1
1
0
FBI
Cyber
Security
Russia
Hacking
Responses: 4
1
1
0
Two areas of interest in the FBI report:
"Previous JARs have not attributed malicious cyber activity to specific countries or threat actors." and "In some cases, RIS actors masqueraded as third parties, hiding behind
false online personas designed to cause the victim to misattribute the source of the attack."
Cyber attribution or who the heck did, has always been near impossible. The reason is good hackers are hard to see, and better hackers make some other country or person take the fall.
I wonder if we got fooled.
"Previous JARs have not attributed malicious cyber activity to specific countries or threat actors." and "In some cases, RIS actors masqueraded as third parties, hiding behind
false online personas designed to cause the victim to misattribute the source of the attack."
Cyber attribution or who the heck did, has always been near impossible. The reason is good hackers are hard to see, and better hackers make some other country or person take the fall.
I wonder if we got fooled.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
It amazes me that the the USA goes wild over hacking a political party, and a relatively small number of people. Does anyone remember the OPM, OPM Security Clearance Info, and OPM Retiree Info hacks...that was only 21 million Americans who worked for the country. We get upset when the incumbent political party is hacked... maybe 100 of them, vice 21 million military and civilian gov workers....
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
The relevant part, to me, is this: "Using the harvested credentials, APT28 was able to gain access and steal content, likely leading to the exfiltration of information from multiple senior party members. The U.S. Government assesses that information was leaked to the press and publicly disclosed."
That last sentence is all there is about what was actually done with hacked information. It may or may not be true, but I'm still waiting for evidence that what appeared in Wikileaks came from a Russian hack and not an insider leak, as was reported by Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, and by Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan and the guy who actually met the source of the leaks.
That last sentence is all there is about what was actually done with hacked information. It may or may not be true, but I'm still waiting for evidence that what appeared in Wikileaks came from a Russian hack and not an insider leak, as was reported by Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, and by Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan and the guy who actually met the source of the leaks.
(1)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
I'm not sure what you mean about Assange being friendly, and Snowden is completely unrelated to the Democrats information on Wikileaks. But this might help you understand where Assange is coming from.
https://wikileaks.org/Assange-Statement-on-the-US-Election.html
https://wikileaks.org/Assange-Statement-on-the-US-Election.html
Assange Statement on the US Election
If you need help using Tor you can contact WikiLeaks for assistance in setting it up using our simple webchat available at: https://wikileaks.org/talk
(0)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
SP5 Christine Conley - From the article:
"WikiLeaks’ decade-long pristine record for authentication remains. Our key publications this round have even been proven through the cryptographic signatures of the companies they passed through, such as Google. It is not every day you can mathematically prove that your publications are perfect but this day is one of them.
We have endured intense criticism, primarily from Clinton supporters, for our publications. Many long-term supporters have been frustrated because we have not addressed this criticism in a systematic way or responded to a number of false narratives about Wikileaks’ motivation or sources. Ultimately, however, if WL reacted to every false claim, we would have to divert resources from our primary work."
"WikiLeaks’ decade-long pristine record for authentication remains. Our key publications this round have even been proven through the cryptographic signatures of the companies they passed through, such as Google. It is not every day you can mathematically prove that your publications are perfect but this day is one of them.
We have endured intense criticism, primarily from Clinton supporters, for our publications. Many long-term supporters have been frustrated because we have not addressed this criticism in a systematic way or responded to a number of false narratives about Wikileaks’ motivation or sources. Ultimately, however, if WL reacted to every false claim, we would have to divert resources from our primary work."
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google