• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

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

Elixir said:
barbos said:
Russians had no reasons to tamper with documents, they would simply damped them "as is".
Click to expand...

Two possibilities here -

1) Barbos *somehow* knows what the un-fucked-with version looked like, or
2) the un-fucked-with version wasn't as effectively damning as the Russians wished so they "improved" it.

Either way, what we have here is a Russian troll Trumpapologist.
Click to expand...

Nah, probably not.

Well, I can say this much - the spy game is not a game. We US folks do it, other countries do it. It's serious.
 
Jayjay said:
barbos said:
That's not an anonymous opinion, that's anonymous argument. And you clearly don't have an answer, not even anonymous answer.
Click to expand...
Not every troll has to be addressed. But true, I do not have a counter-argument because I did not bother reading the article due to its dubious source. If there is a specific point that tupac or you want to address, it would be better to summarize it here shortly.

On a superficial level based on the small snippet that was quoted, to me it doesn't seem odd at all that Guccifer would have opened the document only 30 minutes after it was created. If he had penetrated the DNC system and was rummaging around for a while, he could have easily noticed a new interesting-looking document and taken a look as soon as he saw it. To me this seems to support the idea that it was a hacker who had an active access to the network, rather than a leaker.
Click to expand...

According to the authors He did more than opening and saving it. He made some other pointless actions which resulted in more "clues" pointing to russian. To me this seems incredibly deliberate and not a mistake. And mistake would be incredibly hard to believe anyway.
 
Elixir said:
barbos said:
Russians had no reasons to tamper with documents, they would simply damped them "as is".
Click to expand...

Two possibilities here -

1) Barbos *somehow* knows what the un-fucked-with version looked like, or
2) the un-fucked-with version wasn't as effectively damning as the Russians wished so they "improved" it.

Either way, what we have here is a Russian troll Trumpapologist.
Click to expand...
DNC admitted that no changes in text were made. And these leaks were incredibly undamning based on their content, so if he tried to make it worse he clearly failed.
 
Malintent said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is a great post that clearly had a clearer understanding of what was released.
 
Do you guys have any reliable sources? I would seriously be interested in reading a reliable source.
 
Over here we have the Wiki section of Russian atackatalk insinuation section. The 13 doors down the hall on the left are mostly for Dante's speculations and the seven flights above are library recovery sections from Down under. The Code is nowhere to be found and agent double "0" histories are to be found in pickle jars in the Home section between father and mother.

and in other Brietbart news ........
 
Mumbles said:
Elixir said:
Two possibilities here -

1) Barbos *somehow* knows what the un-fucked-with version looked like, or
2) the un-fucked-with version wasn't as effectively damning as the Russians wished so they "improved" it.

Either way, what we have here is a Russian troll Trumpapologist.
Click to expand...

Nah, probably not.

Well, I can say this much - the spy game is not a game. We US folks do it, other countries do it. It's serious.
Click to expand...
Oh it's a game alright. A game with other people's lives, homes, and governments.

It's a very serious game, but a game nonetheless.
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
tupac chopra said:
Yes. Just let me know what you'd like.
Click to expand...

Reliable sources. Medium.com is a blog and i've never heard of bullshit.ist. What are your reliable sources?
Click to expand...

You could start here. Which has links to the documents, and some information to help you. These are the original sources. As the author notes you can then evaluate the evidence for yourself

Guccifer 2.0: Game Over - Evidence of Intent

This article will provide you with independent reference materials and links to articles from Guccifer2.0's blog and will help you to see WHAT Guccifer2.0 was. (An important first step in being able to understand who Guccifer2.0 really was)

This is the "guided" version of this article - it is intended for those who have difficulties with the "minimally-guided" version and evaluating the data and implications for themselves.

The "minimally-guided" version of the article is here. - I would like people to use the minimally guided verson by preference as this allows you to see and evaluate the evidence by yourself without being provided with a conclusion. - This version provides you with the answers but you CAN discover these by yourself with an investment of time and cognition.

Metadata corroborates with what we've found too - but for the sake of this article, we are focusing on a single correlation of an RSID referenced across several documents, and the metadata is not needed to support the finding. - The anomalous RSID correlation - is ALL that is needed to demonstrate INTENT.
Click to expand...

Guccifer 2.0: Game Over - Intent Concluded


Everything we have shown you on RTF/RSID & metadata can be CHECKED and VERIFIED by ANYONE independently and immediately!
Click to expand...
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
tupac chopra said:
Yes. Just let me know what you'd like.
Click to expand...

Reliable sources. Medium.com is a blog and i've never heard of bullshit.ist. What are your reliable sources?
Click to expand...

Do you consider threatconnect reliable? https://www.threatconnect.com/

ThreatConnect challenges Guccifer 2.0’s claimed attribution for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) breach

Since the emergence of Guccifer 2.0, researchers and journalists have been combing through his dumped files and details of the Guccifer 2.0 persona to determine whether he’s the independent hacker he claims to be or part of a hasty Russian denial and deception effort to distract focus from the FANCY BEAR and COZY BEAR breaches of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) as detailed by CrowdStrike.

We’re going to lay out the arguments for and against these two competing hypotheses. Building off of the work others have done, ThreatConnect is adding our own observations gleaned from analyzing metadata on Guccifer 2.0’s released files as well as a developing pattern of curious France-based parallels
Click to expand...
 
tupac chopra said:
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
Reliable sources. Medium.com is a blog and i've never heard of bullshit.ist. What are your reliable sources?
Click to expand...

Do you consider threatconnect reliable? https://www.threatconnect.com/

ThreatConnect challenges Guccifer 2.0’s claimed attribution for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) breach

Since the emergence of Guccifer 2.0, researchers and journalists have been combing through his dumped files and details of the Guccifer 2.0 persona to determine whether he’s the independent hacker he claims to be or part of a hasty Russian denial and deception effort to distract focus from the FANCY BEAR and COZY BEAR breaches of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) as detailed by CrowdStrike.

We’re going to lay out the arguments for and against these two competing hypotheses. Building off of the work others have done, ThreatConnect is adding our own observations gleaned from analyzing metadata on Guccifer 2.0’s released files as well as a developing pattern of curious France-based parallels
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I don't think they're extremely unreliable, like a random amateur blog entry would be. If I used my time to read every random amateur blog entry on the topic of Guccifer 2.0 and or #TrumpRussia, then it would be very unproductive. Likewise, I stay away from newsmax.com and even rawstory.com, not that they are the same level of unreliable--newsmax is worse. If I see a headline in rawstory, I'll check if it's elsewhere in more reliable journalism. And for any journalism, I might take a look at primary sources if I have time.

I haven't read anything about threatconnect.com that would make me automatically think they're extremely unreliable. Do you have info on their reputation that is relevant to their reliability?
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
tupac chopra said:
Do you consider threatconnect reliable? https://www.threatconnect.com/

ThreatConnect challenges Guccifer 2.0’s claimed attribution for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) breach

Since the emergence of Guccifer 2.0, researchers and journalists have been combing through his dumped files and details of the Guccifer 2.0 persona to determine whether he’s the independent hacker he claims to be or part of a hasty Russian denial and deception effort to distract focus from the FANCY BEAR and COZY BEAR breaches of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) as detailed by CrowdStrike.


We’re going to lay out the arguments for and against these two competing hypotheses. Building off of the work others have done, ThreatConnect is adding our own observations gleaned from analyzing metadata on Guccifer 2.0’s released files as well as a developing pattern of curious France-based parallels
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I don't think they're extremely unreliable, like a random amateur blog entry would be.
Click to expand...

The random amateur blog links you to the actual sources. You can go and check the original source documents for yourself. Isn't that the best source there is?


Here is more if you are interested.

(9) 3rd Party Research & Further Reading

PSA: Who is telling you the truth about G2?

There is only one honest answer to that question. - CHECK and VERIFY for yourself, whenever possible and regardless of whoever the source may be.

Always be aware that sources may be misrepresented, misinterpreted or cherry-picked.

Guard your perception, insist on high standards of proof, and apply the standard fairly.

There are MANY people trying to spin the subject of Guccifer2 right now and almost all are driven by partisan bias and a quest for affirmation of their biases (even those lacking agenda have often have invested emotionally and promoted the myths and it's hard for them to consider turning back now!)

Those who have truth on their side will be able to show you proof and demonstrate their claims through evidence.
Click to expand...
 
Back to Vault 7.

WikiLeaks threatens to reveal tech companies that haven't responded to help offer against CIA hacks
WikiLeaks said it plans to take action against technology companies that "continue to drag their feet" in communicating over software and products that might be vulnerable to the CIA's hacking program revealed in the "Vault 7" publication on March 7.

In a statement posted to Twitter late Friday, WikiLeaks founder and editor-in-chief Julian Assange said companies such as Mozilla have already exchanged letters after his organization offered its help in working with them by offering the technical details of the CIA's alleged hacking methods.

Other companies, like Google, have yet to "confirm receipt of our initial approach," Assange said. They may be unable to reach out because of conflicts of interest due to classified work with for the U.S. government, he noted.
Click to expand...

Could be a good reason to use Firefox?
 
tupac chopra said:
Back to Vault 7.

WikiLeaks threatens to reveal tech companies that haven't responded to help offer against CIA hacks
WikiLeaks said it plans to take action against technology companies that "continue to drag their feet" in communicating over software and products that might be vulnerable to the CIA's hacking program revealed in the "Vault 7" publication on March 7.

In a statement posted to Twitter late Friday, WikiLeaks founder and editor-in-chief Julian Assange said companies such as Mozilla have already exchanged letters after his organization offered its help in working with them by offering the technical details of the CIA's alleged hacking methods.

Other companies, like Google, have yet to "confirm receipt of our initial approach," Assange said. They may be unable to reach out because of conflicts of interest due to classified work with for the U.S. government, he noted.
Click to expand...

Could be a good reason to use Firefox?
Click to expand...

Firefox isn't what it used to be, even security wise. Although some of their 3rd party add ons can make some pretty layered defenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom