Obama Admin under pressure to provide "hacking" proof

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote: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.

OK, putting the disclaimer aside as you suggest, then that means we need to take the content, such as it is, at face value; and unless additional info is presented via a subsequent supplemental release, that all the relevant info is contained in what we've been given.

There's nothing in there about hacking multiple political parties, just one. There's nothing in there about hacking the election or even any assertion that the hack of the political party in any way influenced the election. There's nothing in there attributing a motive to the Russians to influence the election by hacking a political party. There's nothing in there attributing a specific motive of aiding Trump to win the election. Nothing at all, and it's not even close.

And it's because this hacking wasn't specifically targeted at the election or the political parties. This was a mass spearfishing, probably of the type that goes on all the time and we are never told about. And out of 1,000 hacking targets, or spearfishing targets, it sounds like maybe less than a dozen or about one percent were foolish enough to fall victim to it.

Nothing in the report supports the Obama administration and HRC propaganda campaign against Trump w/r/t to the Russian hacking allegations.

Yet, you have posters in this thread deliberately making up "quotes" from the report that simply aren't there. The left is completely off the charts delusional. If and when we get any more info from DHS it'll be time to re-evaluate, but for now.....Dems, give it up already.

I am part of "the left" so unless you are saying that I am delusional -- you certainly wouldn't be the first -- the left is not completely delusional. The report neither confirms nor refutes that the Russians were behind the hack. There is simply not enough information to know either way.

Nope. You're in the field yourself, or were, and you as much stated as the report is so deficient to be worthless. You can't backtrack from that just because it doesn't agree with what you'd hoped it would have said based on your pre-conceived political notions.

No proof of Russian hacking of the election with the intent to aid proof means exactly that: No proof. It's not incumbent on Trump or his supporters to prove that the allegation is false when there is absolutely no evidence presented, at all, to support even making it. This report doesn't even use words like "we suspect that..." There is NO MENTION of it. At all. And you just got done saying we need to ignore the disclaimer. Consider it ignore.

You're beaten, jsteele. Admit defeat and give it up. You were wrong, you and the left were easily played by the Obama administration because of your severe leftward cognitive bias.

Now you are the one acting delusional. A worthless report cannot confirm guilt, but nor can it be used to exculpate. Worthless means it has no use. You are trying to use it for your own purposes (though why you are interested in declaring the Russians interesting is beyond me). This is not a game where one admits defeat or declares victory. This is a discussion about a topic of some interest. The report contains assertions that are not supported with evidence. The lack of evidence does not mean the assertions are false, but it does mean that I am unwilling to accept them at face value.

The report contains no "assertion", much less facts of any kind, much less proof, that the Russians: 1) hacked the election 2) affected the outcome of the election in any way by hacking of a "political party"; 3) intended to affect the outcome of the election by the hacking of a political party; 4) affected the outcome of the election in favor of a particular candidate; 5) intended to affect the outcome of the election in favor of a particular candidate.

No assertions of 1 - 5 AT ALL. Those aren't even in issue any longer. Complete leftist fantasy. Obama fed it to you. You fell for it. Fess up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The administration up until now has provided little documentation to back up its official October assessment that the Russian government was attempting to interfere in the U.S. election.

Nor has it corroborated subsequent leaks from anonymous officials contending that the CIA believes the campaign was an attempt by Russian President Vladimir Putin to ensure Donald Trump’s victory."

This is bullshit, and repeating it over and over again does not make it any more true.

You can see the evidence yourself. It has been publicized by three private companies that investigated the DNC hack.

The quote is from the link provided. If you think The Hill is lying perhaps you should read the article and provide the proof to them so they can see it.

What firms are you citing? do you have links you can post here?

I have posted the same information no fewer than five times on DCUM. This is easily obtainable information. Just google "how we know it was the russians".

But the burden of absolute proof is on our gov/Obama admin.

There is no such thing as a "burden of absolute proof". Honestly, is the DCUM community dumber than it used to be?

Since the Trumpkins/bots/Russian trolls started posting, absolutely yes.

Since the paid CTR shills and Hilbots have been here..yes it's much dumber

Oh my, are you still stuck on Hillary. Aren't the Trumpkins the ones telling us it is time to move on. Take your own advice.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
The report contains no "assertion", much less facts of any kind, much less proof, that the Russians: 1) hacked the election 2) affected the outcome of the election in any way by hacking of a "political party"; 3) intended to affect the outcome of the election by the hacking of a political party; 4) affected the outcome of the election in favor of a particular candidate; 5) intended to affect the outcome of the election in favor of a particular candidate.

No assertions of 1 - 5 AT ALL. Those aren't even in issue any longer. Complete leftist fantasy. Obama fed it to you. You fell for it. Fess up.

Assertion: "This activity by RIS is part of an ongoing campaign of cyber-enabled operations directed at the U.S. government and its citizens."

Assertion: "The U.S. Government confirms that two different RIS actors participated in the intrusion into a U.S. political party."

Assertion: "In summer 2015, an APT29 spearphishing campaign directed emails containing a malicious link to over 1,000 recipients, including multiple U.S. Government victims."

Assertion: "In spring 2016, APT28 compromised the same political party, again via targeted spearphishing."

Assertion: "Actors likely associated with RIS are continuing to engage in spearphishing campaigns, including one launched as recently as November 2016, just days after the U.S. election."

There are plenty of assertions. I agree that the report lacks supporting evidence. This report does not address, nor was it meant to, whether the Russians "hacked the election". I don't know why you keep bringing that up. This report addresses whether a US political party was hacked by the Russians. The report asserts, without evidence, that this is the case. Anything beyond that is out of scope.

Again, I agree that the report does not provide evidence to support its assertions. But, as I said before, the lack of such evidence does not mean the assertions are false.

If you bother to reply, please skip the FUD about affecting the outcome and so on. That has nothing to do with this report.

[Anonymous]

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.

[jsteele]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The administration up until now has provided little documentation to back up its official October assessment that the Russian government was attempting to interfere in the U.S. election.

Nor has it corroborated subsequent leaks from anonymous officials contending that the CIA believes the campaign was an attempt by Russian President Vladimir Putin to ensure Donald Trump’s victory."

This is bullshit, and repeating it over and over again does not make it any more true.

You can see the evidence yourself. It has been publicized by three private companies that investigated the DNC hack.

The quote is from the link provided. If you think The Hill is lying perhaps you should read the article and provide the proof to them so they can see it.

What firms are you citing? do you have links you can post here?

I have posted the same information no fewer than five times on DCUM. This is easily obtainable information. Just google "how we know it was the russians".

But the burden of absolute proof is on our gov/Obama admin.

There is no such thing as a "burden of absolute proof". Honestly, is the DCUM community dumber than it used to be?

Since the Trumpkins/bots/Russian trolls started posting, absolutely yes.

Since the paid CTR shills and Hilbots have been here..yes it's much dumber

Sorry dear, no. The dumb is all you. I love that you guys think you know better than the US intelligence community. Because you read zerohedge and some nonsense.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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.

Did you see the full package of indicators? https://www.us-cert.gov/security-publications/GRIZZLY-STEPPE-Russian-Malicious-Cyber-Activity

Yes, did you? That would be useful for checking your own systems, but proves nothing.

As a fellow technical individual, you can take what Jeff is saying to the bank here. He is correct - and Jeff knows we don't agree on much

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

do you seriously believe everything the cia cooks up? really? Wow, I wish I still had your child-like naivete

[Anonymous]

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.

[jsteele]

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.

George Tenet -- Mr. "Slam Dunk" himself, was the head of the CIA. As I recall, the only intelligence agency not to drink the WMD Cool-Aid was State's INR.

[Anonymous]

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.

Actually, it was the renegade 10 electors (Hillary supporters) who demanded proof. Were they wrong to do so?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The report contains no "assertion", much less facts of any kind, much less proof, that the Russians: 1) hacked the election 2) affected the outcome of the election in any way by hacking of a "political party"; 3) intended to affect the outcome of the election by the hacking of a political party; 4) affected the outcome of the election in favor of a particular candidate; 5) intended to affect the outcome of the election in favor of a particular candidate.

No assertions of 1 - 5 AT ALL. Those aren't even in issue any longer. Complete leftist fantasy. Obama fed it to you. You fell for it. Fess up.

Assertion: "This activity by RIS is part of an ongoing campaign of cyber-enabled operations directed at the U.S. government and its citizens."

Assertion: "The U.S. Government confirms that two different RIS actors participated in the intrusion into a U.S. political party."

Assertion: "In summer 2015, an APT29 spearphishing campaign directed emails containing a malicious link to over 1,000 recipients, including multiple U.S. Government victims."

Assertion: "In spring 2016, APT28 compromised the same political party, again via targeted spearphishing."

Assertion: "Actors likely associated with RIS are continuing to engage in spearphishing campaigns, including one launched as recently as November 2016, just days after the U.S. election."

There are plenty of assertions. I agree that the report lacks supporting evidence. This report does not address, nor was it meant to, whether the Russians "hacked the election". I don't know why you keep bringing that up. This report addresses whether a US political party was hacked by the Russians. The report asserts, without evidence, that this is the case. Anything beyond that is out of scope.

Again, I agree that the report does not provide evidence to support its assertions. But, as I said before, the lack of such evidence does not mean the assertions are false.

If you bother to reply, please skip the FUD about affecting the outcome and so on. That has nothing to do with this report.

O.K. so we're in agreement that there's no allegation or evidence that the Russians attempted to affect the election's outcome by favoring Trump. That was the whole point of all this, if you recall, Jeff.

You just can't admit you were dead wrong. LOL.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The report contains no "assertion", much less facts of any kind, much less proof, that the Russians: 1) hacked the election 2) affected the outcome of the election in any way by hacking of a "political party"; 3) intended to affect the outcome of the election by the hacking of a political party; 4) affected the outcome of the election in favor of a particular candidate; 5) intended to affect the outcome of the election in favor of a particular candidate.

No assertions of 1 - 5 AT ALL. Those aren't even in issue any longer. Complete leftist fantasy. Obama fed it to you. You fell for it. Fess up.

Assertion: "This activity by RIS is part of an ongoing campaign of cyber-enabled operations directed at the U.S. government and its citizens."

Assertion: "The U.S. Government confirms that two different RIS actors participated in the intrusion into a U.S. political party."

Assertion: "In summer 2015, an APT29 spearphishing campaign directed emails containing a malicious link to over 1,000 recipients, including multiple U.S. Government victims."

Assertion: "In spring 2016, APT28 compromised the same political party, again via targeted spearphishing."

Assertion: "Actors likely associated with RIS are continuing to engage in spearphishing campaigns, including one launched as recently as November 2016, just days after the U.S. election."

There are plenty of assertions. I agree that the report lacks supporting evidence. This report does not address, nor was it meant to, whether the Russians "hacked the election". I don't know why you keep bringing that up. This report addresses whether a US political party was hacked by the Russians. The report asserts, without evidence, that this is the case. Anything beyond that is out of scope.

Again, I agree that the report does not provide evidence to support its assertions. But, as I said before, the lack of such evidence does not mean the assertions are false.

If you bother to reply, please skip the FUD about affecting the outcome and so on. That has nothing to do with this report.

O.K. so we're in agreement that there's no allegation or evidence that the Russians attempted to affect the election's outcome by favoring Trump. That was the whole point of all this, if you recall, Jeff.

You just can't admit you were dead wrong. LOL.

Actually, you are dead wrong. This report came from government agencies that provide information about computer network security. Their role is to say whether there was an intrusion or not. It is not their role to say why an intrusion took place. So, you wrong about the point of the report.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The report contains no "assertion", much less facts of any kind, much less proof, that the Russians: 1) hacked the election 2) affected the outcome of the election in any way by hacking of a "political party"; 3) intended to affect the outcome of the election by the hacking of a political party; 4) affected the outcome of the election in favor of a particular candidate; 5) intended to affect the outcome of the election in favor of a particular candidate.

No assertions of 1 - 5 AT ALL. Those aren't even in issue any longer. Complete leftist fantasy. Obama fed it to you. You fell for it. Fess up.

Assertion: "This activity by RIS is part of an ongoing campaign of cyber-enabled operations directed at the U.S. government and its citizens."

Assertion: "The U.S. Government confirms that two different RIS actors participated in the intrusion into a U.S. political party."

Assertion: "In summer 2015, an APT29 spearphishing campaign directed emails containing a malicious link to over 1,000 recipients, including multiple U.S. Government victims."

Assertion: "In spring 2016, APT28 compromised the same political party, again via targeted spearphishing."

Assertion: "Actors likely associated with RIS are continuing to engage in spearphishing campaigns, including one launched as recently as November 2016, just days after the U.S. election."

There are plenty of assertions. I agree that the report lacks supporting evidence. This report does not address, nor was it meant to, whether the Russians "hacked the election". I don't know why you keep bringing that up. This report addresses whether a US political party was hacked by the Russians. The report asserts, without evidence, that this is the case. Anything beyond that is out of scope.

Again, I agree that the report does not provide evidence to support its assertions. But, as I said before, the lack of such evidence does not mean the assertions are false.

If you bother to reply, please skip the FUD about affecting the outcome and so on. That has nothing to do with this report.

O.K. so we're in agreement that there's no allegation or evidence that the Russians attempted to affect the election's outcome by favoring Trump. That was the whole point of all this, if you recall, Jeff.

You just can't admit you were dead wrong. LOL.

Actually, you are dead wrong. This report came from government agencies that provide information about computer network security. Their role is to say whether there was an intrusion or not. It is not their role to say why an intrusion took place. So, you wrong about the point of the report.

I think Jeff is 100% correct about the intent and scope of the report. However, there was some belief/hope that the report would contain a smoking gun or some other huge revelation that didn't materialize and therein lies the disconnect.