The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Hacks & Facts

I know some of you are repeating the same thing about the supposed Russian hacks. Here's a few interesting things about that. Still NO evidence has been presented.

Not that I really care one way or the other but What "proof" could be presented that would make you believe Russians hacked the DNC?

Should the CIA release how they detect these hacks and tip Russians off on how to better not be detected in the future?

I am not saying the Russians did hack the DNC, I am just wondering what proof people want that would make them happy.

It isn't proof, but the CIA would have to emphatically say that they had human intelligence of a traditional nature that the Russian govt was involved. Not proof, considering the CIA's general record, but at least worth considering.

But they didn't do that, and only ever said "they thought" or "it looked" like Russian hacking. Which means nothing. Even worse, attributing a hack to an entity without human intelligence is setting oneself up for a bigger mistake than the Iraq war. There is no way to positively identify the perpetrator of a digital hack through digital means. Period. Even if you have access to all the routers via backdoors, as the NSA is rumored to have, and you do manage a high degree of confidence in the resulting physical origin (which still isn't 100%) you still don't know who was behind the keyboard, or even if someone didn't just load the attack on a USB stick and get it plugged in to a machine at that location.

With a bit of effort, it is also possible to copy another entity's MO, and even make the attack origin fit.

The attack was perpetrated via email phishing. I don't doubt that the malware payload was of Russian origin, and possibly even was hosted in Russian territory. It is even likely that entities that are affiliated with, and at times work with the Russian govt were involved.

The problem: Anyone with a few grand, and knowledge of certain darknet message boards could pull off the same thing. A bit of bitcoin or prepaid cards can get you access to pretty much any malware, hack, or botnet.

--

I'd say that there is still about a 50/50 chance that Putin was involved. After all, he blamed Hillary for meddling in Russian elections a few years ago. So the idea that Putin would order it, or at the least look the other way, is pretty high. But it isn't proof.

Also, in this case, the accusation mainly seems to have stemmed from the security firm Counter Strike and not US agencies, and never a word from NSA. Counterstrike was brought in by the DNC, and were the ones to point the finger.

This doesn't seem good enough to start impacting relations with powerful countries, and in fact would, and has, set a dangerous precedent.

Of course, the root problem in all of this is the fact that our intelligence agencies have, by their own incompetence and dishonesty over the years, made their musings and pronunciations suspect.

Any agency that can say "yep, looks like Iraq is building nukes" can say, "yep, those contractors (that we also use/work with) who say that hack looks like Russians have a good case. it's probably Russians"

Ok actually watch the video, which was pretty good. Interesting that now theres a UK ambassador vouching for Assange's version. Maybe Podesta getting hit by a random email phishing malware scam (that we all get, I see tons of that crap in my work email quarantine) had nothing to do with the leak at all even.

Glad to see Swann is back, he tried to go it alone for a while but it didn't work out well - wasn't able to generate enough money. Which is unfortunate, since he is the closest thing to a real TV reporter we have these days.

I just think people are totally writing off that it was an inside job. There are still some good old Democrats out there that can't stand the direction their party has been going the last 30-35 years. Now there's a bunch of hypersensitive progressive liberals claiming to be Democrats hijacking their party and they are getting fed up with it and some are probably leaking Information.

Regardless of the source of the successful phishing operation, a couple of things are true.

Democrats do not dispute the content of the leaked emails. To the extent that those emails damaged Democratic candidates, both at the top of the ticket and in lower level races, that is due to voters objecting to corruption and malfeasance within the Democratic party. I see no move afoot among Democrats to correct those flaws.

Second, it is not the responsibility of the federal government to secure private email systems, particularly when the fault is due to stupidity and negligence, in this case on the part of those in the DNC.

I think it is a joke that conservatives write off consensus amoung US intel agencies. Can you even imagine if Obama had done what Trump is doing. Simply amazing.

Can you imagine that conservatives hate democrats more than Russian intelligence?

Democrats are just as bad for thinking that the purported ends justify the means.

Plus, arguing from the position of defending the veracity of CIA is a very weak platform. The top dogs at the security agencies are known liars, perjurers, and political hacks. Especially Clapper. Though you would be correct to say that GOP is mostly arguing against them for their own gain. Case in point being Wikileaks. Wikileaks gets info they can verify as legit, they post it. When they post info harmful to GOP, the Democrats love them, and GOP calls them traitors/terrorists. When the info being leaked is harmful to Democrats, they get called Russian tools.

But, Owain did bring up a very valid point earlier: the info posted was true. This is actually the most important point of the entire issue.

Since when does it matter who brings the truth to light? Is it any less true? If you don't like the message, just kill the messenger?

Just remember, the people whose consensus is being questioned are the same ones that claim that the US Govt needs to keep extensive records on the emails and other activities of Mr and Mrs Smith in Iowa, because, Al Qaeda. Then they will lie to congress about it.

This partisanship that ignore principles, and focuses on short-term political gain is toxic and corrosive.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...hacking/512309/

So the big reveal at the hearing was...... absolutely nothing. Oh, there will be a forthcoming report.

Here is the most telling tidbit. Keep in mind that Michael Sulmeyer is the director of the Belfer Center's Cyber Security Project at Harvard Kennedy School. He, and thus Harvard, like so many 'liberal' institutions epitomize our post-truth society.



What he is saying, is that journalism should be defended against by the Federal Govt. That it should be an "Administration Priority" to make sure information on the doings and workings of our political parties don't seethe light of day.

It is even referred to as "hacking the voters"

If this insanity prevails, maintaining any semblance of a democratically oriented Republic will not be feasible in the long term.

How dare anyone "hack the voters" by letting the public know what their overlords really think and plan!

The FBI requested access to the computers in question, and was denied, as the DNC thought it would be too intrusive.

I guess the intel community consensus was achieved using a Ouija board.

Hat tip: The Hill