hack North Korean missile tests? Probably
    Did the US capture German and UK government communications? Yes
    Does the US try to penetrate Russian systems and generally hack every government and military computer on the planet 24x7? YES!

    This is the way the world works, the way it has ALWAYS worked. It is naive and dangerous to think otherwise.

    Our best response is to harden our systems and go on with life. Complete nothing burger.