I was on board with the Russian Hacking story until the MSM got sloppy.

a reply to: theantediluvian

You are referring to something that has been around long enough for anyone to mimic. Russians hacking the DNC emails wouldn't leave traces that pointed to Russia, that would be stupid on their part.

However, let's assume you are correct. That means the democrat party is not responsible enough for any amount of leadership, they do not take security concerns seriously, and cannot be trusted with classified information.

The hacks prove democrats are not intelligent enough or responsible enough for positions of power.

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: theantediluvian

Oh yes, hired by democrats to 'find' Russian meddling. Interesting how they choose the one company that has a sour outlook with Russia to begin with. Maybe you aren't familiar with what type of innate bias a Russia ex-pat would have when being paid by the DNC to 'find' Russian hacking.

The problem with your hypothesis is that CrowdStrike couldn't have retroactively dropped all the breadcrumbs that existed months before they were called in. So even if the samples were constructed for a false narrative — prior to the hack even being revealed remember — there's still all of that to be dealt with.

In fact, the samples have been subjected to comparative analysis against known samples that suggests strongly that they are legit. I won't go into details because you'll just ignore them anyway but anyone interested can find them easily enough.

So now we're talking about CrowdStrike sitting on samples obtained from legit hacks, not previously released to the community and pulling them out just for this occassion. Furthermore, your hypothesis then requires that in this small time frame, they found all the traces that other researchers have since reported on and then swapped out s# like the C2 server IPs?

All that just to frame Russia.

Unless of course you believe that all these other entities were invovled in a massive conspiracy to frame Russia for the hack or create a false narrative about a nonexistent hack or whatever the hell it is you believe today.

On the one hand, there are a bunch of inconsistent, half-baked theories and dubious speculative alternative explanations and they all have massive gaps and worse, most of them are contradicted by publicly available evidence (available since June) that doesn't come from CrowdStrike or the intelligence community. Assange denying that the emails came from Russia or any other state actors is pretty much the only thing keeping them afloat (along with a massive desire to deny deny deny at all costs).

a reply to: GodEmperor

Exactly!! They don't want people discussing the content of the leaks!

What about the leaks don't "they" want discussed? (including the GOP congressmen). Why aren't you discussing it? What's left that hasn't been discussed exactly and why aren't any of you discussing it?

That's nothing more than a weak diversion by way of false dilemma. We can't talk about the contents of the emails supposedly (even though we have which is why DWS resigned and Brazile got canned from CNN but let's pretend none of that happened) because we can't talk about the contents of the emails AND how they were obtained?

a reply to: theantediluvian

You are making a lot of assumptions, based on the work from sources with a vested interest in the MSM narrative.

The only thing this 'Russian hacking' serves is the military industrial complex. The worst thing the Russians ever did was the collapse of the Soviet empire, without some impending threat, there is no reason for a budget that dwarfs all other countries.

Draconian Cyber-security bills have failed to pass for years. I predict next time it will, and you will celebrate the loss of freedom.

a reply to: GodEmperor

You are referring to something that has been around long enough for anyone to mimic. Russians hacking the DNC emails wouldn't leave traces that pointed to Russia, that would be stupid on their part.

Nobody is claiming that they left traces that pointed to Russia. What is being claimed is that the evidence points to specific threat actors and that OTHER evidence points to those threat actors being Russian state-sponsored. Also realize that the DNC hackers got caught in the act and that it's really not uncommon to find traces from state-sponsored attackers. It's a myth that state-sponsored attackers are magical ninjas slipping through the ether undetected or only discovered in extremely rare instances.

These groups are casting wide nets. There are lots of moving parts. There are realities of what they do that necessitates different degrees of exposure, particularly in circumstances like an ongoing intrusion lasting months. It's not feasible to dev new sets of tools for every hack when you're doing dozens of hacks a year.

You've heard of Stuxnet I'm sure? Stuxnet was epic and technically far far beyond what we're talking about here and yet... you've heard of Stuxnet.

The primary objective is to get in and remain undetected long enough to accomplish the goal and to not create irrefutable evidence for attribution to the those ultimate responsible so that there's a enough doubt for plausible deniability.

The injection of "Guccifer 2.0" was obviously an effort to pin the hacks on a lone hacker from Romania inspired by Guccifer. Using an intermediary to get the documents to Wikileaks would also be another way of injecting plausible deniability.

The hacks prove democrats are not intelligent enough or responsible enough for positions of power.

Non sequitur much? The same group hacked members of the German parliament and nonsecure networks of the Pentagon and White House. Those are hacks we know about. We don't know what from "the other side" was hacked. Lindsey Graham did however say that entities involved with the RNC (and his own campaign) were hacked. Assange said WL received a few documents that weren't worth publishing.

Do you know for a fact that there weren't similar breaches on the GOP side of things that were never revealed and that there aren't troves of documents in the hands of foreign actors right now that are being sat on? Possibly sat on until just the right time when the GOP or the Trump administration run afoul of the Putin agenda? Maybe used as blackmail? Admittedly, that's all speculation and while the DNC bumbling and the debacle that is John Podesta, aren't confidence inspiring, let's not pretend to know that the state of affairs is better on the other side of the aisle.

The one good thing that might come from all this is a lot more people becoming aware of cybersecurity.

a reply to: theantediluvian

You admit there is not enough evidence to prove Russian involvement.

That was a long-winded way around it, but ok.

You are also pointing out, that unsecure networks are vulnerable. Ok. Are you in favor of draconian cybersecurity measures that ultimately is the responsibility of the individual who should be securing their own files.

The NSA was caught in acts of widespread surveillance, including German leadership. Either you are wholly against this type of act, or you only oppose it when it's not coming from the US.

Stuxnet was allegedly from the US, should there be repercussions for Stuxnet even though there is not enough evidence to prove US involvement?

Why is it so imperative to convince the public, the Russians hacked the DNC? What is the purpose, why can't remedies be done without all the hooplah?

originally posted by: digital01anarchy
Everyone has all the evidence they need to see she was cheating, lying and backstabbing the american people and honestly people are questioning the legitimacy of trumps win? Its f-ing pathetic!

Post of the day!!

I could 'feel' your emotion as I read that.

The redacted intl report can be downloaded now. The "Annex A" which is used throughout the report as it's foundation for opinion, was done in 2012. That's the Obama/Romney election. Did lazy administration for Obama have them recycle what was going to be the attack on Romney if he won?

There is way too much focus on "who" rather than the "what", the MSM is like the Wizard of Oz saying look over here this is more important. Well if you have half a brain cell that functions, you will know what is important in this whole fiasco.

a reply to: vexati0n


The specific state sponsored Malware was "XAgent", it was not unspecified.


Much of the hacking has been document by multiple independent cyber security firms..


Here is Crowdstrikes explanation concerning the specific Podesta and Colin Powell hacks..


motherboard.vice.com...


If you are in the IT field, I am surprised you haven't researched this more before..The technical end of it is mostly public.


The classified portion isn't even necessary IMO to trace the bulk of the hack to Russia.

a reply to: vexati0n

Apparently you didn't hear. Even the Trump admin is adminitting it was Russia's fault now. The new narrative all the Trumpkins get to say is that it was the DNC's fault for getting hacked in the first place; which is of course good ole fashioned Republican victim blaming.

a reply to: GodEmperor

You admit there is not enough evidence to prove Russian involvement.

No. The publicly available and discussed forensic evidence from the hacks points to specific threat actors and years of compiled evidence points to those threat actors being Russian state-sponsored.

That's without knowing what the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc have in terms of human int, additional forensic evidence, etc.

You are also pointing out, that unsecure networks are vulnerable. Ok. Are you in favor of draconian cybersecurity measures that ultimately is the responsibility of the individual who should be securing their own files.

No, I am not in favor of draconian cybersecurity laws. Why are you trying to create a false dilemma? It's not either or. I'm for investigating crimes of the conventional non-cyber varity but I'm against warrantless searches. Do you see those two positions as diametrically opposed too? I'm going to guess not.

The NSA was caught in acts of widespread surveillance, including German leadership. Either you are wholly against this type of act, or you only oppose it when it's not coming from the US.

Stuxnet was allegedly from the US, should there be repercussions for Stuxnet even though there is not enough evidence to prove US involvement?

I'm against spying on our allies. I'm not against sabotaging Iranian centrifuges. Another false dilemma? I'm also not a big fan of war but that wouldn't stop me from fighting in one to protect myself, my family and my country.

Why is it so imperative to convince the public, the Russians hacked the DNC? What is the purpose, why can't remedies be done without all the hooplah?

It's a particularly nasty dynamic. Throughout the campaign, there were a number of red flags of various degrees of concern:

- Trump & Putin openly fawning.

- Trump's own moronic off the cuff (and I assume joking) comment: "I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."

- Trump being surrounded by pro-Kremlin advisors while Manafort, who'd just come back from spending 10 years as the chief political advisor to the deposed Ukranian despot and Putin lapdog (Yanukovych), was his campaign manager.

- Trump foreign policy advisor Carter Page making trips to Russia to meet with Russian officials and in the same trip, making decidedly pro-Kremlin/anti-US gov remarks in a speech.

- Russian officials saying that several members of the campaign staff had been in regular contact with Russia.

- Trump appointing Lt. Gen Michael Flynn as his National Security Advisor.

- Trump selecting Rex Tillerson for Secrectary of State

- Trump's various comments about relations with NATO allies.

- Trump's comments about the annexation of Crimea

- Russian politicians claiming that not electing Trump would lead to WW3

- Russian state-run media going all in for Trump

Now we have Trump's very obvious reluctance to acknowledge what US intelligence agencies are confirming that had already been widely believed by the majority of cybersecurity experts. All this is happening in the context of ongoing sanctions against Russia following the annexation of Crimea which ended a 5 year effort of the outgoing administration to "reset" that relationship.

Can you not see the irony here? Obama & co were all about "let's be friends with Russia" and after years of gestures, Russia tossed all that out when they violated their own commitments made in the Budapest Memorandum.

Now Trump is blathering about "wouldn't it be nice to be friends with Russia?" like we didn't just go through all this s# only to have Russia prove that they're not really all that concerned with being friends after all.

It's not any one thing, it's the entire picture.

We've been told for years by the same folks who make up a big part of Trump's support — and Trump himself — that Obama saying "terrorist" instead of "Islamic terrorist" is keeping us from dealing with terrorism. Not only does Donald Trump not want to say the words "Russian hackers," he and his supporters don't even want to discuss the elephant (bear?) in the room at all.

All PE Trump has to do is come out and say that he believes it's very likely (he doesn't even have to say he's positive) that Russia was behind the hacks. That it's a serious concern of his administration, that they'll continue investigations and take appropriate action. He doesn't even have to actually do anything.

As it stands, he looks like a useful idiot who will facilitate Putin's agenda (or at least be permissive of it) because he's grateful on some level.

Yeah, but the toss offs in charge know that they are losing their grip on us proles. Time to take our mind off a things and start a big, fat, war... with the Russians!

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: vexati0n

such a rare rational liberal thought.

If there were more of you I would have never defected to the right

Eh just your post would go against your self reported "rationality." There are dolts on both sides, including a horde of idiots on the right.

a reply to: Zimnydran

Thats what i dont get the contentsof the emails. Is what should matter

So, I am unsure about what this election hacking means ? How do you hack an election?
If anybody says that their elections are hacked, then they should explain, how can anybody hack an election!

a reply to: banjobrain

The Rubble has been getting crushed since opec said they wouldnt stop pumping . We have a huge surplus of oil causing the prices to plummet. 70-80% of Russia's GDP counts on Oil and gas. They sanctions that Obama put on has don nothing but hurt the poor. Also even if Trump has major investments in Russia do you think they care. Its not even 1% of the GDP no one would waste resources on that . Now as far are meddling in the elections this happens ever year not just this one. Hillary was the worst nominee they could put up. Ukraine invested in swaying are elections for Hillary where is the out rage on that or how about Saudi Arabia 25% of Hillary's campaign was financed by them. Do we hear others complain when we get involved in other peoples elections ? Egypt, Ukraine 5 billion was given to groups that started the first coup. What about Iraq ? This is just a move by the left to keep everyone distracted and it works on the common people.

originally posted by: vexati0n

Now, the case for Russian involvement in or leadership in these events hinges on only a couple of things:

• Certain unspecified "malware" was (apparently) written with a Cyrillic keyboard. This may or may not be true but is hardly an ironclad case for any "hacking" being carried out by Russians specifically, let alone state-sponsored Russians.

I agree its hardly ironclad. Its really nothing at all. I have my computer set up so its English/Russian. All I have to do to switch between the two languages is press ALT/SHIFT. Very simple. You can buy Russian keyboard stickers on ebay and stick them on the corresponding keys. I suspect this can be done with most any language.

a reply to: vexati0n

Yarp well unfortunately its not about what one chooses to believe or not. The MSM has always been out for President Trump because of the German word for failure (look it up) and enjoying being a witness to it.

Their looking for someone to blame and the only blame they should be aportioning is a portion owed duly to themselfs for sloppy reportage and sensinalism.

Its about facts not feelings and in this case there are only facts. And I deem the MSM guilty!