FBI, DHS release report on Russia hacking

[Mountain Man]

And I sort of didn't expect people like Jaecp to buy into it and to try and propagate it like this so easily at tweb.

Really? He's been whooping and hollering about "Russian hackers" ever since the Democrats offered it as an excuse for Hillary getting trumped by Trump... even though nobody has explained exactly how Russia influenced the election, or why their alleged attempts are somehow worse than the biased, anti-Trump media's attempts to do the same. He just screams "National security!" and pretends that's an answer.

[Mountain Man]

Let's just put it this way: liberals wouldn't give two hoots about Russian hacking if Hillary had won.

[One Bad Pig]

Really? He's been whooping and hollering about "Russian hackers" ever since the Democrats offered it as an excuse for Hillary getting trumped by Trump... even though nobody has explained exactly how Russia influenced the election, or why their alleged attempts are somehow worse than the biased, anti-Trump media's attempts to do the same. He just screams "National security!" and pretends that's an answer.

Russia influenced the election by releasing boring emails which contained nothing consequential, spread via fake news sites which pretended that there were bombshells in them, which people accepted because they uncritically believe anything they read on the internet.

[Mountain Man]

So, basically the evidence they're using that it was ordered by Russia (which wasn't explained in the particular article linked in the OP; it's actually here) is that the hackers used methods Russian hackers have used in the past, therefore it was ordered by Russian officials. But correct me if I'm wrong, wouldn't an experienced hacker know similar techniques Russian hackers use either because those techniques are effective, or because those are the only techniques one could use to actually hack successfully?

I mentioned the exact same thing in the other thread about this topic, about what is it that makes the tactics distinctly Russian as opposed to, say, Chinese, or Korean, or Iranian, or any number of other entities who might want to delve into America's secrets. Never did get a good answer to that. Just the usual "But... but... national security! And Trump won!" bluster.

[JimL]

I don't believe Trump either.
I'm not a Kool-Aid drinking partisan.

Try it sometime.

Oh, I get it, you don't trust Trump, you just happen to agree with Trumps assessment of the intelligence over that of the intelligence agencies themselves. Gotcha. Drink up!

[seanD]

Russia influenced the election by releasing boring emails which contained nothing consequential, spread via fake news sites which pretended that there were bombshells in them, which people accepted because they uncritically believe anything they read on the internet.

Most of the "fake news" sites that bothered to analyze the emails (which by the way, weren't that boring, just required a little time and effort piecing together different sources of the emails and cross-referencing them with other sources that were damning to Hillary and the DNC) were conservative sites, with the exception of RT (which is actually a liberal progressive site as far as most of its politics -- in fact, they're actually TYT only with a pro-Russian bent). So, you're saying all those conservative sites were "fake news," or you were being sarcastic?

[Cow Poke]

Oh, I get it, you don't trust Trump, you just happen to agree with Trumps assessment of the intelligence over that of the intelligence agencies themselves. Gotcha. Drink up!

I don't trust Trump to do all he said he would do. I DO trust that Hillary will continue to do more of what she's done.

[Bill the Cat]

I mentioned the exact same thing in the other thread about this topic, about what is it that makes the tactics distinctly Russian as opposed to, say, Chinese, or Korean, or Iranian, or any number of other entities who might want to delve into America's secrets. Never did get a good answer to that. Just the usual "But... but... national security! And Trump won!" bluster.

The JAR talks about several methods of phishing that they all use. The biggest way we tell the source of a hack or a phishing scheme is the source IP address, which we all know can be spoofed, but oddly rarely is for phishing scams, or (hilariously) the language in the comments of the scripts or html codes.

[Mountain Man]

Source: Ars Technica

White House fails to make case that Russian hackers tampered with election

http://arstechnica.com/security/2016...ly-to-rage-on/

© Copyright Original Source

The article also mentions the general sloppiness of the report, noting one instance where it conflates the names of hacking groups, malware programs, and even methods of hacking. The writers say, quite reasonably, that "The mix up of such basic classifications does little to inspire confidence that the report was carefully or methodically prepared." They also note that even pointing to specific methods doesn't prove anything. As one analysis notes, "It is both foolish and baseless to claim ... that X-Agent is used solely by the Russian government when the source code is there for anyone to find and use at will."

The articles concludes that "it's hard to escape the conclusion that Thursday's Joint Analysis Report provides almost no new evidence to support the Obama Administration's claims Russia attempted to interfere with the US electoral process."

[Jaecp]

The JAR talks about several methods of phishing that they all use. The biggest way we tell the source of a hack or a phishing scheme is the source IP address, which we all know can be spoofed, but oddly rarely is for phishing scams, or (hilariously) the language in the comments of the scripts or html codes.

Music to my ears, this is what I was hoping you as an IT guy would contribute

[elam]

One of life's little curiosities: on Saturday via several UK news portals I picked up am interview by RT with John McAfee (aka the cyber security guy whose software you probably rely on). The strange thing is that this morning (Monday) the links have disappeared from the UK sites. Here is the interview which discusses the FBI's "Grizzly Steppe".Here is a link to the interview.

For numerous reasons I am suspicious of the allegations against Russia, but what is really nagging at me is I honestly can't see where release of the info before the election could have benefited Trump - everybody already knew Hillary is corrupt & unscrupulous (has no moral compass). I suspect Corney's second investigation of Hillary had the bigger impact. The other thing gnawing at me is, imo, Russia would have got more mileage out the hack at some point after the election, especially if Hillary had won.

Disclaimer: I'm not a supporter of Russia or Trump. As Donald would say "I just want to see fairness, it is a huge accusation to lay without proof...)

[mossrose]

Music to my ears, this is what I was hoping you as an IT guy would contribute

Moderator Notice

You have just negated your request for Bill to leave this thread by responding to him. Please read the rules here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...om-your-thread

Point #2.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Jaecp]

Moderator Notice

You have just negated your request for Bill to leave this thread by responding to him. Please read the rules here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...om-your-thread

Point #2.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

Uhh, Duh?

He's participating. Incidentally, if you actually read the post I wasn't banning them. I was asking them to hold off until I had a chance to talk to them later that night.

Yours did, I'm just on my phone. I'll give a real reply later to you and DE. Apologies for the lack of clarity.

CP and Bill, please leave the thread until I make a reply to the both of you via pm later about why you're off topic. Don't reply to this.

At which point, SIX MINUTES LATER, Cow Poke made a post where he deceptively edited my reply to read only the text I've bolded. Bill the Cat then made a reply, 12 minutes after I asked them to hold off, that misunderstood the OP. He misunderstood that I had set up the national security angle as the focus of the thread and not an argument I made for him to challenge. His reply above is great.

[One Bad Pig]

Most of the "fake news" sites that bothered to analyze the emails (which by the way, weren't that boring, just required a little time and effort piecing together different sources of the emails and cross-referencing them with other sources that were damning to Hillary and the DNC) were conservative sites, with the exception of RT (which is actually a liberal progressive site as far as most of its politics -- in fact, they're actually TYT only with a pro-Russian bent). So, you're saying all those conservative sites were "fake news," or you were being sarcastic?

I was more or less giving a synopsis of Jaecp's anticipated response, based on various postings he's made over the last week or two. I suppose you could call it sarcasm on my part, since I think he's wrong or lacks solid support for all counts.

[mossrose]

Uhh, Duh?

He's participating. Incidentally, if you actually read the post I wasn't banning them. I was asking them to hold off until I had a chance to talk to them later that night.



At which point, SIX MINUTES LATER, Cow Poke made a post where he deceptively edited my reply to read only the text I've bolded. Bill the Cat then made a reply, 12 minutes after I asked them to hold off, that misunderstood the OP. He misunderstood that I had set up the national security angle as the focus of the thread and not an argument I made for him to challenge. His reply above is great.

My apologies. I misread your original post, as did some others.

Thank you for clarifying.