Russian interference with the 2016 election

[carpedm9587]

Any day now the new story from the democrats will be: "Why are we still worried about all this? It is ancient news. We need to just move on."

What is "this" in that sentence?

[Sparko]

What is "this" in that sentence?

The whole "Russians interfered with our Election" thing. They have been trying to claim Trump was colluding with them, but now the evidence seems to suggest the opposite. So better to let the whole topic go away, right? Nothing to see here folks!

[Juvenal]

The reasons for needing physical access to the servers is plainly obvious:

1) To ensure that all relevant logs have been collected.
2) To ensure that the logs are actually from the server(s) in question.
3) To ensure that the logs have not been tampered with or manipulated.

Any log that shows an incursion can be used to trace the incursion, and you only need one. These are bits in a machine, not politically motivated commentators who would need us to judge their political biases by polling their detractors.

We have no reason to believe the company the DNC called in to stop the intrusions would have any interest in perpetrating a partisan fraud. They're a respected global security firm.

I'm not likely to credit any conspiracy theory that requires our intelligence agencies to either be hoodwinked or complicit. And if I were, I still couldn't credit this instance, because these agencies are much better known for their conservative leanings. But I'm not, because the suggestion that our entire intelligence community has been taken over by partisans is recognizably part of the big lie.

The fact that every indication is that our intelligence agencies essentially took the DNC's word for it should certainly raise some red flags. They got the story they wanted -- or perhaps the story the mainstream media wanted -- and that was good enough for them. As folks keep saying, all of this was done under the assumption that Hillary would be president, and everything would be quietly swept under the rug. Do you think we would have heard another peep about "Russian interference" if Hillary had won? Of course not, and the Democrats certainly never expected to be put on the spot.

You mention the National Review article posted "upthread", but as I mentioned earlier, if you drill through the linked sources (I think it goes two or three sources deep before you get to anything substantive), the evidence is not nearly as conclusive as you or the mainstream media is making it out to be. It's still unclear exactly what the nature of the breach was. Like I said, my money is still on an inside job, with someone in the DNC feeding information to this this "guccifier" character.

Bears in the Midst: Intrusion into the Democratic National Committee

The Guccifer2 fellow appeared immediately after the Russian fingerprints were first reported in the press.

The intrusion into the DNC was one of several targeting American political organizations. The networks of presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were also targeted by Russian spies, as were the computers of some Republican political action committees, U.S. officials said. But details on those cases were not available.

Guccifer2 was created to provide cover for Fancy Bear's intrusion into the DNC

Even the pros slip up sometimes.

[Juvenal]

Any day now the new story from the democrats will be: "Why are we still worried about all this? It is ancient news. We need to just move on."

The 97-2 vote in the Senate says otherwise.

[Juvenal]

The whole "Russians interfered with our Election" thing. They have been trying to claim Trump was colluding with them, but now the evidence seems to suggest the opposite. So better to let the whole topic go away, right? Nothing to see here folks!

There's overwhelming evidence that Putin hated Hillary, and every reason to believe Putin isn't shy about punishing internal adversaries. There is literally no breathing room for conspiracy theories suggesting the Russians colluded with Hillary.

We have elections coming up in November.

No one is going to be dropping this anytime soon.

[Mountain Man]

We have no reason to believe the company the DNC called in to stop the intrusions would have any interest in perpetrating a partisan fraud.

Other than the fact that they were hired by the DNC and have been careful to keep law enforcement agencies at arm's length from the evidence.

As for whether or not Cloudstrike is a respected firm, let's just say that's debatable.

Digital fingerprints, so what? I guess you missed the big story last year about how software from our own intelligence agencies that can spoof fingerprints has been "in the wild" for several years. And while "guccifier" could be Russian (seems like nobody knows for sure at this point), it still doesn't explain his initial point of entry. Did an insider give him the key? Seems like the guy who knew the answers was conveniently killed in a "botched robbery" that was so botched that he wasn't actually robbed.

[Mountain Man]

There is literally no breathing room for conspiracy theories suggesting the Russians colluded with Hillary.

Except for the fact that all the evidence seems to point to Hillary colluding with the Russians.

Chairman Nunes: "There's clear evidence of collusion with the Russians. It just happens to be with the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee."

[Sparko]

You need physical access to the server in order to search it and the network it is connected to to find the information on the hacking. You can't just look at a log file.

[Juvenal]

You need physical access to the server in order to search it and the network it is connected to to find the information on the hacking. You can't just look at a log file.

The NSA would disagree.

[Darth Executor]

The same organizations whose failures brought us 9/11, the Parkland shooting, torture of prisoners and the Iraq War are now sacrosanct and their integrity and competence is beyond reproach among the left.

[Juvenal]

Other than the fact that they were hired by the DNC and have been careful to keep law enforcement agencies at arm's length from the evidence.

They don't own the servers.

As for whether or not Cloudstrike is a respected firm, let's just say that's debatable.

This story is from March 2017, and sourced to the homepage of IISS, but a search on IISS shows no updates on CrowdStrike since September 2016.

Digital fingerprints, so what? I guess you missed the big story last year about how software from our own intelligence agencies that can spoof fingerprints has been "in the wild" for several years. And while "guccifier" could be Russian (seems like nobody knows for sure at this point), it still doesn't explain his initial point of entry. Did an insider give him the key? Seems like the guy who knew the answers was conveniently killed in a "botched robbery" that was so botched that he wasn't actually robbed.

They know Guccifer2's name now. But he was just one GRU agent doing disinfo, it was GRU's Fancy Bear team that did the hack.

And that Wikileaks dump was probably the most dangerous leak in our nation's history. It included the CIA's entire government-takedown tool kit, and so filled with zero days that it had to have been built by the NSA. There is code in there to take out vital infrastructure, like power plants.

I think we have enough real world concerns about it being out in the wild to begrudge time with poorly considered conspiracy theories.

[Sparko]

The NSA would disagree.

Did they? Show me.

You need to check out the entire system, the routers, the servers, hard drives, etc. - it all needs to be forensically examined and hard drives securely copied.

How would they even GET the logs unless they had access to the machines? If someone at the DNC just copies a log file and emails it to the FBI that is suspicious in itself and not forensically sound.

[Mountain Man]

This story is from March 2017, and sourced to the [blah blah blah genetic fallacy]

I must say, you have this "deflect, dodge, spin" routine down to a science.

...that Wikileaks dump was probably the most dangerous leak in our nation's history. It included the CIA's entire government-takedown tool kit, and so filled with zero days that it had to have been built by the NSA. There is code in there to take out vital infrastructure, like power plants.

Except it was already "in the wild" long before Wikileaks told us about it -- independent contractors for various agencies had been helping themselves to these tools for years. It apparently really was as easy as just copying it to a USB stick and walking out the front door. Blaming Wikileaks for this is like blaming a neighbor when he calls to tell you that your house has been burgled.

But the point is, with the technology to spoof "fingerprints" out there where anybody with sufficient knowledge can use it, it makes it very hard to put much faith in "fingerprint" evidence, especially when the DNC and Cloudstrike have been so coy about it.

[Mountain Man]

Did they? Show me.

You need to check out the entire system, the routers, the servers, hard drives, etc. - it all needs to be forensically examined and hard drives securely copied.

How would they even GET the logs unless they had access to the machines? If someone at the DNC just copies a log file and emails it to the FBI that is suspicious in itself and not forensically sound.

Everything I've read about this suggests that the agencies in question simply took Cloudstrike's word for it. If you read the original memo from the "17 intelligence agencies", it's laughable just how vague and generic the accusations are.

[carpedm9587]

You need physical access to the server in order to search it and the network it is connected to to find the information on the hacking. You can't just look at a log file.

Umm...no. A computer is simply a processing unit with multiple vectors for entry. Today, the only difference between sitting at a keyboard connected to a computer and connecting to it via a network is distance. Indeed, the vast majority of modern servers are headless, and the machine does not house the data; that is in a separate storage system accessed via a storage network. A headless machine is pretty much always accessed via a network, further making distance the only true difference. With the correct link and access, any part of a modern machine is accessible.

I have no idea what the most common practice is for law enforcement. Certainly if they have reason to believe a computer has been used to commit a crime, they may want to physically collect it to prevent it being tampered with before they can investigate. But it would be VERY hard for someone today to tamper with a machine and leave NO trace of that tampering. Given the low level of sophistication the Clinton campaign exhibited throughout this, it is doubtful (to me) that they would have even begun to be able to manage it.

Finally, it is not clear to me exactly what law has been broken if someone hacks into the private servers of a political campaign. If the campaign chooses not to press charges, I don't see why there would be a problem (other than a political one - people will accuse them of "hiding something.")