Vault 7....For all we know the CIA may have hacked the Democrats

[barbos]

Well, there's another problem. The fact that the hacks were performed by Russians was also verified by independent groups that the DNC contracted - and every expert knows how to counteract the techniques that would be used to pull off the sort of thing that Wikileaks alleges. Of course, Wikileaks has always been a rather silly and alarmist anti-US group, so this is not a shock.

Wait, are you you trying to sell me on the idea that "experts" in the field of "cyber-security" "know" how better how to track hacking than not just random people on the Internet, but random people on the Internet with blogs?!

Yeah, these are the experts which found WMD in Iraq. You know you can trust these people

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wait, are you you trying to sell me on the idea that "experts" in the field of "cyber-security" "know" how better how to track hacking than not just random people on the Internet, but random people on the Internet with blogs?!

Yeah, these are the experts which found WMD in Iraq.

Dude, that well is dry. Also, there was a lot of disagreement with WMDs in Iraq, and the CIA didn't exactly sell hard that Iraq had WMDs. You may want to read up on The Plan of Attack by Woodward.

 

[barbos]

Yeah, these are the experts which found WMD in Iraq.

Dude, that well is dry. Also, there was a lot of disagreement with WMDs in Iraq, and the CIA didn't exactly sell hard that Iraq had WMDs. You may want to read up on The Plan of Attack by Woodward.

Apparently not enough for not invading.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Dude, that well is dry. Also, there was a lot of disagreement with WMDs in Iraq, and the CIA didn't exactly sell hard that Iraq had WMDs. You may want to read up on The Plan of Attack by Woodward.

Apparently not enough for not invading.

The CIA presented the evidence to the W Admin, and the W Admin was not happy with the presentation as it certainly did not hold much water. The presentation was tightened up a bit and then given by Powell at the UN. A good deal of the "evidence" consisted of a lack of documentation, which was actually technically true if held out of context of the fact the WMDs would have been useless by 2003 and just because there was a lack of documentation didn't automatically mean the weapons still existed. The CIA gave the W Admin a bit too much rope, but the source of the problem with Iraq was not the CIA. CIA enabled the W Admin, and it was the W Admin that wanted to invade Iraq.

The comparison of Iraq with Russian influence in the US election is folly. Iraq had no consensus that a war was needed or that there was a danger. In fact, there were a lot disputing this, from diplomats to intelligence. Russian influence is pretty much sold across the board as being fact among private and Federal cyber-security investigators (and even Putin's useful idiot admitted that the Russians were behind the hacks). Unlike Iraq where the presence of WMDs was anything but certain, we know that the DNC was hacked.

But yeah, I already know your rebuttal... Iraq. *rolls-eyes*

 

[Jarhyn]

It isnt a suggestion; it's a plain fact. And you miss the point entirely of the statement of those facts; it doesn't really matter who was more involved in propping up Trump; they both had an interest in doing so, and they are both guilty.

Far more concerning than any discussion over parceling out the exact nature of who did what is the discussion not being had here: that the CIA and now anyone else can kill you or frame you for whatever reason they wish, and that this happened because the American people have consistently failed to reject the concept of secret spying, and failed to support the concept of transparent state security measures.

It isn't hyperbole; it isn't tinfoil hat conspiracy theory. It is a plain fact supported by a giant mountain of evidence, that all these backdoors that *complete assholes* have argued for are a ticking time bomb, and all the privileges to state sponsored secrecy that *complete assholes* have argued for really are just cover for fascism.

But no. People are arguing over whether it's more foreign or domestic influence that put a douchey turd in the Whitehouse.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why do people always think things are worse now, with certain issues. The FBI probably consisted of 1/5 to 1/4 of Blank Panther membership. McCarthy destroyed careers. The CIA was operating within the US.

The technology the CIA has developed, in general, is the result of trying to deal with foreign threats. Yes, this means hacking smart phones, cars, etc... Are you suggesting the CIA continue to deal with foreign threats against the US using a 1940s mindset for technology? That the CIA has these tools isn't a shocker. If they can gain intelligence by hacking a Smart TV, instead of sending dozens of American soldiers on a risky mission, don't we want them to go the go the Smart TV hacking way?

The crucial key is oversight and the CIA not overstepping their bounds. The public certainly can't have a part in that. So we are left with the Government to oversee it.

 

[barbos]

Apparently not enough for not invading.

The CIA presented the evidence to the W Admin, and the W Admin was not happy with the presentation as it certainly did not hold much water. The presentation was tightened up a bit and then given by Powell at the UN. A good deal of the "evidence" consisted of a lack of documentation, which was actually technically true if held out of context of the fact the WMDs would have been useless by 2003 and just because there was a lack of documentation didn't automatically mean the weapons still existed. The CIA gave the W Admin a bit too much rope, but the source of the problem with Iraq was not the CIA. CIA enabled the W Admin, and it was the W Admin that wanted to invade Iraq.

The comparison of Iraq with Russian influence in the US election is folly. Iraq had no consensus that a war was needed or that there was a danger. In fact, there were a lot disputing this, from diplomats to intelligence. Russian influence is pretty much sold across the board as being fact among private and Federal cyber-security investigators (and even Putin's useful idiot admitted that the Russians were behind the hacks). Unlike Iraq where the presence of WMDs was anything but certain, we know that the DNC was hacked.

But yeah, I already know your rebuttal... Iraq. *rolls-eyes*

We don't know if DNC was hacked by russians, in fact we can't even be sure they were hacked.
CIA has a long history of lying to the public you can't ignore.

 

[ZiprHead]

We don't know if DNC was hacked by russians, in fact we can't even be sure they were hacked.
CIA has a long history of lying to the public you can't ignore.

So does Russia, and yet you do.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Wikileaks has released Vault 7, and it seems to throw doubt on allegations that the russians hacked the DNC.

Vault 7: The Russian Hacking story is over

All the information to the contrary released by the government to date or in the future will never be acceptable as evidence or definitive of the truth. Why? Anything that looks like Russia might well be the CIA.

If Russia had any role in hacking the DNC or John Podesta, we will never know. The CIA intentionally uses Russian malware and disguises their tracks to look like Russians. So, the government has no credibility to debunk Wikileaks’ assertion that a DNC insider leaked Podesta’s email.
Here is the link to the article on how to hide your tracks and look like the Russians. In these instructions for hiding your origins, we read “DO NOT leave dates/times such as compile timestamps, linker timestamps, build times, access times, etc. that correlate to general US core working hours (i.e. 8am-6pm Eastern time).” More of those in that same link.

I really do not see how this ths new information supports this conclusion in any way. We have a dozen intelligence agencies that agree that Russia was the culprit, including foreign intelligence services. We face the same issues here we face with 9/11 truthers. So many people would have to be in on it, that it couldn't be kept secret.

Honestly, the only surprising thing about this release is the release itself, and the ensuing embarrassment factor. Trouble will come from these tools being in the wild, however.

 

[barbos]

Why do people always think things are worse now, with certain issues. The FBI probably consisted of 1/5 to 1/4 of Blank Panther membership. McCarthy destroyed careers. The CIA was operating within the US.

The technology the CIA has developed, in general, is the result of trying to deal with foreign threats. Yes, this means hacking smart phones, cars, etc... Are you suggesting the CIA continue to deal with foreign threats against the US using a 1940s mindset for technology? That the CIA has these tools isn't a shocker. If they can gain intelligence by hacking a Smart TV, instead of sending dozens of American soldiers on a risky mission, don't we want them to go the go the Smart TV hacking way?

CIA was actively trying to degrade security of all these smart-things. Now software they used leaked. Soon any hacker can hack your car and kill you. Funny thing is, people were warning about that happening.

The crucial key is oversight and the CIA not overstepping their bounds. The public certainly can't have a part in that. So we are left with the Government to oversee it.

Congress tried to exercise oversight and CIA hacked them

- - - Updated - - -

We don't know if DNC was hacked by russians, in fact we can't even be sure they were hacked.
CIA has a long history of lying to the public you can't ignore.

So does Russia, and yet you do.

Yes, but they have much smaller budget. And public don't even get to ask them anyway, so no much need to lie.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

CIA was actively trying to degrade security of all these smart-things. Now software they used leaked. Soon any hacker can hack your car and kill you. Funny thing is, people were warning about that happening.

That would be on Wikileaks, not the CIA, for leaking it. In fact, I have no idea what Wikileaks was thinking... I mean other than being at the call of Moscow.

The crucial key is oversight and the CIA not overstepping their bounds. The public certainly can't have a part in that. So we are left with the Government to oversee it.

Congress tried to exercise oversight and CIA hacked them

Yeah, which was disturbing, and was also outed.

 

[barbos]

That would be on Wikileaks, not the CIA, for leaking it. In fact, I have no idea what Wikileaks was thinking... I mean other than being at the call of Moscow.

I guess you support CIA desire to have full control of your car.

The crucial key is oversight and the CIA not overstepping their bounds. The public certainly can't have a part in that. So we are left with the Government to oversee it.

Congress tried to exercise oversight and CIA hacked them

Yeah, which was disturbing, and was also outed.

By congress, not by CIA itself I understand.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I guess you support CIA desire to have full control of your car.

I think the police being armed with guns isn't a bad idea. Your analogy would mean I don't mind being shot.

Congress tried to exercise oversight and CIA hacked them

Yeah, which was disturbing, and was also outed.

By congress, not by CIA itself I understand.

Yeah, the Congress would the organization overseeing the CIA.

 

[Mumbles]

I guess you support CIA desire to have full control of your car.

The CIA doesn't give two fucks about my car, and unless you're hiding something big, they don't care about yours either.

By congress, not by CIA itself I understand.

...And? Seems to me that this is how things should work.

If you're worried about the tools falling into the hands of people that will attack regular people, well, folks would need to stop falling for phishing scams first. And sure, there's reason to heavily question at least some of what the CIA does, such as using armed drones. But this dump is basically a bunch of handwaving nonsense that addresses little to nothing of major concern to people in the US.

(And if you're in a non-US government...really, you shouldn't be surprised by any of this, either.)

 

[Jarhyn]

The CIA doesn't give two fucks about my car, and unless you're hiding something big, they don't care about yours either.

By congress, not by CIA itself I understand.

...And? Seems to me that this is how things should work.

If you're worried about the tools falling into the hands of people that will attack regular people, well, folks would need to stop falling for phishing scams first. And sure, there's reason to heavily question at least some of what the CIA does, such as using armed drones. But this dump is basically a bunch of handwaving nonsense that addresses little to nothing of major concern to people in the US.

(And if you're in a non-US government...really, you shouldn't be surprised by any of this, either.)

The CIA doesn't care about your car today. But what about when they catch wind that you run a forum for people who in general dislike the government and on which there are people who argue consistently that even if they did care about your car, they shouldn't have the power to act on that?

As it is, we don't have to worry about these tools falling into the hands of people that will abuse them, because that already happened, and it happened long before this leak was made public.

Sure. Keep claiming that because you have nothing to hide, you don't need your privacy. I expected more of you.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So anyway, Wikileaks released a lot of stuff that could get people killed. Are they liable for this? This isn't some sort of bullet point list with critical information redacted to prevent other people/organizations from getting to use the tech as well. They put it all out there. For anyone to use until the holes can be plugged up. It isn't as if Wikileaks sent it to Apple and Samsung, etc... as a paper to let them know this was being used to exploit their tech. We aren't talking embarrassing emails, we are talking about being able to exploit a whole lot of electronic devices.

This action can create a lot of harm, and Wikileaks is guilty of putting it all out there. What can be done? What should be done? While Wikileaks had dropped in my favor several years ago, and I was suspicious whether they could remain a moral advocate for getting out the truth, they are now heading into dangerous territory of becoming advocates for chaos. They were very reckless here, and for what gain? No one gains by them doing it this way.

The CIA doesn't give two fucks about my car, and unless you're hiding something big, they don't care about yours either.



...And? Seems to me that this is how things should work.

If you're worried about the tools falling into the hands of people that will attack regular people, well, folks would need to stop falling for phishing scams first. And sure, there's reason to heavily question at least some of what the CIA does, such as using armed drones. But this dump is basically a bunch of handwaving nonsense that addresses little to nothing of major concern to people in the US.

(And if you're in a non-US government...really, you shouldn't be surprised by any of this, either.)

The CIA doesn't care about your car today. But what about when they catch wind that you run a forum for people who in general dislike the government and on which there are people who argue consistently that even if they did care about your car, they shouldn't have the power to act on that?

I'm curious, what methods of espionage should the CIA be limited to?

 

[Mumbles]

The CIA doesn't give two fucks about my car, and unless you're hiding something big, they don't care about yours either.



...And? Seems to me that this is how things should work.

If you're worried about the tools falling into the hands of people that will attack regular people, well, folks would need to stop falling for phishing scams first. And sure, there's reason to heavily question at least some of what the CIA does, such as using armed drones. But this dump is basically a bunch of handwaving nonsense that addresses little to nothing of major concern to people in the US.

(And if you're in a non-US government...really, you shouldn't be surprised by any of this, either.)

The CIA doesn't care about your car today. But what about when they catch wind that you run a forum for people who in general dislike the government and on which there are people who argue consistently that even if they did care about your car, they shouldn't have the power to act on that?

As it is, we don't have to worry about these tools falling into the hands of people that will abuse them, because that already happened, and it happened long before this leak was made public.

Sure. Keep claiming that because you have nothing to hide, you don't need your privacy. I expected more of you.

Considering that I'mAfro-Latino on one side of my family, and the descendent of black slaves on the other, I'm vastly more concerned about the local police (and especially the Baltimore PD) than I am about the FBI, and vastly more concerned about the FBI than I am about the CIA. Even if you want to fear-monger to me about Trump, well, look at what he's actually doing - harassing black and brown people. This message board? Again, they don't care.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Considering that I'mAfro-Latino on one side of my family, and the descendent of black slaves on the other, I'm vastly more concerned about the local police (and especially the Baltimore PD) than I am about the FBI, and vastly more concerned about the FBI than I am about the CIA. Even if you want to fear-monger to me about Trump, well, look at what he's actually doing - harassing black and brown people. This message board? Again, they don't care.

Well, it's rational for them to not care and it's reasonable to assume that they won't start caring any time in the future. However, rational and reasonable aren't two words which come to mind when thinking of the Trump administration.

 

[Malintent]

I have not looked through all of the documents, but I am familiar with some of them. I am also a cyber security expert (with forensic investigation certification, and information security certifications) So far, I have not seen anything that hasn't been "public knowledge"* for a long time. These were not secrets.. not by a longshot.

* the public is not very knowledgeable of cyber security... that is why 1 out of 12 people click ridiculously suspicious links, because of ignorance. (according to the Verizon data breach report in 2016).

I can understand why people think these are some kind of "secret CIA toolkit" that no one is supposed to know about... because basically, not many pople choose to educate themselves about it.

"The Internet of Things" has been a topic of concern in my industry for years... Google "Internet of things security". smart TVs have had known, and publically released information about vulnerabilities for YEARS.

People don't care. They just want to plug in their new toy and it just work with minimal effort... no setting of passwords, no configuring of firewalls...
People are willfully ignorant of all the technological vulnerabilities that exist. In all fairness, the issues are complex. But the solution is simple... install the vendor supplied patch and set a password that is at least slightly better than completely stupid to use.

Cyber Security experts often will find a vulnerability in some software (or firmware, if an embedded device), contact the vendor about it, and then nothing happens. More recently, the industry has taken a more draconian approach to getting vendors to clean up the mess they make... security experts will disclose a vulnerability they found to the vendor, then give them 30 days to fix it (even if temporarily before a final fix can be made), and if they fail to acknowledge the flaw or fix it in 30 days, the information about the vulnerability is dumped on the internet for all to see.

Many cyber security experts would say that public disclosure of vendor weaknesses in technology is the RIGHT think to do. It is what compels companies that have sloppy development practices to clean up their act, in the name of personal, and even national, security.

Microsoft was a great example. Companies burn MILLIONS of dollars every year just trying to keep up with MS's constant security patches. "Patch Tuesday" is a thing. The first Tuesday of every month represents a release of a slew of all new security flaws and fixes for Microsoft products. It took DECADES before anything was done to fix Microsoft's practice of pushing out insecure and poorly developed software, just to make customers fix it every month.

Publish it, shame the vendor, and demand fixes.

 

[barbos]

The CIA doesn't give two fucks about my car, and unless you're hiding something big, they don't care about yours either.

Hold this thought until some random punks start murdering people with their own cars.
And let me get it straight, you are OK with CIA killing journalists which look into their business?

By congress, not by CIA itself I understand.

...And? Seems to me that this is how things should work.

If you're worried about the tools falling into the hands of people that will attack regular people, well, folks would need to stop falling for phishing scams first. And sure, there's reason to heavily question at least some of what the CIA does, such as using armed drones. But this dump is basically a bunch of handwaving nonsense that addresses little to nothing of major concern to people in the US.

(And if you're in a non-US government...really, you shouldn't be surprised by any of this, either.)

Phishing is not the only way to hack things.