Obama Admin under pressure to provide "hacking" proof

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You're not very bright, there are multiple brands other than Cisco, -and most VPN providers use open source products like OpenVPN. Beyond that, most hackers don't use windows, so it's harder to install keyloggers

I'm bright enough to know that you are pretty clueless. I certainly hope you don't work in infosec because whatever systems you maintain have probably been hacked silly. What sort of infosec education and/or training do you have? I'd love to know where you obtained your "expertise".

Listen, you can spout off talking points all you want. Fact of the matter remains you are actually quite clueless about Infoseek and systems administration in general, that is evident by your posts.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You're not very bright, there are multiple brands other than Cisco, -and most VPN providers use open source products like OpenVPN. Beyond that, most hackers don't use windows, so it's harder to install keyloggers

I'm bright enough to know that you are pretty clueless. I certainly hope you don't work in infosec because whatever systems you maintain have probably been hacked silly. What sort of infosec education and/or training do you have? I'd love to know where you obtained your "expertise".

Listen, you can spout off talking points all you want. Fact of the matter remains you are actually quite clueless about Infoseek and systems administration in general, that is evident by your posts.

Since you ignored the questions, I assume that you have no education or training in infosec and do not work in the field. But, given your "expertise", lets refer to your earlier post in which you said, "IP addresses are interchangeable and can be spoofed."

If that is true, please address the following:

1) how would you "interchange" an IP address from one network to another?
2) how would you connect to a spoofed IP address?

[Anonymous]

It doesn't matter Jeff since as you yourself pointed out there's no actual proof that the Russians hacked anything.

[Anonymous]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/something-about-this-russia-story-stinks-w458439

Even that "conservative" magazine, Rolling Stone, things something smells in this hacking story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why the public needs or is entitled to 'proof' that Russia engaged in hacking. The CIA, the FBI, other Government intelligence operations, and independant security companies have all said that this is true. Why would we question it? The implication is that there is a massive public and private conspiracy to implicate Russia, which is ridiculous. Moreover, there is no proof that could be provided that would convince Trump supporters that Russia engaged in hacking or any other nefarious activities that Trump seems to think are acceptable. Somehow, I don't think that Trump's 'intelligence' will be subject to the same scrutiny.

Again, having gone through the "Slam Dunk" intelligence escapade regarding Saddam's WMDs, I'm not particularly willing to accept unsupported allegations from our intelligence services. You may be correct that Trump supporters can not be convinced, but there are others who can be.

Well I'm ok with the CIA as a source at this point. Remember, they weren't the ones pushing the WMD claims in Iraq. At this point, my bets are on them, rather than Trump.

My bets are on neither. Trump is a moron but CIA has a vested interest in hyping up 'boogie-men' across the world.

No they don't. What's the vested interest? You think they need it for job security? Hah. They've got far more work than they've the resources to handle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Proof? Faith should not require proof. If you don't believe or don't understand, you're not nuanced enough. Therefore, you should have blind faith, sheeple.

The Obama Administration got caught in a huge propaganda lie and has no way out. There is no "consensus" in the intelligence community that the motive of the Russian hacking--if indeed there was any Russian hacking--was to benefit Trump. There is no evidence of such a consensus. This was purely propaganda fed to the media by Obama administration operatives. This was all started because of Trump's sarcastic remark in the debate that the Russians should hack Hillary's email server (which they and the Chinese had probably already done anyway). Hillary jumped all over that as have the Democrats and haven't let go of it.

But now, when asked to present proof, there is none to present. So Obama acts like a clown and expels 35 Russian diplomats/spies who had nothing whatsoever to do with the alleged hacking.

Masterful performance, I hate to see him go.

The intelligence community says they do have a consensus. You say they don't. I'm going with them on this one, since your claim to insider knowledge is nada.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/something-about-this-russia-story-stinks-w458439

Even that "conservative" magazine, Rolling Stone, things something smells in this hacking story.

Thanks for sharing. Good piece. God, some people will believe anything if it's what they want to hear.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I don't really feel skeptical about this one. Somebody hacked the emails. Factually, the emails hurt Hillary. Wikileaks is going to great lengths to say it's not Russia. Assange hates Hillary.

It seems more likely than not that Russia did it. Did they do it with the express intent to elect Trump? Maybe not. Are the Democrats making some hay? Probably. But none of that really detracts from the gravity of the Russians interfering with our election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/something-about-this-russia-story-stinks-w458439

Even that "conservative" magazine, Rolling Stone, things something smells in this hacking story.

Thanks for sharing. Good piece. God, some people will believe anything if it's what they want to hear.

I am a veteran engineer with internet security experience going back to '97. I have reviewed the evidence presented by Crowdstrike and the other firms. It's clearly the work of russian government hackers. There's no way to prove motive, but it was definitely them.

So frankly I don't care what this music magazine says. And given what you probably said about their journalistic integrity regarding the campus rape story, you shouldn't be relying on them either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/something-about-this-russia-story-stinks-w458439

Even that "conservative" magazine, Rolling Stone, things something smells in this hacking story.

Thanks for sharing. Good piece. God, some people will believe anything if it's what they want to hear.

yeah well taibbi hedges a lot there and seems to give it a 50-50 if not more of being the Russians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/something-about-this-russia-story-stinks-w458439

Even that "conservative" magazine, Rolling Stone, things something smells in this hacking story.

Thanks for sharing. Good piece. God, some people will believe anything if it's what they want to hear.

I am a veteran engineer with internet security experience going back to '97. I have reviewed the evidence presented by Crowdstrike and the other firms. It's clearly the work of russian government hackers. There's no way to prove motive, but it was definitely them.

So frankly I don't care what this music magazine says. And given what you probably said about their journalistic integrity regarding the campus rape story, you shouldn't be relying on them either.

Well, master infosec expert, if you want to discredit the story legitimately, you would do well to realize it's a Matt Taibbi piece, much more than it is a "music magazine" piece.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/something-about-this-russia-story-stinks-w458439

Even that "conservative" magazine, Rolling Stone, things something smells in this hacking story.

Thanks for sharing. Good piece. God, some people will believe anything if it's what they want to hear.

yeah well taibbi hedges a lot there and seems to give it a 50-50 if not more of being the Russians.

Yep. Im PP and I agree with you. The point is that it's not a slam dunk, so people really should dial down the hysteria.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/something-about-this-russia-story-stinks-w458439

Even that "conservative" magazine, Rolling Stone, things something smells in this hacking story.

Thanks for sharing. Good piece. God, some people will believe anything if it's what they want to hear.

I am a veteran engineer with internet security experience going back to '97. I have reviewed the evidence presented by Crowdstrike and the other firms. It's clearly the work of russian government hackers. There's no way to prove motive, but it was definitely them.

So frankly I don't care what this music magazine says. And given what you probably said about their journalistic integrity regarding the campus rape story, you shouldn't be relying on them either.

Well, master infosec expert, if you want to discredit the story legitimately, you would do well to realize it's a Matt Taibbi piece, much more than it is a "music magazine" piece.

matt taibbi is a critic, not a reporter. all due respect to his rhetorical powers, but if he wants to report he should get off his ass an report. not just sit at his, yes, music magazine, and lob bombs (metaphorical bombs).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/something-about-this-russia-story-stinks-w458439

Even that "conservative" magazine, Rolling Stone, things something smells in this hacking story.

Thanks for sharing. Good piece. God, some people will believe anything if it's what they want to hear.

I am a veteran engineer with internet security experience going back to '97. I have reviewed the evidence presented by Crowdstrike and the other firms. It's clearly the work of russian government hackers. There's no way to prove motive, but it was definitely them.

So frankly I don't care what this music magazine says. And given what you probably said about their journalistic integrity regarding the campus rape story, you shouldn't be relying on them either.

Well, master infosec expert, if you want to discredit the story legitimately, you would do well to realize it's a Matt Taibbi piece, much more than it is a "music magazine" piece.

matt taibbi is a critic, not a reporter. all due respect to his rhetorical powers, but if he wants to report he should get off his ass an report. not just sit at his, yes, music magazine, and lob bombs (metaphorical bombs).

Huh? A critic? Like a music critic? Are you not familiar with his work? Taibbi is a very well respected journalist and author with extensive Russian experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Proof? Faith should not require proof. If you don't believe or don't understand, you're not nuanced enough. Therefore, you should have blind faith, sheeple.

The Obama Administration got caught in a huge propaganda lie and has no way out. There is no "consensus" in the intelligence community that the motive of the Russian hacking--if indeed there was any Russian hacking--was to benefit Trump. There is no evidence of such a consensus. This was purely propaganda fed to the media by Obama administration operatives. This was all started because of Trump's sarcastic remark in the debate that the Russians should hack Hillary's email server (which they and the Chinese had probably already done anyway). Hillary jumped all over that as have the Democrats and haven't let go of it.

But now, when asked to present proof, there is none to present. So Obama acts like a clown and expels 35 Russian diplomats/spies who had nothing whatsoever to do with the alleged hacking.

Masterful performance, I hate to see him go.

The intelligence community says they do have a consensus. You say they don't. I'm going with them on this one, since your claim to insider knowledge is nada.

The only "consensus" actually presented was that it is thought that persons associated with Russian intelligence engaged in spear fishing against 1,000 some-odd targets and a very small percentage of targets were dumb enough to fall for it. One of those who fell for it was "a political party." There is no "consensus" that the election was affected. There was no consensus that the intent was to aid Trump.