GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity

a reply to: DJW001

I hope you get over those dreams of spetsnaz operatives in black pyjamas under your bed

a reply to: khnum

When you cannot make a case of your own, you attack the person who made the stronger case. It is possible to know the truth. Critical thinking, research, and analysis can establish it. There is no point making your emotional arguments or personal attacks. Thinking people can see the pattern and connect the dots. Isn't that what we're supposed to be doing here? Denying ignorance, not proclaiming it triumphant?

a reply to: TrueAmerican

I saw 2 Russia tagged IPs in that csv file. They don't seem to be anything special.

a reply to: DJW001

LOL your nation is picking fights with a nuclear power and at the same time all 14 carriers of yours are at port,your nation is currently run by imbeciles you had better hope the Russians dont take the bait and that Trump gets there

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: khnum

When you cannot make a case of your own, you attack the person who made the stronger case. It is possible to know the truth. Critical thinking, research, and analysis can establish it. There is no point making your emotional arguments or personal attacks. Thinking people can see the pattern and connect the dots. Isn't that what we're supposed to be doing here? Denying ignorance, not proclaiming it triumphant?

Ok you win,happy

Now I am no expert, but it looks to me after opening these files that all you get is a bunch of IP addresses, and a few comments about their country of origin.

You don't have to be an expert to know real hackers hide their ip adresses and spoof them.

I got some swamp land to sell people if they actually buy that official story coming from political appointees to government agencies.

Started reading through all the responses and just stopped because I was getting annoyed.

Several people have rightly understood that this "release" means absolutely NOTHING and certainly doesn't prove the claim that the Russians had anything to do with the outcome of the election.

Let's go over the real facts....

1. Wikileaks has stated time and again that Russia, including Russian intelligence, was NOT their source. Anyone who was paying attention to what Assange has said would realize that at least ONE of the sources was Seth Rich. Yet that is an inconvenient allegation to the DNC and, not surprisingly, no way to prove it since he was conveniently murdered. (Don't get me started on Assange proving it...because he has been compromised as well.)

2. While people can argue until the cows the come home over WHO hacked the server and released the data to Wikileaks, the bottom line is that the emails uncovered the true corruption and fraud within the Hillary camp, the DNC, and more. You can shoot the messenger but you can't deny the message. People are sick to death of the corruption in Washington establishment. Releasing the TRUTH is not "hacking the election." Same could be said about the release of Donald Trump's p**sy comment. He said it...it was disgusting, but the people had a right to know that was a part of his character. Same about Hillary and the bunch. People had a right to know who and what she really is and stands for.

3. First of all, the JAR release cannot definitively show that APT 28 & APT29 were the source of the campaign. There's a million ways to finger another culprit which is why tracking hackers is so difficult because it is circumstantial....especially for state-sponsored hackers who would not leave a trace. But even if you give the benefit of the doubt that they DID hack into the servers, so did MANY other state sponsored intelligence agencies...including our "allies" in UK, Germany, Israel..and more. that's not even touching hacktivists or script kiddies. So again there is no way to PROVE that any one specific government or person was the "one" to do it for a nebulous nefarious purpose and give it to Wikileaks. There are MANY different places that could have given it to Assange.

4. Given the politicization of this administration, why on earth would anyone believe they don't have an agenda with this "release"? This is simply sour grapes in an attempt to de-legitimize the incoming administration because they are angry that their damaged candidate lost the election.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: network dude

we have Assange who stated he got his info from a DC insider

I never saw anything where he admitted the source. When did that happen?

"Our source is not the Russian government," Assange told "The Sean Hannity Show." "So in other words, let me be clear," Hannity asked, "Russia did not give you the Podesta documents or anything from the DNC?" "That's correct," Assange responded.

link to source

a reply to: network dude

It was about this one

we have Assange who stated he got his info from a DC insider

I didn't think he ever admitted to the actual source or messenger.

a reply to: TrueAmerican


One must realise, that the fact that ATS can look through the supposed machinations to censor, and seeing that certain deaths , many and various are not suicides but "Offings"...One must come to the conclusion that were are now dealing with rank amateurs because in many cases they have resorted to obvious criminal thuggery, to get what they want. In fact a younger generation of "Spooks" promoted not on merit but on family associations. Where the IQ required is not up to the job required of them. This miscalculation is showing in just about everything they touch.

a reply to: roadgravel

Seth Rich Wikileaks source

This is just one example of what was said.... When I get back to a computer, I will post more from Assange that discusses his source.

This is telling because Assange does NOT ever name a source to protect the integrity of his system.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: network dude

It was about this one

we have Assange who stated he got his info from a DC insider

I didn't think he ever admitted to the actual source or messenger.

To my knowledge, it was hinted at with the link Gypsy offered, so you are correct.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
OK, lets say Russia hacked them....


....im more interested in the content of what was hacked. We can't be bothered dealing wit Russian right now. We need to weed our own garden first.

If Russia hacked the DNC, we should thank them for exposing the system for what it is: a rigged circus

If the DNC and RNC aren't doing anything criminal they shouldn't have anything to worry about. Luck had it that some information was leaked from somewhere.

Nobody seems to care about all the fabricated lies they said about Trump in the last weeks.

a reply to: CIAGypsy


In here he neither confirms or denies but getting shot in the back sort of lays it on the line.www.youtube.com...

Craig Murray, the man linked to wikileaks who claims he actually received the leaked documents, has weighed in on the GRIZZLY STEPPE document.

Exit Obama in a Cloud of Disillusion, Delusion and Deceit, 31 Dec, 2016

I had promised myself and my family that on this holiday I would do nothing but relax. However events have overtaken my good intentions. I find myself in the unusual position of having twice been in a position to know directly that governments were lying in globe-shaking events, firstly Iraqi WMD and now the “Russian hacks”.

Anybody who believes the latest report issued by Obama as “proof” provides anything of the sort is very easily impressed by some entirely meaningless diagrams. William Binney, who was Technical Director at the NSA and actually designed their surveillance capabilities, has advised me by email. It is plain from the report itself that the Russian groups discussed have been under targeted NSA surveillance for a period longer than the timeframe for the DNC and Podesta leaks. It is therefore inconceivable that the NSA would not have detected and traced those particular data flows and they would be saved. In other words, the NSA would have the actual hack on record, would be able to recognise the emails themselves and tell you exactly the second the transmission or transmissions took place and how they were routed. They would be able to give you date, time and IP addresses. In fact, not only do they produce no evidence of this kind, they do not even claim to have this kind of definite evidence.

Secondly, Bill points out that WikiLeaks is in itself a top priority target and any transmission to WikiLeaks or any of its major operatives would be tracked, captured and saved by NSA as a matter of routine. The exact route and date of the transmission or transmissions of the particular emails to WikiLeaks would be available. In fact, not only does the report not make this information available, it makes no claim at all to know anything about how the information was got to WikiLeaks.

Of course Russian hackers exist. They attack this blog pretty well continually – as do hackers from the USA and many other countries. Of course there have been attempted Russian hacks of the DNC. But the report gives no evidence at all of the alleged successful hack that transmitted these particular emails, nor any evidence of the connection between the hackers and the Russian government, let alone Putin.

There could be no evidence because in reality these were leaks, not hacks. The report is, frankly, a pile of complete and utter dross. To base grave accusations of election hacking on this report is ludicrous. Obama has been a severe disappointment to all progressive thinkers in virtually every possible way. He now goes out of power with absolutely no grace and in a storm of delusion and deceit. His purpose is apparently to weaken Trump politically, but to achieve that at the expense of heightening tensions with Russia to Cold War levels, is shameful. The very pettiness of Obama’s tongue out to Putin – minor sanctions and expelling some diplomatic families – itself shows that Obama is lying about the pretext. If he really believed that Russia had “hacked the election”, surely that would require a much less feeble response. By refusing to retaliate, Russia has shown the kind of polish that eludes Obama as he takes his empty charisma and presentational skills into a no doubt lucrative future in the private sector.

He makes some good points about the NSA with the claim that they would have known immediately if Russia hacked the DNC and also when wikileaks received the data. These claims actually come from ex NSA Technical Director William Binney

It's very telling that no investigation or evidence relating to either Murray or Binney has been forthcoming from the US Intelligence services. If they had even contacted Craig Murray, he'd have mentioned it. So why are they not investigating this lead? Murray has given a precise time and location that the exchange of documents allegedly took place in Washington.

He also makes some good points about the Crowdstrike report that introduced us to this CozyBear character.
www.craigmurray.org.uk...

a reply to: UKTruth

That's a lot of words to say "the NSA has been monitoring Russian cyber-espionage for a long time, and if Podesta's emails were hacked, the NSA would have concrete details." That's true enough, but the conclusion that Murray reaches is false. Just because the NSA does not release the details does not mean they do not have them. Intelligence agencies do not like to reveal things like operational details. Releasing the evidence might allow Russia to improve its own cyber-security. This is why providing the evidence was left to an outside contractor, whose capacities can be assumed to be less advanced than the NSA's.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

If the DNC and RNC aren't doing anything criminal they shouldn't have anything to worry about. Luck had it that some information was leaked from somewhere.

Really? In the first place, I'm still waiting for some sort of criminal activities to emerge from these emails. Secondly, it is naive to think that organizations that rely so heavily on public opinion to achieve their goals may not have aspects that might not appeal to the "uninitiated." *

Nobody seems to care about all the fabricated lies they said about Trump in the last weeks.

Could you provide an example of such a lie? Mostly the media just reported what Trump has actually said or done.


* Deliberate choice of words. Politics has been metaphorically referred to as a "Black Art."

originally posted by: UKTruth
You don't have to be a computer scientist, network admin, or have any special skills to know with certainty that the document contains no proof at all of the claims made by the media and unnamed intelligence sources.

That's totally correct. All you need is the ability to see. And to think. And open up a couple of files. I thought this was going to be some complicated code evidence, or heavy network coding. But it isn't. Even an eighth grader could open this up and see that all it is, is a bunch of IP addresses. And in today's world probably even a fifth grader.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

That's a lot of words to say "the NSA has been monitoring Russian cyber-espionage for a long time, and if Podesta's emails were hacked, the NSA would have concrete details." That's true enough, but the conclusion that Murray reaches is false. Just because the NSA does not release the details does not mean they do not have them. Intelligence agencies do not like to reveal things like operational details. Releasing the evidence might allow Russia to improve its own cyber-security. This is why providing the evidence was left to an outside contractor, whose capacities can be assumed to be less advanced than the NSA's.

A full date/time stamp digitally logged is not revealing anything...it is not a secret that servers log sessions. It would also allow us to precisely line up the alleged hack dates with the last emails published by wikileaks.

The DNC emails stop on the 25th May 2016 @10:48pm and the Podesta emails stop on 21st March 2016@10:44am. We should see the server time stamps land on or around these times for the IP addresses identified. For some reason this information is not being shared. Perhaps because it does not suit the narrative...

There is another point from Murray's blog that leads to questions about the govt. narrative. If the NSA has the ability to know in real time when a hack has occurred from a monitored source IP or location, as stated by the NSA Technical Director in 2001, and the hacks date back over years from these sources, why was this not sorted out well before further hacks could take place? Either they didn't bother to use the information to protect the DNC, they did try but the DNC wouldn't listen, or the hacks never took place.

Until there is proper evidence we just have the word of the govt. If that is your bar, then I will assume you will be believing everything the administration has to say from Jan 21st 2017 onwards?

originally posted by: TrueAmerican

originally posted by: UKTruth
You don't have to be a computer scientist, network admin, or have any special skills to know with certainty that the document contains no proof at all of the claims made by the media and unnamed intelligence sources.

That's totally correct. All you need is the ability to see. And to think. And open up a couple of files. I thought this was going to be some complicated code evidence, or heavy network coding. But it isn't. Even an eighth grader could open this up and see that all it is, is a bunch of IP addresses. And in today's world probably even a fifth grader.

As I posted above, I was at least expecting to see some detailed timestamps for hacks that correlate to the actual dates the wikileaks email end. But no, not even something as simple as that. I am still amazed that the govt. could release such a vague document with zero evidence as their 'proof'.