Dutch Intelligence Agents Watched Russia Hack the DNC (volkskrant.nl)

Long-time Slashdot readers Agilulf, Sara Chan, and wiredmikey -- plus an anonymous reader -- all submitted the same story. Agilulf writes: Dutch hackers from AIVD (their intelligence agency) infiltrated Russian hackers, had access to their CCTV system, and followed them for more than a year, watched their attack on the DNC, provided the proof to the U.S. intelligence community that Russia was behind those hacks and the stolen emails, and were disappointed with the response from the U.S.
The Dutch agents also watched Russian agents breach a non-classified network at the U.S. State Department in 2014, where the Russians then sent a phishing email to the White House, successfully stole login credentials, and then accessed email from embassies and diplomats.

"Three American intelligence services state with 'high confidence' that the Kremlin was behind the attack on the Democratic Party," according to the article, which adds that that certainty "is derived from the AIVD hackers having had access to the office-like space in the center of Moscow for years."

Comments

And?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this change anything about the undisputed authenticity of the emails we saw? No.

I want to say "I hope the DNC has learned a valuable lesson about email and network security," but that would imply I think the DNC is capable of learning from their mistakes.

Still a few unasnwered questions...

[jonwil]

Ok so if the US intelligence agencies knew the DNC had been hacked why didn't they do anything about it? Why didn't they tell the DNC there was a hacker in their network?

Were they worried about the hackers finding out that there was someone watching them and then shutting off that particular source of information? Was there some issue with a government agency sharing information with the operations of a political party during an election?

The other thing that hasn't been answered is why this happened. Why were the Russians interested in the DNC? Did Russia stand to gain something by influencing the election in a way that caused Hillary and the Democrats to lose?

Re: Referendum

[JaredOfEuropa]

As another Dutchman, I believe this story is true and is being used as propaganda. I'm not a big believer in conspiracy theories about made up "narratives" involving several security agencies in such a high profile case. The story is plausible. I do however think that the timing of this news, in light of the upcoming referendum, is extremely suspicious. The prime minister has already pointed out that the results from this hack show precisely why the government needs wider powers to tap electronic communications.

Re: Referendum

[Xenna]

I'm Dutch too, and I share your disbelief. First of all, I distrust most media reports on hacking, since I think they don't understand most of it.

Second, I think a 'secret service' type of organization keeps its methods secret as much as possible. In this case they seem all to eager to broadcast their achievements.

You get it wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

All you can know is that some email were stolen. NOTHING tells you that the email which were found later correspond to those stolen. And since most of that stuff is not encrypted, it is *trivial* to add fake stuff in it. There is no chain of custody. Any leaker stuff which is not covered by an encryption key in a separate place is *suspect*.

I also note that from all what is said,m all the hacking, all you retained "the email were [possibly] not fake" I can only say , i am betting you are one of those ultra partisan type which do not care as long as either their party wins, or more dirt is thrown at the other party.
This is truly why a two party system is toxic.

So what was in the emails?

[buss_error]

I have a very simple, and very pointed question.

What, exactly, are the hot, Top Secret contents of those emails?

Remember what the state department does - It has diplomats. They talk. They talk a lot. They have no need of Operationally Secure Information. And while a lot of spying goes on from diplomatic missions, the spy's chain of command does not run through the Department of State, nor do they use email. Think about what the State Department does. Then ask yourself, what kinds of secrets they will be a party to. EG: Who is who's mistress. Which children of what diplomats are doing drugs or other things that can be used against that diplomat. They don't get the nuclear launch codes - they have no need of them. They do not get troop movements, order of battle, or deployment orders. Again, they have no need to know.

Now, let us turn to the facts of the matter.

HRC used a private email sever under their control.
President Trump's daughter and son in law used Yahoo accounts, whose servers are not under their direct control. If you know anything about email systems, then you'll know that any Yahoo engineer could view the contents of those accounts by simply logging in with their credentials.

Was it wrong for HRC to use a private email server? Yes. Absolutely.
Was it wrong for others to use Yahoo accounts? Arguably even more stupid than what HRC did.

Let not your political desires affect your judgement. To put it like my grandmother used to say, if a shirt is dirty, then it's dirty. Don't try to convince yourself a mustard stain is any worse or better than a lobster bisque stain.

It's still dirty.