Obama Admin under pressure to provide "hacking" proof

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Foreign governments attempt to hack our government all the time which makes Hilary's private server scheme all the more laughable and scary. There are also claims that the DNC hacks were an inside job. Obama needs to provide proof on serious allegations against a foreign government like election tampering.

True. In light of the Democrats claiming Russian hacking is such a huge threat to America, how is that consistent with the conclusion that HRC was NOT criminally negligent?

And back to the deflections.

I'm going to guess that Obama didn't start talking publicly about this until the intelligence was irrefutable. Now whether we get to see the evidence is another thing.

How can such evidence be withheld?

There is no evidence. Read the disclaimer at the beginning of the report, top of the first page. It specifically states that there are no warranties provided as to any of the content of the report. They are basically telling you upfront that they are providing you with unreliable "information" which no one should use as the basis of any actions or conclusions about anything. Obama is actually daring us to be stupid enough to believe that the report means whatever we want it to mean.

No, that's a standard DHS disclaimer on all its reports. It doesn't mean what you think it does. By "warranties" it means that you can't sue DHS for what they say. Likely they are more concerned about libel/defamation/tort claims wrt specific software etc they mention in their reports.

Still wondering why anyone believes that the public should be privy to every piece of evidence in what is no doubt a highly sensitive and top secret investigation?

LOL. I think it means exactly what it says. You're foolish or self-deluded if you choose to disregard those words.

So since it appears on everything DHS puts out, we can't actually believe anything from them. Including the DHS reports on terrorism and immigration.

If what they put out is unsourced and not independently verifiable, then yes--it means exactly what it says--it's completely unreliable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL did anyone read the disclaimer at the very beginning of the report?



DISCLAIMER: This report is provided “as is” for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within. DHS
does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This document is
distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may be distributed
without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp.claimer


No warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within is essentially the Intelligence Community's way of telling us: "This is all complete bullshit but if you are stupid enough to believe it, shame on you."

That's a standard disclaimer used by DHS. I don't think it really means anything. For example you can find the same disclaimer here: http://amsig.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/ICS-ALERT-14-157-01P-Situational-Alert-for-Electronic-Highway-Signs.pdf

You have a serious and fatal cognitive bias. You're choosing to believe the part of the report you want to believe, and obviously will interpret it any old which way you want it to mean that suits you, which is exactly what the administration is hoping people do. But you disregard the part of the report which expressly tells you that there is no guarantee that any of the contents of the report are reliable.

It means exactly what it says: The contents of the report are not reliable information. The fact that DHS stamps this disclaimer on other of its publications, or every one of its publications, means you are being fed unreliable propaganda, or being told at best half truths. The problem with half truths is you never know which half is true.

No. It's legalese that means "don't sue us if the fixes we suggest here don't work." That's the meaning of "no warranty". It's clearly a disclaimer relating to the commerical impact of the " recommended mitigations, suggested actions to take in response to the indicators provided." So in other words, if you followed their instrucitons and you still got hacked by the Russians, you couldn't sue them (or perhaps otherwise use it in court, say, if you are a security firm and your client sued you.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama: "You wanna mess with our elections? OK, how about this ...." Boom. Expels 35 Russian diplomats from the US, shuts down 2 Russian compounds in the US, and specifically names Russian operatives and groups that are involved in cyberattacks.

Trump: "Let's just all get on with our lives."

C'mon Donnie, I thought you were a tough guy. Someone punches you, and you say "let's just all get along" ?!?!? You're about to be the man of the house in just 20 days; show some sack for chrissake.

How does expulsion of Russian diplomats, closing down 2 Russian compounds, etc., serve U.S. interests? It doesn't. It's another end of presidency temper tantrum by Obama, posturing at "acting tough," but accomplishing nothing in terms of advancing U.S. national interests.

Yeah, we should apologize to the Russians for disturbing them with complaints about their cyberattacks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Foreign governments attempt to hack our government all the time which makes Hilary's private server scheme all the more laughable and scary. There are also claims that the DNC hacks were an inside job. Obama needs to provide proof on serious allegations against a foreign government like election tampering.

True. In light of the Democrats claiming Russian hacking is such a huge threat to America, how is that consistent with the conclusion that HRC was NOT criminally negligent?

And back to the deflections.

I'm going to guess that Obama didn't start talking publicly about this until the intelligence was irrefutable. Now whether we get to see the evidence is another thing.

How can such evidence be withheld?

There is no evidence. Read the disclaimer at the beginning of the report, top of the first page. It specifically states that there are no warranties provided as to any of the content of the report. They are basically telling you upfront that they are providing you with unreliable "information" which no one should use as the basis of any actions or conclusions about anything. Obama is actually daring us to be stupid enough to believe that the report means whatever we want it to mean.

No, that's a standard DHS disclaimer on all its reports. It doesn't mean what you think it does. By "warranties" it means that you can't sue DHS for what they say. Likely they are more concerned about libel/defamation/tort claims wrt specific software etc they mention in their reports.

Still wondering why anyone believes that the public should be privy to every piece of evidence in what is no doubt a highly sensitive and top secret investigation?

LOL. I think it means exactly what it says. You're foolish or self-deluded if you choose to disregard those words.

You're the foolish one for interpreting a standard legal disclaimer in an outlandish way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

jsteele wrote:Here is the joint report that details the Russian hacking:

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296.pdf

Now that I've read the report, it is completely useless and provides no information of value. The report urges network administrators to check their logs for certain IP addresses, but then doesn't provide any addresses. The report is basically a fancy graphic and a list of best practices. It does nothing to confirm the hackers were Russian.

Jeff, it says "The U.S. Government confirms that two different RIS actors participated in the intrusion into a
U.S. political party." What else do you really expect it to say? I supposed you can just decide you don't believe it, but what's your standard for believing these sorts of documents?

I don't know about Jeff, but I expected it to say something about what the Russians' motive for the hacking was, and specifically that they hacked in order to help elect Trump; and also what data and inferences they relied upon to draw that conclusion. The fact that it doesn't mention any of that at all suggests that we were fed pure propaganda by the Obama administration about those things. Of course pending any release of supplementary report data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Foreign governments attempt to hack our government all the time which makes Hilary's private server scheme all the more laughable and scary. There are also claims that the DNC hacks were an inside job. Obama needs to provide proof on serious allegations against a foreign government like election tampering.

True. In light of the Democrats claiming Russian hacking is such a huge threat to America, how is that consistent with the conclusion that HRC was NOT criminally negligent?

And back to the deflections.

I'm going to guess that Obama didn't start talking publicly about this until the intelligence was irrefutable. Now whether we get to see the evidence is another thing.

How can such evidence be withheld?

There is no evidence. Read the disclaimer at the beginning of the report, top of the first page. It specifically states that there are no warranties provided as to any of the content of the report. They are basically telling you upfront that they are providing you with unreliable "information" which no one should use as the basis of any actions or conclusions about anything. Obama is actually daring us to be stupid enough to believe that the report means whatever we want it to mean.

No, that's a standard DHS disclaimer on all its reports. It doesn't mean what you think it does. By "warranties" it means that you can't sue DHS for what they say. Likely they are more concerned about libel/defamation/tort claims wrt specific software etc they mention in their reports.

Still wondering why anyone believes that the public should be privy to every piece of evidence in what is no doubt a highly sensitive and top secret investigation?

LOL. I think it means exactly what it says. You're foolish or self-deluded if you choose to disregard those words.

So since it appears on everything DHS puts out, we can't actually believe anything from them. Including the DHS reports on terrorism and immigration.

If what they put out is unsourced and not independently verifiable, then yes--it means exactly what it says--it's completely unreliable.

and the black helicopters are coming for you.

once again -- this is a disclaimer that this particular type of report, which makes cybersecurity recommendations, puts out with respect to those recommendations. It means "you can't sue us if you still get hacked" and "we are not endorsing any products we mention here." If you are a cybersecurity expert looking for technical advice -- sure, that should be something on your radar. But it says nothing at all about the underlying facts -- the conclusion that the Russians hacked the election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL did anyone read the disclaimer at the very beginning of the report?



DISCLAIMER: This report is provided “as is” for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within. DHS
does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This document is
distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may be distributed
without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp.claimer


No warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within is essentially the Intelligence Community's way of telling us: "This is all complete bullshit but if you are stupid enough to believe it, shame on you."

That's a standard disclaimer used by DHS. I don't think it really means anything. For example you can find the same disclaimer here: http://amsig.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/ICS-ALERT-14-157-01P-Situational-Alert-for-Electronic-Highway-Signs.pdf

You have a serious and fatal cognitive bias. You're choosing to believe the part of the report you want to believe, and obviously will interpret it any old which way you want it to mean that suits you, which is exactly what the administration is hoping people do. But you disregard the part of the report which expressly tells you that there is no guarantee that any of the contents of the report are reliable.

It means exactly what it says: The contents of the report are not reliable information. The fact that DHS stamps this disclaimer on other of its publications, or every one of its publications, means you are being fed unreliable propaganda, or being told at best half truths. The problem with half truths is you never know which half is true.

No. It's legalese that means "don't sue us if the fixes we suggest here don't work." That's the meaning of "no warranty". It's clearly a disclaimer relating to the commerical impact of the " recommended mitigations, suggested actions to take in response to the indicators provided." So in other words, if you followed their instrucitons and you still got hacked by the Russians, you couldn't sue them (or perhaps otherwise use it in court, say, if you are a security firm and your client sued you.)

The federal government has the benefit of sovereign immunity so I doubt they're worried about getting sued. The disclaimer is not limited to "you can't sue us."

It specifically states:

"The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within."

It says what it says and it means what it says, not what you wish it to say, or what you wish it to mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Foreign governments attempt to hack our government all the time which makes Hilary's private server scheme all the more laughable and scary. There are also claims that the DNC hacks were an inside job. Obama needs to provide proof on serious allegations against a foreign government like election tampering.

True. In light of the Democrats claiming Russian hacking is such a huge threat to America, how is that consistent with the conclusion that HRC was NOT criminally negligent?

And back to the deflections.

I'm going to guess that Obama didn't start talking publicly about this until the intelligence was irrefutable. Now whether we get to see the evidence is another thing.

How can such evidence be withheld?

There is no evidence. Read the disclaimer at the beginning of the report, top of the first page. It specifically states that there are no warranties provided as to any of the content of the report. They are basically telling you upfront that they are providing you with unreliable "information" which no one should use as the basis of any actions or conclusions about anything. Obama is actually daring us to be stupid enough to believe that the report means whatever we want it to mean.

No, that's a standard DHS disclaimer on all its reports. It doesn't mean what you think it does. By "warranties" it means that you can't sue DHS for what they say. Likely they are more concerned about libel/defamation/tort claims wrt specific software etc they mention in their reports.

Still wondering why anyone believes that the public should be privy to every piece of evidence in what is no doubt a highly sensitive and top secret investigation?

LOL. I think it means exactly what it says. You're foolish or self-deluded if you choose to disregard those words.

So since it appears on everything DHS puts out, we can't actually believe anything from them. Including the DHS reports on terrorism and immigration.

If what they put out is unsourced and not independently verifiable, then yes--it means exactly what it says--it's completely unreliable.

and the black helicopters are coming for you.

once again -- this is a disclaimer that this particular type of report, which makes cybersecurity recommendations, puts out with respect to those recommendations. It means "you can't sue us if you still get hacked" and "we are not endorsing any products we mention here." If you are a cybersecurity expert looking for technical advice -- sure, that should be something on your radar. But it says nothing at all about the underlying facts -- the conclusion that the Russians hacked the election.

LOL. Nowhere in the report does it conclude that "the Russians hacked the election." Prove me wrong by cut and pasting that quote. You're completely delusional. That's why jsteele concluded the report contains no useful information.

[Anonymous]

This is what it says that's relevant: "The U.S. Government confirms that two different RIS actors participated in the intrusion into a
U.S. political party." It doesn't say there was hacking of the election; it doesn't say what the motive was if there had been a conclusion the election had been hacked; and it certainly doesn't say the election was hacked with the specific motive of aiding Trump.

In fact, I don't even think the word "election" is anywhere in the report at all. I could be wrong about that. Please let me know if I am, by reference to the actual words of the report.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

jsteele wrote:Here is the joint report that details the Russian hacking:

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296.pdf

Now that I've read the report, it is completely useless and provides no information of value. The report urges network administrators to check their logs for certain IP addresses, but then doesn't provide any addresses. The report is basically a fancy graphic and a list of best practices. It does nothing to confirm the hackers were Russian.

Jeff, it says "The U.S. Government confirms that two different RIS actors participated in the intrusion into a
U.S. political party." What else do you really expect it to say? I supposed you can just decide you don't believe it, but what's your standard for believing these sorts of documents?

I worked for eight years in a government institution where my duties included investigating hacks. I would expect a report of the type that I used to prepare. This would include a more detailed explanation of the initial exploit, details about the software that was infiltrated, how that software was used to obtain emails and exfiltrate them, information showing who controlled the software involved in the hack and how those individuals are linked to the Russian government. I have not forgotten George Tenet saying that the intelligence linking Saddam Hussein to WMDs was a "slam dunk". I'm not willing to take unsupported assertions from the US intelligence community.

The story that the hack was an inside job is being promoted and one way to counter that story is to clearly demonstrate that it was an outside job. A fancy graphic is not convincing.

[jsteele]

Regarding the disclaimer, that is really not worth arguing about. It is standard boiler plate and simply meant as CYA incase you configure your IDSs with their rules and blow it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL did anyone read the disclaimer at the very beginning of the report?



DISCLAIMER: This report is provided “as is” for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within. DHS
does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This document is
distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may be distributed
without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp.claimer


No warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within is essentially the Intelligence Community's way of telling us: "This is all complete bullshit but if you are stupid enough to believe it, shame on you."

That's a standard disclaimer used by DHS. I don't think it really means anything. For example you can find the same disclaimer here: http://amsig.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/ICS-ALERT-14-157-01P-Situational-Alert-for-Electronic-Highway-Signs.pdf

You have a serious and fatal cognitive bias. You're choosing to believe the part of the report you want to believe, and obviously will interpret it any old which way you want it to mean that suits you, which is exactly what the administration is hoping people do. But you disregard the part of the report which expressly tells you that there is no guarantee that any of the contents of the report are reliable.

It means exactly what it says: The contents of the report are not reliable information. The fact that DHS stamps this disclaimer on other of its publications, or every one of its publications, means you are being fed unreliable propaganda, or being told at best half truths. The problem with half truths is you never know which half is true.

No. It's legalese that means "don't sue us if the fixes we suggest here don't work." That's the meaning of "no warranty". It's clearly a disclaimer relating to the commerical impact of the " recommended mitigations, suggested actions to take in response to the indicators provided." So in other words, if you followed their instrucitons and you still got hacked by the Russians, you couldn't sue them (or perhaps otherwise use it in court, say, if you are a security firm and your client sued you.)

The federal government has the benefit of sovereign immunity so I doubt they're worried about getting sued. The disclaimer is not limited to "you can't sue us."

It specifically states:

"The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within."

It says what it says and it means what it says, not what you wish it to say, or what you wish it to mean.

Is it even worthwhile arguing against someone who does not know that the US can be sued in many ways?

Here is the longer disclaimer on the US-CERT website (the agency division that puts out the reports jointly with the FBI): https://www.us-cert.gov/disclaimer

This disclaimer goes on most of their recent technical publications: https://www.us-cert.gov/security-publications

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

jsteele wrote:Here is the joint report that details the Russian hacking:

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296.pdf

Now that I've read the report, it is completely useless and provides no information of value. The report urges network administrators to check their logs for certain IP addresses, but then doesn't provide any addresses. The report is basically a fancy graphic and a list of best practices. It does nothing to confirm the hackers were Russian.

Jeff, it says "The U.S. Government confirms that two different RIS actors participated in the intrusion into a
U.S. political party." What else do you really expect it to say? I supposed you can just decide you don't believe it, but what's your standard for believing these sorts of documents?

I worked for eight years in a government institution where my duties included investigating hacks. I would expect a report of the type that I used to prepare. This would include a more detailed explanation of the initial exploit, details about the software that was infiltrated, how that software was used to obtain emails and exfiltrate them, information showing who controlled the software involved in the hack and how those individuals are linked to the Russian government. I have not forgotten George Tenet saying that the intelligence linking Saddam Hussein to WMDs was a "slam dunk". I'm not willing to take unsupported assertions from the US intelligence community.

The story that the hack was an inside job is being promoted and one way to counter that story is to clearly demonstrate that it was an outside job. A fancy graphic is not convincing.

Fair enough, although I personally think the fact that the Russians hacked the election (on any side, or no side at all) to be enough for grave concern, especially since it did seem to impact the election, no matter the intent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Foreign governments attempt to hack our government all the time which makes Hilary's private server scheme all the more laughable and scary. There are also claims that the DNC hacks were an inside job. Obama needs to provide proof on serious allegations against a foreign government like election tampering.

True. In light of the Democrats claiming Russian hacking is such a huge threat to America, how is that consistent with the conclusion that HRC was NOT criminally negligent?

And back to the deflections.

I'm going to guess that Obama didn't start talking publicly about this until the intelligence was irrefutable. Now whether we get to see the evidence is another thing.

How can such evidence be withheld?

There is no evidence. Read the disclaimer at the beginning of the report, top of the first page. It specifically states that there are no warranties provided as to any of the content of the report. They are basically telling you upfront that they are providing you with unreliable "information" which no one should use as the basis of any actions or conclusions about anything. Obama is actually daring us to be stupid enough to believe that the report means whatever we want it to mean.

No, that's a standard DHS disclaimer on all its reports. It doesn't mean what you think it does. By "warranties" it means that you can't sue DHS for what they say. Likely they are more concerned about libel/defamation/tort claims wrt specific software etc they mention in their reports.

Still wondering why anyone believes that the public should be privy to every piece of evidence in what is no doubt a highly sensitive and top secret investigation?

LOL. I think it means exactly what it says. You're foolish or self-deluded if you choose to disregard those words.

So since it appears on everything DHS puts out, we can't actually believe anything from them. Including the DHS reports on terrorism and immigration.

If what they put out is unsourced and not independently verifiable, then yes--it means exactly what it says--it's completely unreliable.

and the black helicopters are coming for you.

once again -- this is a disclaimer that this particular type of report, which makes cybersecurity recommendations, puts out with respect to those recommendations. It means "you can't sue us if you still get hacked" and "we are not endorsing any products we mention here." If you are a cybersecurity expert looking for technical advice -- sure, that should be something on your radar. But it says nothing at all about the underlying facts -- the conclusion that the Russians hacked the election.

LOL. Nowhere in the report does it conclude that "the Russians hacked the election." Prove me wrong by cut and pasting that quote. You're completely delusional. That's why jsteele concluded the report contains no useful information.

It's because the report, perhaps prudently, is limited to what they could say: that the political parties were intruded on by Russians. The impacts (the chronology of the releases, the impact on the elections) is the domain of historians and political scientists, not data/cyber security specialists.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

jsteele wrote:Here is the joint report that details the Russian hacking:

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296.pdf

Now that I've read the report, it is completely useless and provides no information of value. The report urges network administrators to check their logs for certain IP addresses, but then doesn't provide any addresses. The report is basically a fancy graphic and a list of best practices. It does nothing to confirm the hackers were Russian.

Jeff, it says "The U.S. Government confirms that two different RIS actors participated in the intrusion into a
U.S. political party." What else do you really expect it to say? I supposed you can just decide you don't believe it, but what's your standard for believing these sorts of documents?

I worked for eight years in a government institution where my duties included investigating hacks. I would expect a report of the type that I used to prepare. This would include a more detailed explanation of the initial exploit, details about the software that was infiltrated, how that software was used to obtain emails and exfiltrate them, information showing who controlled the software involved in the hack and how those individuals are linked to the Russian government. I have not forgotten George Tenet saying that the intelligence linking Saddam Hussein to WMDs was a "slam dunk". I'm not willing to take unsupported assertions from the US intelligence community.

The story that the hack was an inside job is being promoted and one way to counter that story is to clearly demonstrate that it was an outside job. A fancy graphic is not convincing.

Fair enough, although I personally think the fact that the Russians hacked the election (on any side, or no side at all) to be enough for grave concern, especially since it did seem to impact the election, no matter the intent.

The information released is not sufficient to establish that as fact.