The Russian hacking story

[TarHeelEer]

I still have major doubts, particularly now that they combined FBI/CIA document didn't specify any details. 2/3 of the document was telling the public how to secure their networks. As if we don't already know, it's the government that has issues with it. They specified the same things we already knew, including the two groups they thought were associated. What they didn't tell us:

• That they know definitively this is how the emails were sourced, in order to be publicized by Wikileaks. Yes, Russia might've been hacking, but this doesn't necessarily say this is how it was obtained. Russia can be hacking, and the Wikileaks source might be a different group/person.
• Why do they think it is their work, beyond it fits their MO.
• How does a John Podesta fall for a password change phish?

Unless they know far more than what they're saying (and I don't think they do), the case is circumstantial, at best. And we acted on it. I guess you have to act on it to see what's in it.

 

[dave]

I still have major doubts, particularly now that they combined FBI/CIA document didn't specify any details. 2/3 of the document was telling the public how to secure their networks. As if we don't already know, it's the government that has issues with it. They specified the same things we already knew, including the two groups they thought were associated. What they didn't tell us:

• That they know definitively this is how the emails were sourced, in order to be publicized by Wikileaks. Yes, Russia might've been hacking, but this doesn't necessarily say this is how it was obtained. Russia can be hacking, and the Wikileaks source might be a different group/person.
• Why do they think it is their work, beyond it fits their MO.
• How does a John Podesta fall for a password change phish?

Unless they know far more than what they're saying (and I don't think they do), the case is circumstantial, at best. And we acted on it. I guess you have to act on it to see what's in it.

Pretty sure I read a story that Podesta asked his IT guy what to do when he got the phish and his IT guy told him it looked official. That could be and I hope it is false but if it is true it would explain the vulnerabilities at the DNC.

 

[countryroads89]

I still have major doubts, particularly now that they combined FBI/CIA document didn't specify any details. 2/3 of the document was telling the public how to secure their networks. As if we don't already know, it's the government that has issues with it. They specified the same things we already knew, including the two groups they thought were associated. What they didn't tell us:

• That they know definitively this is how the emails were sourced, in order to be publicized by Wikileaks. Yes, Russia might've been hacking, but this doesn't necessarily say this is how it was obtained. Russia can be hacking, and the Wikileaks source might be a different group/person.
• Why do they think it is their work, beyond it fits their MO.
• How does a John Podesta fall for a password change phish?

Unless they know far more than what they're saying (and I don't think they do), the case is circumstantial, at best. And we acted on it. I guess you have to act on it to see what's in it.

Do you seriously think the CIA shares everything with the public? Just because they didn't release some details doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Have you forgot about the Russian hacker we apprehended about a month prior to the election?

 

[TarHeelEer]

Have you forgot about the Russian hacker we apprehended about a month prior to the election?

Again, doesn't put 2+2 together.

 

[WVPATX]

Again, doesn't put 2+2 together.

Far more importantly, the hack had no influence on the election. Trump still wins regardless. The hacked emails were embarrassing to many in the Dem party but not Hillary. She lost because she was a really, really bad candidate.

Now, the media frenzy is about the hacking as if it had something to do with the election results. It did not. Media corruption at its finest.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

I still have major doubts, particularly now that they combined FBI/CIA document didn't specify any details. 2/3 of the document was telling the public how to secure their networks. As if we don't already know, it's the government that has issues with it. They specified the same things we already knew, including the two groups they thought were associated. What they didn't tell us:

• That they know definitively this is how the emails were sourced, in order to be publicized by Wikileaks. Yes, Russia might've been hacking, but this doesn't necessarily say this is how it was obtained. Russia can be hacking, and the Wikileaks source might be a different group/person.
• Why do they think it is their work, beyond it fits their MO.
• How does a John Podesta fall for a password change phish?

Unless they know far more than what they're saying (and I don't think they do), the case is circumstantial, at best. And we acted on it. I guess you have to act on it to see what's in it.

Yes, it can't be the Russians because the FBI and CIA always release all of their evidence to the public ... therefore we know as much as they do and we see holes.

 

[WhiteTailEER]

Pretty sure I read a story that Podesta asked his IT guy what to do when he got the phish and his IT guy told him it looked official. That could be and I hope it is false but if it is true it would explain the vulnerabilities at the DNC.

There's no way that would have happened. I don't care how junior an IT guy is ... I think it's just that Podesta is an idiot and is trying to save face.

 

[dave]

There's no way that would have happened. I don't care how junior an IT guy is ... I think it's just that Podesta is an idiot and is trying to save face.

I wish I could find that story. I remember thinking when I read it that if it were true they had keystone cop security.