The outcome is clearly a nightmare, esp. for the US, though likely with very serious, very troubling long term consequences for many nations. I was responding to a claim that Obama had no response other than a press release to the invasion, but only took a stance when Podesta got hacked. I don’t know what a better response would have been since that’s not something I couldn’t even begin to make any informed judgment on.
5 Likes
10 Likes
8 Likes
Election security is so bad in the United States, how about implementing federal standards for states to follow?!
2 Likes
7 Likes
Sadly, nor do I.
I think Kerry’s work on Syria has been extremely impressive and I still wish he had been President - he’d be the most intelligent and thorough President in a long time, even if he lacked Clinton’s popular touch.
I still think the right answer would have been to recognise Crimea - which is after all majority Russian - in exchange for real movement over Ukraine; and for some sort of international guarantee of the rights of Russians in the Donbass. The ultimate goal has to be disarmament - and the status quo is far from working. Obama’s reset didn’t; I would like to see the US do a complete and lobbyist-free rethink of foreign policy, even if the main focus was on the long term stability and sustainability of the US from selfish motives. I think that the last-ditch attempt of Kerry and Obama to stop Netanyahu was too little too late, and I don’t think Trump is going to improve matters in the slightest. How do you get a Western electorate to choose politicians on wisdom, experience and freedom from corruption rather than the ability to get useful PR?
3 Likes
Given that these include the failure to assassinate Castro and the murder of Allende, one would hope that embarrassment is one of the factors in this.
So…2FA is basically the answer to everything?
3 Likes
“Cut it out. I mean it.”
1 Like
So, the e-mail leaks to Wikileaks, the “hacking”, the phishing, the spearphishing are all terms for the same thing? Is that what I’m hearing?
“public attribution of these activities to RIS is supported by technical indicators from the U.S. Intelligence Community, DHS, FBI, the private sector, and other entities.”
Yes, that’s what I keep hearing everywhere. “Supported.” “Indicates.” “Suggests.”
If it instead said “public attribution to RIS is proven by technical indicators”, with some explanation; that, to me, would be a higher level of certainty. But I have not seen anything more certain than allegations (and unsatisfying suggestions that due to the nature of the beast, all we’ll ever get is suggestions and allegations).
“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”
Okay, and the reverse is impossible?
If I were a juror and this was a criminal case, I’d say I have what I consider a “reasonable doubt”. And as I’ve said before, given the gravity of the situation, I’d like to see an even higher standard. I never believed the “weapons of mass destruction” either, and we all know where that got us and the rest of the world.
And as I’ve also said, I’ve no love for Trump, and if and when definitive proof comes to light, I will consider it and re-evaluate. It’s just that I don’t have the inclination to jump of this particular bandwagon as of yet… your mileage may vary.
I’m not sure we’re working with the same definition of proof.
8 Likes
Phishing/spearphishing - same thing effectively. Spearphishing is a kind of targeted phishing.
“hacking” is an umbrella term for the set of attacks which initiate with a spearphishing attack, and with that as a toehold expand to further attacks.
The e-mail leaks to Wikileaks are the transfer of exfiltrated data from the hacks (which the attackers admitted to).
There are ready ways to learn about the attribution from non-intelligence sources if you weren’t merely interested in justifying a false sense of doubt but that would involve a lot of reading up on the forensics of the attacks and research into that. I’d start with the initial CloudStrike DNC report, carry on with analyses of the doc dumps by the attackers via Guccifer 2.0, and the look into the continuing research - there’s days worth of reading if you were interested. But at this point that’s on you, since you don’t seem familiar with any specifics and until you are there’s no point in dragging things out.
5 Likes
Of course, we all use different definitions of proof, depending on the circumstances, and I’ve mentioned this previously.
In civil cases, the definition for proof is “the preponderance of the evidence” which means simply that it was more likely than not that something occurred in a certain way. One reason the bar is low because if a mistake is made, the penalty can typically be rectified –– a fine can be reimbursed –– or so minimal that it’s not a huge burden, 100 hours of community service, for example.
In criminal cases the definition for proof is more stringent, “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Here, we want to be more certain that we get things right, partly because the consequences of the penalty are more onerous and difficult –– or impossible –– to rectify. How can you return 20 years of someone’s life? This is one reason many folks want to ban death penalties; because that is impossible to rectify, and mistakes are made. So a heavier burden of proof is required.
So here’s a case where the possible consequences may affect hundreds of millions of people. Cyber-war and other actions have been threatened. And not against a person we can lock up in prison who, even if the decision was wrong may have little power or recourse to protest, but against a nuclear nation with a significant military force in the world. A nation which may misconstrue American actions or rhetoric. The consequences may be devastating.
Personally, I want an extremely high burden of proof in a situation like that.
I consider everything I’ve heard and read and see only a “preponderance of evidence”. Yes, there are similarities to other Russian actions, but that’s circumstantial. Yes, the Russian may be able to disguise their actions to make it look like some other entity, but doesn’t that imply some other entity could disguise their actions to make it look like the Russians? Is that not a “reasonable doubt”?
I agree, it is “more likely than not” that the Russians may have had a hand in some of this, and that’s laying aside the question of whether the leaks, hackings, or phishings are even referring to the same incident.
But, to me, given the possible consequences, which may play out over years or decades, are far more serious than simply to require a better than even chance they had something to do with it.
Lots of interesting talk about the report on Twitter today from various InfoSec people on the report and response:
on another note the Feds just can’t resist overreach - bastards:
Finally, the lesson I wish the press would learn most of all:
3 Likes
Well, I guess you know my motive better than I… m’kay…
Well that’s… also a concern.
2 Likes
Well that explains some things about the kid knowing the cyber
4 Likes
This is literally the most depressing thing about this whole debacle… Even really fancy firewalls don’t protect you from people opening attached .exes and clicking on sketchy links in email.
5 Likes
If you’re going to write a bunch of long screeds and then post them on the Internet, recognize that you’re inevitably going to reveal some things about your (pseudonymous) self.
6 Likes
It’s a rehash of anti-vaxxers, global warming denialists, creationists, and the rest. “Sure there’s the sea of evidence, a near total consensus among expert opinion, and all alternate accounts might all be crank explanations, but it’s just not the proof I require.”
8 Likes
