Putin’s Chaos Strategy Is Coming Back to Bite Him in the Ass

[TheSanityAnnex]

Ok so you don't have anything definitive from US intelligence agencies

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Ok so you don't have anything definitive from US intelligence agencies

Proving that Putin gave the order? The uncertainty is defined as whether Putin and his inner circle is involved and not whether or not it is from Russia. That is what the PBS article and its quotes is discussing.

You are doing the typical pseudoscience technique of the right of taking a specific uncertainty and applying it to the whole. Then you consider the totalitarian nature of his regime.

I don't believe in evil but I do believe in the worst and the wishcasting, anti-intellectual alt right group think is the worst thing for this country.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Proving that Putin gave the order? The uncertainty is defined as whether Putin and his inner circle is involved and not whether or not it is from Russia. That is what the PBS article and its quotes is discussing.

The PBS article never states with certainty it's from Russia, dim.

Clinton was citing the Oct. 7 statement from the U.S. intelligence community saying it was “confident that the Russian government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and ins utions.”
Analysts say, however, that the ability to determine who cyber attackers are, where they’re located and sometimes who ordered their operations is rarely definitive and comes in degrees of confidence.


Beyond the government’s headline assertion that Russia is to blame, “it’s important to parse the public statement pretty closely,” said Susan Hennessey, a national security fellow at the Brookings Ins ution. “They’re being really careful in their word choice.”
The Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security said in a statement earlier this month that “only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.”
But that statement does not mean that the U.S. has “direct evidence of senior official-level involvement,” Hennessey said.


Without more definitive statements, it’s difficult for some technical experts to take the government’s word on faith, she and others have said.


“There’s no evidence that this was done by the state itself, only evidence it was done by non-state actors that might be Russian-speaking,” said Jeffrey Carr, CEO of the cyber security consultancy firm Taia Global, referring to the evidence available to the public.


That evidence, which was released by private threat assessment companies rather than official channels, indicates hackers used Cyrillic keyboards and operated during Moscow working hours.
But indicators of iden y like timestamps, language preferences and IP addresses “can be manipulated or faked rather easily,” said Juan Andres Guerrero-Saade, a senior security researcher at Kaspersky Lab.
Trump has a point when he says we can’t know for sure, said Cris Thomas, an information security professional known online as Space Rogue

[TheSanityAnnex]

Continue on misunderstanding the article and shooting yourself in the foot, I'm heading home.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The PBS article never states with certainty it's from Russia, dim.

Clinton was citing the Oct. 7 statement from the U.S. intelligence community saying it was “confident that the Russian government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and ins utions.”
Analysts say, however, that the ability to determine who cyber attackers are, where they’re located and sometimes who ordered their operations is rarely definitive and comes in degrees of confidence.


Beyond the government’s headline assertion that Russia is to blame, “it’s important to parse the public statement pretty closely,” said Susan Hennessey, a national security fellow at the Brookings Ins ution. “They’re being really careful in their word choice.”
The Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security said in a statement earlier this month that “only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.”
But that statement does not mean that the U.S. has “direct evidence of senior official-level involvement,” Hennessey said.


Without more definitive statements, it’s difficult for some technical experts to take the government’s word on faith, she and others have said.


“There’s no evidence that this was done by the state itself, only evidence it was done by non-state actors that might be Russian-speaking,” said Jeffrey Carr, CEO of the cyber security consultancy firm Taia Global, referring to the evidence available to the public.


That evidence, which was released by private threat assessment companies rather than official channels, indicates hackers used Cyrillic keyboards and operated during Moscow working hours.
But indicators of iden y like timestamps, language preferences and IP addresses “can be manipulated or faked rather easily,” said Juan Andres Guerrero-Saade, a senior security researcher at Kaspersky Lab.
Trump has a point when he says we can’t know for sure, said Cris Thomas, an information security professional known online as Space Rogue

Confirmation bias in your quote selection and I note that you completely disregarded my point about uncertainty.

And you bold out of context like and asshat. Incredulity is not an argument. Basically your hope is that the intelligence community shared everything that is known and are lying.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Confirmation bias in your quote selection and I note that you completely disregarded my point about uncertainty.

I addressed it with the very first sentence dip . You tend to miss things when you are flustered

The PBS article never states with certainty it's from Russia

And you bold out of context like and asshat. Incredulity is not an argument. Basically your hope is that the intelligence community shared everything that is known and are lying.

So now your argument is the intelligence agencies aren't sharing all they know and they know for a fact it is Russia behind the hacks but won't outright say it, and somehow you of all people are privy to this information? get the out of here you ing twit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I addressed it with the very first sentence dip . You tend to miss things when you are flustered

[/COLOR]





So now your argument is the intelligence agencies aren't sharing all they know and they know for a fact it is Russia behind the hacks but won't outright say it, and somehow you of all people are privy to this information? get the out of here you ing twit.

All I see is that you are taking an article that attempts to be comprehensive and waving your hands at your preferred outcome. The majority of the discussion is about whether it is from Putin or not nonetheless.

This is the 'public information:'

On Thursday, private security researchers said they had concluded that Mr. Podesta was hacked by Russia’s foreign intelligence service, the GRU, after it tricked him into clicking on a fake Google login page last March, inadvertently handing over his digital credentials.

For months, the hackers mined Mr. Podesta’s inbox for his most sensitive and potentially embarrassing correspondence, much of which has been posted on the WikiLeaks website. Additions to the collection on Thursday included three short email exchanges between Mr. Podesta and Mr. Obama himself in the days leading up to his election in 2008.

Mr. Podesta’s emails were first published by WikiLeaks earlier this month. The release came just days after James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, and the Department of Homeland Security publicly blamed Russian officials for cyberattacks on the Democratic National Committee, in what they described as an effort to influence the American presidential election.

To date, no government officials have offered evidence that the same Russian hackers behind the D.N.C. cyberattacks were also behind the hack of Mr. Podesta’s emails, but an investigation by the private security researchers determined that they were the same.

Threat researchers at Dell SecureWorks, an Atlanta-based security firm, had been tracking the Russian intelligence group for more than a year. In June, they reported that they had uncovered a critical tool in the Russian spy campaign. SecureWorks researchers found that the Russian hackers were using a popular link shortening service, called Bitly, to shorten malicious links they used to send targets fake Google login pages to bait them into submitting their email credentials.

The hackers made a critical error by leaving some of their Bitly accounts public, making it possible for SecureWorks to trace 9,000 of their links to nearly 4,000 Gmail accounts targeted between October 2015 and May 2016 with fake Google login pages and security alerts designed to trick users into turning over their passwords.

Among the list of targets were more than 100 email addresses associated with Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, including Mr. Podesta’s. By June, 20 staff members for the campaign had clicked on the short links sent by Russian spies. In June, SecureWorks disclosed that among those whose email accounts had been targeted were staff members who advised Mrs. Clinton on policy and managed her travel, communications and campaign finances.

Two security researchers who have been tracking the GRU’s spearphishing campaign confirmed Thursday that Mr. Podesta was among those who had inadvertently turned over his Google email password. The fact that Mr. Podesta was among those breached by the GRU was first disclosed Thursday by Esquire and the Motherboard blog, which published the link Russian spies used against Mr. Podesta.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/us...mail-hack.html

So basically what you are saying is that there was a conspiracy to use a phishing scheme that Russian intelligence was known to use on a massive scale that managed to phish Podesta's login info and then leave at rail that pointed back to the Russians.

That is just what we know. The feds have not stated what their evidence is. Basically your argument is that they too are in a conspiracy.

ing conspiracy twit, indeed.

[TheSanityAnnex]

All I see is that you are taking an article that attempts to be comprehensive and waving your hands at your preferred outcome. The majority of the discussion is about whether it is from Putin or not nonetheless.

This is the 'public information:'



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/us...mail-hack.html

So basically what you are saying is that there was a conspiracy to use a phishing scheme that Russian intelligence was known to use on a massive scale that managed to phish Podesta's login info and then leave at rail that pointed back to the Russians.

That is just what we know. The feds have not stated what their evidence is. Basically your argument is that they too are in a conspiracy.

ing conspiracy twit, indeed.

I called you out for claiming US intelligence agencies were certain the hack came from Russia. They haven't, and no article you have produced support your claim.

[RandomGuy]

How much do you really understand about the couching of language when it comes to the intelligence community?

I have what they taught me as an intelligence analyst, and readings since I left the service.

[RandomGuy]

How much do you really understand about the couching of language when it comes to the intelligence community?



Clinton was citing the Oct. 7 statement from the U.S. intelligence community saying it was “confident that the Russian government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and ins utions.”
Analysts say, however, that the ability to determine who cyber attackers are, where they’re located and sometimes who ordered their operations is rarely definitive and comes in degrees of confidence.


Beyond the government’s headline assertion that Russia is to blame, “it’s important to parse the public statement pretty closely,” said Susan Hennessey, a national security fellow at the Brookings Ins ution. “They’re being really careful in their word choice.”
The Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security said in a statement earlier this month that “only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.”
But that statement does not mean that the U.S. has “direct evidence of senior official-level involvement,” Hennessey said.


Without more definitive statements, it’s difficult for some technical experts to take the government’s word on faith, she and others have said.


“There’s no evidence that this was done by the state itself, only evidence it was done by non-state actors that might be Russian-speaking,” said Jeffrey Carr, CEO of the cyber security consultancy firm Taia Global, referring to the evidence available to the public.


That evidence, which was released by private threat assessment companies rather than official channels, indicates hackers used Cyrillic keyboards and operated during Moscow working hours.
But indicators of iden y like timestamps, language preferences and IP addresses “can be manipulated or faked rather easily,” said Juan Andres Guerrero-Saade, a senior security researcher at Kaspersky Lab.
Trump has a point when he says we can’t know for sure, said Cris Thomas, an information security professional known online as Space Rogue.


“I don’t know what [evidence] they have that couldn’t have been faked,” Thomas said.


Sophisticated attackers have learned how to tamper with the technical indicators to mask their iden y, or at least send analysts in the wrong direction.

As for the rest of it, you, like the analysts you quote, only have commented on what is publicly available.

Can you tell me what classified information that has not been publicly disclosed was used in making the assessment? Be specific.