Cybersecurity firm finds evidence that Russian military unit was behind DNC hack
washingtonpost.comThe actual CrowdStrike report is a piece of work: https://www.crowdstrike.com/wp-content/brochures/FancyBearTr...
The article states:
> The firm CrowdStrike linked malware used in the DNC intrusion to malware used to hack and track an Android phone app used by the Ukrainian army in its battle against pro-Russia separatists in eastern Ukraine from late 2014 through 2016.
The report states:
> At the time of this writing, it is unclear to what degree and for how long this specific application was utilized by the entirety of the Ukrainian Artillery Forces. Based on open source reporting, social media posts, and video evidence, CrowdStrike assesses that Попр-Д 30.apk was potentially used through 2016 by at least one artillery unit operating in eastern Ukraine.
And on that basis, CrowdStrike went to "high confidence it was the Russians". I'd like to really see some evidence, as opposed to propaganda.
From what I've seen so far the only material outcome of this alleged hacking that can be argued to have been influential during the election (by exposing DNC corruption nonetheless) is Podesta's leaked emails which that particular hack has so far been tied to a phishing email which tricked Podesta into revealing his gmail password.
DNC Hack != DNC leak. They have not proved anything useful.
What about this: "The source said the server may have been hacked by up to five foreign intelligence agencies. While other sources believe this is probable, evidence has not emerged to confirm this." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/03/sources-99-percen...
Never mind that Julian Assange is saying the source was not Russia.
Consultant-for-hire: "the propaganda is true; i found evidence"
The claims are not believable on their face, given that it's a security firm hired by the DNC. They describe evidence, but it's hard to independently evaluate that evidence as a neutral third party.
And even if they are true, and Russia did hack the DNC in order to influence the election? Then the american people had more evidence upon which to base their vote.
I am incredibly unhappy with Trump, but the "russian manipulation" cry is meaningless without
1) evidence that the information they propagated was untrue (indeed: it seems most damning precisely because it is true)
or
2) that the russians somehow manipulated the actual mechanics of the vote, so that the tallies ended up being counted incorrectly.
Because if it's just an antagonistic despot publicizing true facts and having the american public weigh those facts? That's called democracy.
Let me reiterate: I'm extremely unhappy with how it played out, but you can't credibly criticize it.
Having said that: somebody (maybe a russian) did hack a computer system. Prosecute them criminally (the same way you would the watergate burglars).
Just because something is true doesn't mean that releasing it to the public is good. For instance, there were hacked documents released for some Congressional races that were expected to be close races where Democrats had an edge. These releases included the detailed campaign strategy documents of the Democratic candidates in those races. There was nothing in those releases showing any wrongdoing, or even hinting at any. Just internal planning documents for the campaigns. There was no legitimate public interest in releasing it, except maybe as historical documents after the election.
More information available for the public to make an informed decision seems like it's always a good thing. What's good for Democrats != what's good for the public.
When Comey came out and said it was the Russians trying to influence the election, then this accusation became truth to me. After all, he's been denying this for a while and wrote a rather timely and perhaps inappropriate letter about a week before the election.
Yikes that video thumbnail with the ~hacker hands~ and wall of green binary...
> CrowdStrike, which was hired by the DNC to investigate the intrusions
I can't think of anything that would lend less credibility to the findings than to be paid clients of the DNC.