• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Who hacked the DNC last summer? Alternative theories emerge...

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Zstream said:
Lol, ok. So maybe don't assert the Russians did it, and want to start WW3 all over again?

There is NOTHING to lose by exposing the details of the hack.

I don't understand why I'm one of the few that doesn't seem to care at all if the RNC or DNC was hacked. I care about those millions of people that lose money, have ruined lives, all due to hacks. Not some over privileged politician.
Click to expand...

then start a thread that is about regular people who are victims of hacks/hacking its a worthwhile subject we all should agree upon.
 
Zstream said:
You want alternative theories and possibilities, but refuse to listen. You don't want the obvious to be exposed.
Click to expand...

It's clear that you obviously want to believe in whatever you want to believe independent of the evidence we actually have.
 
Zstream said:
You want alternative theories and possibilities, but refuse to listen. You don't want the obvious to be exposed.
Click to expand...

No I'm believing all the named experts that have something or reputation at risk by making a foolish decision.
Hell who knows at this time if it was an inside job but regardless I support an investigation to uncover this. Even if it was Hillary who leaked the documents to Russia I'd certainly like to know. If Russia is not involved which appears unlikely at this time I'd like to know that too.
I just don't understand why its relevant atm if it was a USB drive, a spear fishing attack, weak passwords, bribery or an all out Russian assault. Politicians of any party being attacked by foreigners concerns me and needs to be looked at.
 
Fanatical Meat said:
No I'm believing all the named experts that have something or reputation at risk by making a foolish decision.
Hell who knows at this time if it was an inside job but regardless I support an investigation to uncover this. Even if it was Hillary who leaked the documents to Russia I'd certainly like to know. If Russia is not involved which appears unlikely at this time I'd like to know that too.
I just don't understand why its relevant atm if it was a USB drive, a spear fishing attack, weak passwords, bribery or an all out Russian assault. Politicians of any party being attacked by foreigners concerns me and needs to be looked at.
Click to expand...

You would have started by having the FBI there. Oh wait...
 
woolfe9998 said:
Yes, that's what he's actually claiming. And he's doing what all the deniers of this are doing: pretending that evidence which has not been disclosed to the public because it is classified does not exist. The conclusion is inescapable: either all these intelligence agencies are lying, hopelessly incompetent, or correct. His "expert" opinion reminds me of all the armchair non-scientists who argue online that climate change isn't happening, or isn't man made. 97% of all climnatologists? All 17 intelligence agencies? Well forget that, because I know better.

It's pointless to engage such people. You either believe what actual experts, with access to all relevant information, are telling you, or you don't. Full stop.
Click to expand...

Very true, and very sad.
 
Zstream said:
Lol, ok. So maybe don't assert the Russians did it, and want to start WW3 all over again?

There is NOTHING to lose by exposing the details of the hack.

I don't understand why I'm one of the few that doesn't seem to care at all if the RNC or DNC was hacked. I care about those millions of people that lose money, have ruined lives, all due to hacks. Not some over privileged politician.
Click to expand...

You're all over the map with the WW3 bullshit.

There's nothing to be gained from providing the details of the hack because guys like you would still deny the obvious conclusions.

If you don't care, why are you in this discussion, anyway?
 
Jhhnn said:
You're all over the map with the WW3 bullshit.

There's nothing to be gained from providing the details of the hack because guys like you would still deny the obvious conclusions.

If you don't care, why are you in this discussion, anyway?
Click to expand...

All major hacks are discussed within the community. You're lack of knowledge about the subject is already shown. Quit grandstanding.
 
woolfe9998 said:
It's pointless to engage such people. You either believe what actual experts, with access to all relevant information, are telling you, or you don't. Full stop.
Click to expand...

That's what people without knowledge tell the sheep. It wasn't 17 agencies, and if you actually read the report, I'm doubtful you did, you would understand that they did not say this was a Russian operation, but malware use by Russians.

An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof, plain and simple. When you accuse someone of wrong doing, it's up to YOU to bring the burden of proof.

It's funny that the DNC did not let the FBI review the environment. It's also funny that the NSA could "release" details of the hack, which ALL major hacks are discussed in an open environment amongst the security community.

Even your beloved John Brenna, said he "doesn't do evidence".

This shit is worse that Benghazi.
 
Zstream said:
That's what people without knowledge tell the sheep. It wasn't 17 agencies, and if you actually read the report, I'm doubtful you did, you would understand that they did not say this was a Russian operation, but malware use by Russians.

An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof, plain and simple. When you accuse someone of wrong doing, it's up to YOU to bring the burden of proof.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. There is nothing "extraordinary" about this claim just because you say there is. As to burden of proof, you know full well that this is a counter-intelligence investigation and that all their evidence is classified. The reasons for this shouldn't even have to be explained. For example, if you have a wiretapped conversation where Russian officials are discussing the fact that they've done this hack, you aren't going to tell the public this or else whoever they are tapping isn't going to say anything incriminating over that line again.

Given that you know this is the case, your "burden of proof" argument falls on deaf ears.

I have read the report and I know exactly what it says. First of all, three agencies investigated this: the CIA, the FBI and the NSA. The office of the DNI (then Clapper) then presented a unified intelligence assessment, which speaks on behalf of all 17 agencies. Since DNI meets every week with the heads of all these agencies, I can only assume that after the three investigating agencies completed their work, the matter was discussed with all of them. Either way, the DNI's assessment is a unified assessment of the entire IC. So you're sort of right - the three most qualified agencies did the heavy lifting, but you're incorrect to assume the others had no input or opinions.

I don't know what you mean by "did not say this was a Russian operation, but malware use by Russians." Really? Here is what the report says:

We assess Russian intelligence services collected against the US primary campaigns, think tanks, and lobbying groups they viewed as likely to shape future US policies. In July 2015, Russian intelligence gained access to Democratic National Committee (DNC) networks and maintained that access until at least June 2016.
Click to expand...

I don't think it can be any clearer that they are saying this was a "Russian operation."

It's funny that the DNC did not let the FBI review the environment. It's also funny that the NSA could "release" details of the hack, which ALL major hacks are discussed in an open environment amongst the security community.

Even your beloved John Brenna, said he "doesn't do evidence".

This shit is worse that Benghazi.
Click to expand...

Evidently, the FBI didn't feel that not going on site was a problem. If they did, I can only assume their conclusions would have been tentative at best. As to Benghazi, please show where the IC issued a report concluding wrong doing on the part of Clinton. Their wasn't one. There were only partisan congressional investigations. We have congressional investigations here - run by Republicans, actually - but we also have an intel assessment that says the Russians did this. And they've backed their assessment repeatedly with sworn testimony before Congress.

And the republicans in Congress seem to all agree that the Russians did this, even the ones who doubt any sort of collusion with Trump. Many of these republicans are privy to classified, closed door briefings. I kind of think that when even the opposing party agrees, it's a safe bet.

I don't see any parallel here.
 
Last edited:
Zstream said:
All major hacks are discussed within the community. You're lack of knowledge about the subject is already shown. Quit grandstanding.
Click to expand...

You don't even read links, do you? Of course not. Wouldn't fit your agenda-

.
CrowdStrike stands fully by its analysis and findings identifying two separate Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries present in the DNC network in May 2016. On June 15, 2016 a blog post to a WordPress site authored by an individual using the moniker Guccifer 2.0 claimed credit for breaching the Democratic National Committee. This blog post presents documents alleged to have originated from the DNC.

Whether or not this posting is part of a Russian Intelligence disinformation campaign, we are exploring the documents’ authenticity and origin. Regardless, these claims do nothing to lessen our findings relating to the Russian government’s involvement, portions of which we have documented for the public and the greater security community.
Click to expand...

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/
 
woolfe9998 said:
Nonsense. There is nothing "extraordinary" about this claim just because you say there is. As to burden of proof, you know full well that this is a counter-intelligence investigation and that all their evidence is classified. The reasons for this shouldn't even have to be explained. For example, if you have a wiretapped conversation where Russian officials are discussing the fact that they've done this hack, you aren't going to tell the public this or else whoever they are tapping isn't going to say anything incriminating over that line again.

Given that you know this is the case, your "burden of proof" argument falls on deaf ears.

I have read the report and I know exactly what it says. First of all, three agencies investigated this: the CIA, the FBI and the NSA. The office of the DNI (then Clapper) then presented a unified intelligence assessment, which speaks on behalf of all 17 agencies. Since DNI meets every week with the heads of all these agencies, I can only assume that after the three investigating agencies completed their work, the matter was discussed with all of them. Either way, the DNI's assessment is a unified assessment of the entire IC. So you're sort of right - the three most qualified agencies did the heavy lifting, but you're incorrect to assume the others had no input or opinions.

I don't know what you mean by "did not say this was a Russian operation, but malware use by Russians." Really? Here is what the report says:



I don't think it can be any clearer that they are saying this was a "Russian operation."



Evidently, the FBI didn't feel that not going on site was a problem. If they did, I can only assume their conclusions would have been tentative at best. As to Benghazi, please show where the IC issued a report concluding wrong doing on the part of Clinton. Their wasn't one. There were only partisan congressional investigations. We have congressional investigations here - run by Republicans, actually - but we also have an intel assessment that says the Russians did this. And they've backed their assessment repeatedly with sworn testimony before Congress.

And the republicans in Congress seem to all agree that the Russians did this, even the ones who doubt any sort of collusion with Trump. Many of these republicans are privy to classified, closed door briefings. I kind of think that when even the opposing party agrees, it's a safe bet.

I don't see any parallel here.
Click to expand...

This would be the second piece of evidence he cited that he clearly hasn't read. Sigh.
 
Zstream said:
I'm fully aware, and the documentation provided was laughed at by the community.
Click to expand...

Surely you can quote the laughter from other cyber security organizations. They're competitors, right?

Your agenda is obvious. If attribution can be put somewhere other than on the Russians then Trump can't be complicit with them in the release of information gained via espionage. Or so the story goes.
 
Zstream is being ridiculously stupid to believe that he could do all this hacking. I don't know if he really has not read up on the fact that while spearfishing might have been a method that they used to gain access, it was definitely not the only tool they used. Just because you can buy exploits doesn't mean you'd be able to pull off shit like this, let alone make it look like a foreign national agency perpetrated it.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/201...witness-in-russian-dnc-hacking-investigation/

They know that special code was used, and yes some of it was bought from independent hackers. So, no it doesn't change that there isn't absolute ironclad proof of Putin coding all this shit up himself, using his own personal e-mail with all ID, video proof showing every action perpetrated explicitly, and then him admitting to it on video. But there's a lot more evidence than what too many people are acting like there is. Just because you're not privy to it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Zstream said:
Lol, ok. So maybe don't assert the Russians did it, and want to start WW3 all over again?

There is NOTHING to lose by exposing the details of the hack.

I don't understand why I'm one of the few that doesn't seem to care at all if the RNC or DNC was hacked. I care about those millions of people that lose money, have ruined lives, all due to hacks. Not some over privileged politician.
Click to expand...

No, the Russians want to throw our government and country into chaos so that they can gain leverage. They don't want WW3, they want a weakened US.

Bullshit. What a ridiculously stupid statement. Showing the full proof (they have exposed plenty of details, but obviously you'll keep claiming without full total disclosure that its not enough) would literally involve showing the full code (because that's how they know who to attribute it to as there's little things in code, even just phrasing/grammar/syntex that serve as markers). I'll let you ponder if releasing code for a full suite of hacking tools would be a good idea. You were bitching about people not protesting the amount of hacking happening everyday to normal people. Gee, I bet releasing the full code of the tools used to infiltrate a hardened and actively managed target might cause problems elsewhere. Nah... Hey, you remember when the NSA's server that included some of their tools was leaked? That certainly made things better, didn't it?

Because its obvious that you're full of shit? You're literally wading into this shit your self, using only the claims of a group that has shown to be very willing to use random bullshit spouted by conspiracy theorist nutjobs as their proof. In no way are you doing what you claim. If you were you wouldn't be in this thread at all you'd be making one of your own about the issue you supposedly care about yet aren't even actually posting about (literally you just say that's what you care about, then post nothing at all about it; I really hope you're not dumb enough to think that you posting what spearfishing was earlier is you doing that, because all you were doing is trying to prove that spearfishing is possible which no one was disputing).

Zstream said:
That's what people without knowledge tell the sheep. It wasn't 17 agencies, and if you actually read the report, I'm doubtful you did, you would understand that they did not say this was a Russian operation, but malware use by Russians.

An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof, plain and simple. When you accuse someone of wrong doing, it's up to YOU to bring the burden of proof.

It's funny that the DNC did not let the FBI review the environment. It's also funny that the NSA could "release" details of the hack, which ALL major hacks are discussed in an open environment amongst the security community.

Even your beloved John Brenna, said he "doesn't do evidence".

This shit is worse that Benghazi.
Click to expand...

You're arguing semantics. They absolutely know that these "independent Russian hackers" are collaborating with Russian government agencies (at minimum they absolutely know that there's money being exchanged between them, so its not like they can pretend they're not even in contact or anything). Arguing that it wasn't Russia despite it being done by Russians, paid for by the Russian government, is just dumb.

And guess what you don't have the clearance for this proof. It really is as simple as that. People who do have enough knowledge to know their shit and have their professional insight requested have said that the evidence corroborates the history of these tools.

Seriously, at this point, at best, there are people saying they don't see enough evidence to prove it was Russia, and then try to prop it up using things that in no way change that it could be Russia. Meanwhile, the intelligence agencies that do have the full evidence, are saying it is Russia. Even Trump isn't ruling out that it was Russia (which he's obviously chosen to stick his fingers in his ears as opposed to actually getting full briefings about this stuff), and he has the most to gain by refuting it was them at all. The only people claiming it wasn't Russia at all are people pushing the Seth Rich conspiracy. Of course they just dismiss anything that doesn't support their version of things.

Yeah, your motivation is the everyday hacking. Suuuure.
 
Zstream, if you really are more concerned about the everyday hacking, then I don't even know why you're going "why should the agencies be caring about this?", if anything I'd think that you'd prefer the NSA be a defensive organization that is about securing American assets, and working to make any American company or organization less prone to being hacked.

I'm certainly not a big fan of how they've been operating myself (for instance when Hilary asked them to provide a secure communication setup and they told her, as acting Secretary of the State, no, that seriously makes me concerned about their priorities), but that doesn't mean I dismiss their expertise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top