FBI, DHS release report on Russia hacking

[Bill the Cat]

Quick question. Was the report intended to prove that the Russians were behind the various hackings?

As a tail end of a series of accusations, yes. It was basically a "this is how we determined it was the Russians - by the tools they typically use".

Or was it more of a practical guide to help people recognize and deter similar hacks in the future?

From https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/defaul...-2016-1229.pdf

This Joint Analysis Report (JAR) is the result of analytic efforts between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This document provides technical details regarding the tools and infrastructure used by the Russian civilian and military intelligence Services (RIS) to compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election, as well as a range of U.S. Government, political, and private sector entities. The U.S. Government is referring to this malicious cyber activity by RIS as GRIZZLY STEPPE.

There is no indication in the JAR on how to recognize or deter similar hacks. It's actually pretty low on useful actionable information.

I had heard in advance of the report that it was more of the latter, although there might be some hints included in this report, most of the real evidence supporting Russian involvement and motivation would need to be kept confidential. Is that not true?

Depends on how Homeland Security classified the evidence. As I said, there must be more to this story that has not been released because what has (the JAR and the earlier brief from DHS) is frankly garbage. Not a single thing in either could stand up in a court of law.

[JonathanL]

Assange's word isn't sufficient.

On one hand we have the guy who actually has direct access to the actual source in question, and who has, as of yet, a fairly clean track record when it comes to refraining from lying.


On the other hand, we have US intelligence agencies who can't provide hard evidence for their claims, and who are such bastions of honesty that they for example, totally didn't deny secretly collect information on millions of US citizens in front of Congress.


Now, I'm not saying Assange isn't lying, he could very well be. But when it comes to trustworthiness and reliability his word weighs considerable heavier than the CIA, FBI, NSA etc...

[Tassman]

What does "interfered with the election" even mean? What exactly did the Russians do? How did they do? How, specifically, did it "interfere" with our electoral process? And where's the evidence that they even did it? Why would the DHS release a report accusing the Russians of hacking and then include a disclaimer saying that they can't guarantee the accuracy of their own report?

[JonathanL]

considerable

This is Leonhard's fault.

totally didn't deny secretly collect information on millions of US citizens in front of Congress.

I'm not sure who I'm going to blame for this one though. I'm leaning towards CP though.

[MaxVel]

Typically you interpret and weigh evidence in terms of your feelings about who it affects, and how it impacts on your prior held beliefs, rather than impartially and objectively.

[Jaecp]

On one hand we have the guy who actually has direct access to the actual source in question, and who has, as of yet, a fairly clean track record when it comes to refraining from lying.


On the other hand, we have US intelligence agencies who can't provide hard evidence for their claims, and who are such bastions of honesty that they for example, totally didn't deny secretly collect information on millions of US citizens in front of Congress.


Now, I'm not saying Assange isn't lying, he could very well be. But when it comes to trustworthiness and reliability his word weighs considerable heavier than the CIA, FBI, NSA etc...

I'm not saying he's lying, per se. I am saying him saying it is insufficient to determine it as being true. Consider what Assange would say if it was from the Russians --and it almost certainly is-- and you know he'd deny it. And if it wasn't the Russian's he'd also deny it. As his answer is the same either way, it's not on it's own sufficient. And Assange's credibility to me went out the window when he started sucking up to Vladimir Putin as modern Russia is exactly the kind of repressive regime that Assange was supposed to be fighting against, not helping them.

As for the intelligence agencies, these are groups that don't generally agree on everything. The FBI and CIA especially are well known for that. They and 15 others are in complete agreement on this. The amount of public data about why they and other security experts is pretty remarkable and the competing plan is, to the best of my knowledge, still that garbage "maybe it was some guy in a basement"

[JonathanL]

As for the intelligence agencies, these are groups that don't generally agree on everything. The FBI and CIA especially are well known for that. They and 15 others are in complete agreement on this. The amount of public data about why they and other security experts is pretty remarkable and the competing plan is, to the best of my knowledge, still that garbage "maybe it was some guy in a basement"

Actually, the competing plan is that the leaks came from an DNC insider who had access to the emails (in other words, it wasn't a hack at all) and was frustrated with the DNC rigging the primaries against Sanders. That's the version Craig Murray is going with, atleast.

ETA: I mean, the DNC might have been hacked by Russians for all I know. But that doesn't mean that these supposed hacks are the source for the Podesta leaks. Proving that Russia hacked the DNC (which hasn't actually been done yet) is not the same as proving that they are WikiLeak's sources.

[Tassman]

Typically you interpret and weigh evidence in terms of your feelings about who it affects, and how it impacts on your prior held beliefs, rather than impartially and objectively.

[Mountain Man]

I notice you didn't answer a single one of my questions. I wonder why?

[One Bad Pig]

I'm not saying he's lying, per se. I am saying him saying it is insufficient to determine it as being true. Consider what Assange would say if it was from the Russians --and it almost certainly is-- and you know he'd deny it.

Why would he deny it?

And if it wasn't the Russian's he'd also deny it.

Maybe, maybe not. There is, after all, the option of simply refusing to say either way.

As his answer is the same either way, it's not on it's own sufficient. And Assange's credibility to me went out the window when he started sucking up to Vladimir Putin as modern Russia is exactly the kind of repressive regime that Assange was supposed to be fighting against, not helping them.

Sorry, I haven't exactly been keeping on top of Assange's viewpoints. Where is this alleged sucking up to Putin, and where was he supposedly fighting against repressive regimes?

As for the intelligence agencies, these are groups that don't generally agree on everything. The FBI and CIA especially are well known for that. They and 15 others are in complete agreement on this.

As Bill has noted, what they agree on per the JAR is rather less damning that you seem to think. I have seen several times now this allegation that all 17 agencies are in lockstep about this, but zero evidence to back it up. Do you have anything beyond the JAR?

The amount of public data about why they and other security experts is pretty remarkable and the competing plan is, to the best of my knowledge, still that garbage "maybe it was some guy in a basement"

Russian hacking would certainly be less embarrassing for Podesta than giving away his password to a phishing email. You are remarkably dismissive of the abilities of hackers and other purveyors of malicious code in this country. Besides, the "competing plan" is more like "gee, maybe Assange is telling the truth."

[MaxVel]

That's so far proved to be a remarkably nebulous and fluid claim. 'Interfered' = what exactly? Made public some emails that revealed the corruption and dishonesty at the heart of the DNC and Clinton's campaign? And somehow that's a bad thing? If that's all the 'Russians' did we should be thanking them, and wondering why the masses of American 'journalists' in the liberal mass media didn't let us know that things like collusion over questions in the presidential debates was happening.

with the assistance of Julian Assange of whom Trump himself has accused of treason and deserving execution.

So Assange colluded with the Russians to release emails and increase the chances of Trump getting elected? Really? Assange wants someone who has called for his execution to be the President?

[Mountain Man]

That's so far proved to be a remarkably nebulous and fluid claim. 'Interfered' = what exactly? Made public some emails that revealed the corruption and dishonesty at the heart of the DNC and Clinton's campaign? And somehow that's a bad thing? If that's all the 'Russians' did we should be thanking them, and wondering why the masses of American 'journalists' in the liberal mass media didn't let us know that things like collusion over questions in the presidential debates was happening.

We've been saying this for weeks, but we haven't gotten any answers. Just the usual "Dur-hurr 17 government agencies" runaround with no specifics.

[Bill the Cat]

Clapper admitted before Congress today "... the hacking did not succeed in changing any vote tallies,"

[Mountain Man]

Clapper admitted before Congress today "... the hacking did not succeed in changing any vote tallies,"

Yeah, but what would he know. 17 intelligence agencies all agree that the Russiansdidit! And Trump won! And, and, reasons!

[Mountain Man]

Clapper also said there's no way to gauge what impact, if any, the leaked emails might have had on the electorate.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/...-vote-tallies/

It's funny, the more we learn about this story, the less there is to it.