5 ms·

No. US security agencies have been clear that Russian intelligence interfered in our election to support Trump. Putin admitted just two weeks ago that he want

No. US security agencies have been clear that Russian intelligence interfered in our election to support Trump. Putin admitted just two weeks ago that he wanted Trump to win. Generalized unrest was one goal. Electing Trump, however difficult that might have seemed, was another.

prolikewh0a 8y ago
>US security agencies have been clear that Russian intelligence interfered in our election to support Trump. Why would you blindly trust intelligence agencies that have been very untrustworthy throughout US history?
- untog 8y ago
  Because they've provided evidence, and other intelligence agencies and governments across the world have confirmed their claims. At a certain point you start arguing "why believe anything" and that's literally not a conversation worth having.
  - prolikewh0a 8y ago
    They provided 'evidence' for 'weapons of mass destruction' to justify the Iraq war too, and governments around the world confirmed their claims. We now know that to be a lie. Again, why would you trust intelligence agencies that haven't been trustworthy throughout US history?
    - untog 8y ago
      The evidence of weapons of mass destruction was not verifiable by anyone else. Evidence of manipulation on social media is. Is everything stated by an intelligence agency true? No. Is everything false? No. So you evaluate the claims they make. This isn't complicated.
      - prolikewh0a 8y ago
        >The evidence of weapons of mass destruction was not verifiable by anyone else. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/spy-agencies-flawed-information-saddam-wmds-iraq-chilcot https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/spy-agencies... From article: >The Chilcot report identifies a series of major blunders by the British intelligence services that produced “flawed” information about Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the basis for going to war. So again, why trust intelligence agencies that have been untrustworthy throughout US history?
        untog 8y ago
        When I said "anyone else" I wasn't referring to government inquiries, which very obviously have a much higher level of access than any member of the public, including the press. So, again, Is everything stated by an intelligence agency true? No. Is everything false? No. So you evaluate the claims they make. This isn't complicated.
      - equalunique 8y ago
        >The evidence of weapons of mass destruction was not verifiable by anyone else. You could say the same about the DNC server, which in 2016, the FBI claimed had not been provided to them for forensics. The one firm who did have direct access was CrowdStrike, whose report had a couple inaccuracies, and whose CTO, Dmitri Alperovitch, isn't impartial either. Firstly, the claim about the APT controlling Ukrainian artillery equipment was disproven. Secondly, they cited an outdated Ukranian Wordpress vulnerability as attribution evidence, which did not hold up under scrutiny. These are the forensics they gave to the FBI. Naturally, mid-July The Daily Beast, owned by a company chaired by Chelsea Clinton, breaks a story in response to Trump's comments at Helinski, with a piece about the DNC server's virtual image being given to the FBI - something that the FBI did not comment on and also is in contradiction with the FBI's claim from 2016. '' Providing details Tuesday to the Senate intelligence committee about the bureau’s investigation into Russian hacks targeting the election, Mr. Comey said the FBI made “multiple requests” for access, but ultimately a private company was the one to conduct the forensic review and then shared details about what it found with investigators. “It’s not the way we would prefer to do the investigation,” Mr. Comey said. '' Source: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/10/james-comey-dnc-denied-fbi-direct-access-servers-d https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/10/james-comey...
    - philwelch 8y ago
      They were directed by the Bush administration to manufacture a case for invading Iraq, and resisted it the whole time. Also, the agenda of discrediting the US intelligence community is a long-standing goal of Russian intelligence, evidenced by their support of Wikileaks and Snowden.
      - prolikewh0a 8y ago
        >Also, the agenda of discrediting the US intelligence community is a long-standing goal of Russian intelligence, evidenced by their support of Wikileaks and Snowden. Absolute nonsense. The Mccarthyite "Blame Everything on Russia" bots are now on Hacker News. Skepticism over US Intel Agencies is not a 'Russian Goal'. It's common sense, and all you have to do is research their history of overthrowing governments and lying to us intentionally to lose any trust in them. You don't need a 'Russia' element to research their dark and dirty past.
- bduerst 8y ago
  Because it's been confirmed by multiple, independent private organizations: >The U.S. Intelligence Community concluded that some of the genuine leaks that Guccifer 2.0 has said were part of a series of cyberattacks on the DNC were committed by two Russian intelligence groups. This conclusion is based on analyses conducted by various private sector cybersecurity individuals and firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Fireeye's Mandiant, SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, Trend Micro, and the security editor for Ars Technica. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0
  - a_tractor 8y ago
    The citations for that wikipedia entry don't back up the assertion as conclusively as you would probably like. > This conclusion is based on analyses conducted by various private sector cybersecurity individuals and firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Fireeye's Mandiant, SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, Trend Micro, and the security editor for Ars Technica We know the CrowdStrike was the firm hired by the DNC to investigate breach. They allege that the hack belongs to groups named FANCY BEAR and COZY BEAR. As far as I knew, that was the only firm that was given access to the DNC side of things. So what did all these other firms use to support their claims? And actually, what claims did they really support? For the second firm listed, Fidelis CyberSecurity, two articles are cited, one of them the paywalled WaPo, referencing a blog post: https://www.fidelissecurity.com/threatgeek/2016/06/findings-analysis-dnc-intrusion-malware https://www.fidelissecurity.com/threatgeek/2016/06/findings-... The evidence they used were malware samples provided by CrowdStrike. WaPo also reported about Mandriant's claims: >Mandiant, a cyber-forensics firm owned by FireEye, based its analysis on five DNC malware samples. In a statement to The Washington Post, Mandiant researcher Marshall Heilman said that the malware and associated servers are consistent with those previously used by “APT 28 and APT 29,’’ which are Mandiant’s names for Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear, respectively. Mandriant's allegations against APT 29 is that they use spearfishing to gain entry into an individual or group's google accounts. The WaPo article that also reported on Fidelis reported on the ThreatConnect: > Meanwhile, a third cyber-analysis firm, ThreatConnect, followed up on CrowdStrike’s analysis by looking at computer Internet protocol addresses that CrowdStrike said it had found while investigating the DNC intrusion. It discovered an Internet domain name that looked suspiciously like that of the firm the DNC had hired to manage its computer network, MIS Department. Again, per the wikipedia source, both firms used sample data provided by CrowdStrike. Then a blogpost by Threatconnect tries to build the case that Guccifer2.0 was not a lone-actor. They basically analyze Guccifer2.0 behavior and apply conjecture, essentially evaluating two opposing narratives. This is their attempt at a "conclusion": > There appears to be strong, yet still circumstantial, evidence supporting the assertions that Guccifer 2.0 is part of a D&D campaign, and not an independent actor Could be... Might be... Secureworks wrote about TG-4127 group conducting a spear phishing campaign that targeted individuals and groups using google services. The citation for TendMicro was to a PDF produced by TM describing the work of a group called "PAWN STORM," also known as Fancy Bear and Apt 28. As far as relevance to the DNC, they haven't actually done any research themselves. They simple repeat the claims made by Crowdstike: >In 2016 the Democratic National Committee (DNC) was allegedly hacked by Pawn Storm. Stolen emails were published by WikiLeaks and a site called dcleaks[.]com, a domain very likely controlled by Pawn Storm. Allegedly. Likely. I dont see conclusively. >A study of ThreatConnect showed that Guccifer 2.0 approached news media and offered them exclusive access to password-protected parts of the dcleaks[.]com site. Oh cool they are citing ThreatConnect now, who used samples provided by CrowdStrike, who the DNC paid to investigate, instead of the FBI. So they are all sourcing on CrowdStrike, or trying to support that narrative, basically. So, I dunno about that wikileaks article. There isn't really anything conclusive, and all you can do is trust CrowdStrike and the circumstantial claims made by a handful of other "Cyber Security" groups... Seems to me that someone really wants to sell this narrative and thinks throwing a bunch of "sources" that most people wont actually check is good enough. It still doesn't add up, however. This is the gist of the type of reasoning being used by all of these firms: >Registering domains that look similar to a legitimate domain name is a technique used by Fancy Bear, CrowdStrike has reported. As if "Fancy Bear" has a monopoly on this technique. I mean, wow. Who buys this crap that isn't desperate to be sold?
grimjack00 8y ago
>Putin admitted just two weeks ago that he wanted Trump to win. And we all know how trustworthy Putin is.

prolikewh0a 8y ago

>US security agencies have been clear that Russian intelligence interfered in our election to support Trump. Why would you blindly trust intelligence agencies that have been very untrustworthy throughout US history?

untog 8y ago
Because they've provided evidence, and other intelligence agencies and governments across the world have confirmed their claims. At a certain point you start arguing "why believe anything" and that's literally not a conversation worth having.
- prolikewh0a 8y ago
  They provided 'evidence' for 'weapons of mass destruction' to justify the Iraq war too, and governments around the world confirmed their claims. We now know that to be a lie. Again, why would you trust intelligence agencies that haven't been trustworthy throughout US history?
  - untog 8y ago
    The evidence of weapons of mass destruction was not verifiable by anyone else. Evidence of manipulation on social media is. Is everything stated by an intelligence agency true? No. Is everything false? No. So you evaluate the claims they make. This isn't complicated.
    - prolikewh0a 8y ago
      >The evidence of weapons of mass destruction was not verifiable by anyone else. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/spy-agencies-flawed-information-saddam-wmds-iraq-chilcot https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/spy-agencies... From article: >The Chilcot report identifies a series of major blunders by the British intelligence services that produced “flawed” information about Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the basis for going to war. So again, why trust intelligence agencies that have been untrustworthy throughout US history?
      - untog 8y ago
        When I said "anyone else" I wasn't referring to government inquiries, which very obviously have a much higher level of access than any member of the public, including the press. So, again, Is everything stated by an intelligence agency true? No. Is everything false? No. So you evaluate the claims they make. This isn't complicated.
    - equalunique 8y ago
      >The evidence of weapons of mass destruction was not verifiable by anyone else. You could say the same about the DNC server, which in 2016, the FBI claimed had not been provided to them for forensics. The one firm who did have direct access was CrowdStrike, whose report had a couple inaccuracies, and whose CTO, Dmitri Alperovitch, isn't impartial either. Firstly, the claim about the APT controlling Ukrainian artillery equipment was disproven. Secondly, they cited an outdated Ukranian Wordpress vulnerability as attribution evidence, which did not hold up under scrutiny. These are the forensics they gave to the FBI. Naturally, mid-July The Daily Beast, owned by a company chaired by Chelsea Clinton, breaks a story in response to Trump's comments at Helinski, with a piece about the DNC server's virtual image being given to the FBI - something that the FBI did not comment on and also is in contradiction with the FBI's claim from 2016. '' Providing details Tuesday to the Senate intelligence committee about the bureau’s investigation into Russian hacks targeting the election, Mr. Comey said the FBI made “multiple requests” for access, but ultimately a private company was the one to conduct the forensic review and then shared details about what it found with investigators. “It’s not the way we would prefer to do the investigation,” Mr. Comey said. '' Source: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/10/james-comey-dnc-denied-fbi-direct-access-servers-d https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/10/james-comey...
  - philwelch 8y ago
    They were directed by the Bush administration to manufacture a case for invading Iraq, and resisted it the whole time. Also, the agenda of discrediting the US intelligence community is a long-standing goal of Russian intelligence, evidenced by their support of Wikileaks and Snowden.
    - prolikewh0a 8y ago
      >Also, the agenda of discrediting the US intelligence community is a long-standing goal of Russian intelligence, evidenced by their support of Wikileaks and Snowden. Absolute nonsense. The Mccarthyite "Blame Everything on Russia" bots are now on Hacker News. Skepticism over US Intel Agencies is not a 'Russian Goal'. It's common sense, and all you have to do is research their history of overthrowing governments and lying to us intentionally to lose any trust in them. You don't need a 'Russia' element to research their dark and dirty past.
bduerst 8y ago
Because it's been confirmed by multiple, independent private organizations: >The U.S. Intelligence Community concluded that some of the genuine leaks that Guccifer 2.0 has said were part of a series of cyberattacks on the DNC were committed by two Russian intelligence groups. This conclusion is based on analyses conducted by various private sector cybersecurity individuals and firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Fireeye's Mandiant, SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, Trend Micro, and the security editor for Ars Technica. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0
- a_tractor 8y ago
  The citations for that wikipedia entry don't back up the assertion as conclusively as you would probably like. > This conclusion is based on analyses conducted by various private sector cybersecurity individuals and firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Fireeye's Mandiant, SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, Trend Micro, and the security editor for Ars Technica We know the CrowdStrike was the firm hired by the DNC to investigate breach. They allege that the hack belongs to groups named FANCY BEAR and COZY BEAR. As far as I knew, that was the only firm that was given access to the DNC side of things. So what did all these other firms use to support their claims? And actually, what claims did they really support? For the second firm listed, Fidelis CyberSecurity, two articles are cited, one of them the paywalled WaPo, referencing a blog post: https://www.fidelissecurity.com/threatgeek/2016/06/findings-analysis-dnc-intrusion-malware https://www.fidelissecurity.com/threatgeek/2016/06/findings-... The evidence they used were malware samples provided by CrowdStrike. WaPo also reported about Mandriant's claims: >Mandiant, a cyber-forensics firm owned by FireEye, based its analysis on five DNC malware samples. In a statement to The Washington Post, Mandiant researcher Marshall Heilman said that the malware and associated servers are consistent with those previously used by “APT 28 and APT 29,’’ which are Mandiant’s names for Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear, respectively. Mandriant's allegations against APT 29 is that they use spearfishing to gain entry into an individual or group's google accounts. The WaPo article that also reported on Fidelis reported on the ThreatConnect: > Meanwhile, a third cyber-analysis firm, ThreatConnect, followed up on CrowdStrike’s analysis by looking at computer Internet protocol addresses that CrowdStrike said it had found while investigating the DNC intrusion. It discovered an Internet domain name that looked suspiciously like that of the firm the DNC had hired to manage its computer network, MIS Department. Again, per the wikipedia source, both firms used sample data provided by CrowdStrike. Then a blogpost by Threatconnect tries to build the case that Guccifer2.0 was not a lone-actor. They basically analyze Guccifer2.0 behavior and apply conjecture, essentially evaluating two opposing narratives. This is their attempt at a "conclusion": > There appears to be strong, yet still circumstantial, evidence supporting the assertions that Guccifer 2.0 is part of a D&D campaign, and not an independent actor Could be... Might be... Secureworks wrote about TG-4127 group conducting a spear phishing campaign that targeted individuals and groups using google services. The citation for TendMicro was to a PDF produced by TM describing the work of a group called "PAWN STORM," also known as Fancy Bear and Apt 28. As far as relevance to the DNC, they haven't actually done any research themselves. They simple repeat the claims made by Crowdstike: >In 2016 the Democratic National Committee (DNC) was allegedly hacked by Pawn Storm. Stolen emails were published by WikiLeaks and a site called dcleaks[.]com, a domain very likely controlled by Pawn Storm. Allegedly. Likely. I dont see conclusively. >A study of ThreatConnect showed that Guccifer 2.0 approached news media and offered them exclusive access to password-protected parts of the dcleaks[.]com site. Oh cool they are citing ThreatConnect now, who used samples provided by CrowdStrike, who the DNC paid to investigate, instead of the FBI. So they are all sourcing on CrowdStrike, or trying to support that narrative, basically. So, I dunno about that wikileaks article. There isn't really anything conclusive, and all you can do is trust CrowdStrike and the circumstantial claims made by a handful of other "Cyber Security" groups... Seems to me that someone really wants to sell this narrative and thinks throwing a bunch of "sources" that most people wont actually check is good enough. It still doesn't add up, however. This is the gist of the type of reasoning being used by all of these firms: >Registering domains that look similar to a legitimate domain name is a technique used by Fancy Bear, CrowdStrike has reported. As if "Fancy Bear" has a monopoly on this technique. I mean, wow. Who buys this crap that isn't desperate to be sold?

grimjack00 8y ago

>Putin admitted just two weeks ago that he wanted Trump to win. And we all know how trustworthy Putin is.