Cyber Firm at Center of Russian Hacking Charges Misread Data
Still, some cybersecurity experts are skeptical that the election and purported Ukraine hacks are connected. Among them is Jeffrey Carr, a cyberwarfare consultant who has lectured at the U.S. Army War College, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and other government agencies.
In a January post on LinkedIn, Carr called CrowdStrike’s evidence in the Ukraine “flimsy.” He told VOA in an interview that CrowdStrike mistakenly assumed that the X-Agent malware employed in the hacks was a reliable fingerprint for Russian actors.
“We now know that’s false,” he said, “and that the source code has been obtained by others outside of Russia.”
The key point: attribution of hacks is difficult. Circumstantial evidence often is misleading as is arguing from motive or capability.
Cyberwarfare and information warfare are where all of this analysis becomes a hall of mirrors that can prompt self-defeating shows of strength. Or self-defeating comfort and complacency.
The Putin-scare analysis of media drags world public opinion into this hall of mirrors and distracts from doing the local and state politics that reclaims power for the grassroots.
It is not Russia and Putin but Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Iowa, Kansas, …and the Republicans legislatures and political operatives of those state that the battle in opposition to Trump should be against. The effort should be to move Trump out of the position of having the powers of a war President. It will be a slow grinding act of political organization at the local and state levels in which the political establishment will not want to do what is required for popular policy victories.
But politics will not be the main arena of opposition to Trump and his policies. Local and state programs to do what needs to be done in spite of the Federal capture by the billionaire oligarchs will be how it plays out. Involvement of local people in citizen science projects counting and photographing the baseline and changing environment is one, but not the only form of grassroots organizing. Providing locally generated support for continuing Meals-On-Wheels programs and local support for mitigating action for all of the cuts that the oligarchs intend.
It might just take people sacrificing an income-producing job, which in turn, will put pressure on wages and salaries if done on a wide scale.
That means that a lot of people will likely have to make the choice of cutting their expenditures dramatically now rather than waiting for the Trump effects to do it for them.
What will be required is diminishing of politics as sport, partisanship as culture, and focus on the minutia of what is actually happening in the organs of government and on the ground instead on in the information war of all against all.
It is not clear the role of political blogs in this strategy of opposition; maybe more solid facts, less analysis, much less opinion. (And here I am ignoring this in this post.)
I think the current fixation on Trump (and Putin) has become a huge distraction to what needs to be done in opposition to the closing down of oligarchic fascist rule. And all of that is in the very local that the internet often provides too much of an escape from.
So organize to win back or increase sympathetic majorities in your state legislature in 2018. And your local governments in any upcoming election. And ensure that the candidates understand and can explain to voters exactly how they are an alternative to the oligarchy.
I think you will know resistance is real when the Delaware and Nevada legislatures take up a bill repealing their corporation laws altogether, and that measure has a good chance of passage. Because corporation law is the source of Republican power and the Republican base.
And then we can stop discussing the kerning of the 2016 election.
My word, it has gotten so out of hand that Foreign Affairs magazine is spurred to front some push-back.
Russia, Trump, and a New Détente
By Robert David English
Commentary from the left on the article…A Breach in the Anti-Putin Groupthink By Gilbert Doctorow
This has lots of links to actual happenings.
Doubt those captured by the anti-Putin groupthink will be capable of reassessing based on facts, evidence, and cool logic and rationality anytime soon. It’s goes to the core of what George Lakoff talks about (in his clumsy fashion IMO). Once one believes (in anything) everything subsequently presented can only reinforce the belief. Everything filters through the lens of the belief.
How many of the Democratic Putin-Russia allegations lead first to Ukraine and not to Russia? That then gets spun as Putin-Russia. Easy enough because the following factual narrative isn’t the one sold and bought by Democrats:
Swing a dead cat around a Democratic politician and you’ll hit a Ukrainian:
Sucking on the Pentagon teet is a nice touch in this instance.
Weeks ago I wrote about CrowdStrike and Ukraine’s …
○ The Trail of VP Alperovitch @CrowdStrike by Oui @BooMan on Jan. 7th, 2017
○ The GRU-Ukraine Artillery Hack That May Never Have Happened
○ Russian Cyber Attacks in the United States Will ‘Intensify’ | The Atlantic Council |
○ The Atlantic Council: Dmitri Alperovitch of McAfee in 2011: Shady RAT: Shoddy RAT
○ The Russian expat leading the fight to protect America
See my earlier diary …
○ EU/NATO Propaganda It’s About Daesh and Russia
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/03/fool-me-once-crowdstrike-claimed-two-cases-of-russian-hacking-o
ne-has-been-proven-wrong.html
But b is not exactly the Voice of America.
It’s true, when I want to hear what Russia thinks they are doing, I go look at Moon of Alabama. News from the Russian front in Syria is an interesting counterbalance to US non-news of the Middle East. We can’t talk about the three-year-long de facto US-Russia operating agreement lest McCain and Graham get their nose out of joint.
Take him with the same grains of salt as the reporters all over the Russia story.
Whether you agree or disagree with b as to whether it was a hack or insider download of the DNC emails, he’s citing solid evidence that discredits CrowdStrike’s claim of a Russia or any hack of a Ukraine military app.
I personally would prefer that those not persuaded by Crowdstrike’s DNC server claim (lots of reasons beyond what b cited in this piece) not include the unresolved murder of Seth Rich. The absence of an actual and uncoerced individual standing up and saying, “I did it,” gives nobody the right to engage in speculation about a person unable to speak for him/herself. Guccifer 2.0 (either one or more than one individual) does exist and continued to exist after the Rich’s death. That’s the only clue we have and it only concerns the DNC emails and not the Podesta files.
I was of the opinion that Voice of America was using the same fact base as b.
Has Trump already subverted VOA?
Trump has yet even to fill his cabinet. So, he’s at least a couple of weeks away from remaking small agencies to serve his needs.
VOA was in the inconvenient position of being between no formal report by Kiev of excessive artillary losses and
and
Gee — wonder who could have profited from a fake report of heavy Ukrainian artillery losses that was alleged to have been perpetrated by Russia?
February 2017 — CrowdStrike attempts to sue NSS Labs to prevent test release, court denies request
Network World – NSS Labs rated 13 advanced endpoint security products, flagged 2 with caution rating
(Ten security products were rated as above average.)
Yes, but it is suspicious. And follows the pattern of people embarrassing to the Clinton’s dying conveniently. I used to think that was Republican nonsense. Now, I’m not so sure.
It’s still nonsense or impossible to assess with what is known that note it and set it aside unless or until further information or developments become public.
To me the timeline is too short for Democratic Party sleuths to have identified Rich as the leaker and have arranged a clean hit. Plus, domestically not even the CIA and FBI bump off a suspected mole. The FBI/CIA targeted and dogged several innocent people in the hunt for Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen.
If, and it’s a very big if, Rich had passed along the DNC emails, who could possibly have known that he did so? Only an intermediary contact. While anything is possible, we’re talking about leakers or cyberwarriors and not the mafia.
“we’re talking about leakers or cyberwarriors and not the mafia.” maybe. just maybe. In any case, I didn’t say I beleived it. But I do beleive, now, that it is possible. And not possible in the sense that it is possible that a giant meteor will crush my house and kill me in the next ten minutes.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/02/illinois-s-governor-race
Apropos your comments on state & local races.
Got to admit the name evokes images of his father & uncle. But, worked for Archer Daniels Midland. Billionaire businessman?
He probably is running for governor to protect his business interests. Still, we might be fellow travelers, unless he intends to enact Rauner’s agenda as a Dem.
It’s not yet 2018. Get a majority of Illinois voters behind a good candidate and it doesn’t need to be either of these. Just vet that alternative better than the Russians did Trump. ๐
While I was earlier subjected to being called a Putin-stooge and a Putin-employee by Booman and which was obviously as bonkers as when such a baseless allegation was first hurled at me for opposing the Vietnam War, I was nevertheless surprised that the stinkin-thinkin would gestate enough to put you in the crosshairs and lead to this inanity:
A curious divide here, that I noted earlier, has continued to escalate in one side. They seem to think that the oldsters here who have been smelling rats in real time (never wrong in my case) and observed when and how some of rats get exposed have somehow lost their sense of smell.
Apparently only very recently because it sure wasn’t difficult to perceive that the DNC was engaging in some efforts to fix the primary for HRC. iirc the current “Russia-Putin stole the election for Trump” faction denied the existence of the DNC fix (some also accused those that could smell of being Hillary-hating crazies). I reference this for several reasons that I won’t bother to detail, but one reason is that there was a rational through-line as there has always been regardless if the rat was smelled in real time, much later, or only retrospectively. IOW, act/action -=-> changes outcome with a certain high degree of confidence.
1968 — breakthrough in Paris Peace talks –> HHH wins. No breakthrough –> Nixon wins.
1980 — hostages released —> Carter wins. hostages not released –> Nixon wins.
2000 — all Florida ballots accurately counted —> Gore wins. not accurately counted –> GWB wins (SCOTUS intervening to stop the counting of the ballots was a direct assault on US democracy. Where was the outrage among Democratic elites over that? Hell, they could barely be bothered to chip in a few bucks for Gore’s legal team.)
Outrageous smears or exposure of unsavory actions by candidates is tolerated because it can’t be proven that the outcome hinged on that. (Did the “swiftboaters” defeat Kerry? Or the 47% getting free stuff defeat Romney?) Only that it didn’t help or hurt the loser. And sometimes smear/etc. tactics backfire on the candidate it’s supposed to benefit. (Did the “birthers” and Romney’s hysteria over Benghazi hand Obama a win?)
Have to put Finks: How the C.I.A. Tricked the World’s Best Writers on my to read list. Have long known much of this but expect it to be eyeopening to see it all in one place. Seriously doubt any institutional cultural change since then; better and more sophisticated tactics but the covert USG propagandists are still with us.
I’m more interested in the writers and publications identified in “Finks” other than the The Paris Review set which has been an open secret since before I knew it somewhere around 1970. That group was/is arrogant enough that they believed they could take the money and their “beautiful minds” wouldn’t be contaminated. The Paris Review circulation was tiny and those that actually read it was tinier still.
It’s really impossible to make any sort of independent evaluation of any of this. It really comes down to who your trust and believe.
In the last Quinnipiac poll a majority thinks Trump believes Obama wiretapped him (48-42).
So you get:
18. How much of the time do you think you can trust the U.S. intelligence agencies to do what is right; almost all of the time, most of the time, only some of the time, or hardly ever?
By 50-45 people say at least most of the time.
It all gives me a headache. How to you exactly prove anything in this stuff if proof is so elusive?
Maybe we should be talking about a plan to make sure everyone has ID’s in states that require them for 2018 – something that might actually matter.
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2442
That would cost a lot of money and that’s not what Democratic big bucks are interested in funding.
Do people know how silly this sentence is?
People or the Alliance members?
This isn’t a new operation — they’ve been doling out money for more than a decade. Little success after 2008. From the Wikipedia entry
That didn’t work out well; so:
Nothing shown for the 2010 and 2012 elections. At the risk of a biased over-read of this funding operation, who were the 2014 federal office candidates and what campaign model did those candidate follow? On the latter we know that it was too the right of Obama. IOW the Clinton strategy which is exactly the model Clinton used in the early stage of her 2016 presidential campaign before pivoting to hug Obama. Given that one of the founders and largest direct donors to Clinton in ’08 and ’16 is Soros and a Clinton aide, Kelly Craighead, was president until 2013, not a stretch to consider that it was always more of an elect Clinton shop than electing progressives. A decade’s effort and all they have to show for it is a weaker than ever Democratic party. This Alliance has been real good for the GOP — maybe they should kick in a few bucks to keep it going.
It’s what happens when political parties get engaged in existential war and shed all former informal norms.
(but cognitively the anti-Putin groupthinks shares much with this) —
Gov McAuliffe Pardons ‘Norfolk 4’ Sailors. A full and unconditional pardon. Good for McAuliffe. But how the hell did this happen in the first place with nothing other than two coerced confessions that were contradicted by the forensic evidence AND the rapist and murderer that did match all the evidence had been captured. Over a dozen years in jail/prison for three of them, nearly a decade for one, and nearly twenty years lived as a serious felon when they were innocent. Norfolk Four. There really needs to be serious consequences for police and prosecutors that engage in falsified cases. And while less common, railroading of white men, as in this case, does happen.
Phishing scam — they should have called in CrowdStrike, the “expert computer sleuths” that would have nailed Putin-Russia.
CrowdStrike could have gotten to the bottom of it within forty-five days and what kind of name is Rimasaukas anywhere? Has to be Russian.
Maybe John failed to follow the instructions and wire the money. The scammer got pissed and sent his email file to Wikileaks.
On a more serious note:
Clever but it doesn’t say anything good about the accounting controls at the tech firms (that haven’t been identified to protect their stock price, aka reputation). But all’s well:
Yeah, fraudulent letters, invoices, etc., and a $100 million in wire transfer payments leave a lot of footprints. So, they got the Lithuanian fraudster. Maybe he can say, “The mind-meld genius Putin made me do it.”
○ ‘Laundromat’ – The London connection
British lawmakers on Tuesday tabled an urgent parliamentary question after newspaper reports
said that UK banks including HSBC, the Royal Bank of Scotland, Coutts and Standard Chartered
were named as being among those that did not turn away suspicious money transfers.
○ Trasta Komercbanka, the Latvian bank at the center of the “Laundromat” scheme
Latvia, the EU/NATO partner state with a 12% ethnic minority of Russian speaking “non-citizens”
○ Latvian-Russian Relations: Domestic and International Dimensions [pdf]
Explains a lot why London is pro opposition and anti-Putin. ๐
UK under Tony Blair didn’t pursue the £5bn bribe paid to Prince Bandar for the military contract of the century to KSA. It saved the UK industry for military aircraft, etc.
Latvia was forcibly annexed by the Soviet Union. Many Latvians were deported to die in Soviet labor camps. Ethnic Russians were then brought in as colonists.
It’s ironic that Lenin, if I recall correctly, called imperial Russia “the prisonhouse of nations”, but the Soviet Union acted just the same way: Russification of conquered minority peoples.
I would be very interested to know more about the claim in the DW article that ethnic Russians joined ethnic Latvians to fight for independence. Was this common?
Rimasauskas is a Lithuanian name.
Is it an ethnic Russian Lithuanian name? I don’t know, but Lithuania is now in or close to in NATO.
The ending is characteristically LITHUANIAN, not Russian.
Thanks for this clarification. Now spin out the significance of this fact in this situation.
This is an embarrassment to the site.
○ Bots Generated Election News Coverage
Coincidental that the rise of Russiaphobia is concurrent with paranoia about covert, subliminal, mind-meld Russian messaging? The bots done did it this time.
I thought the whole point of using bots is that they’re so cheap because so few people are required. Why would team Trump outsource it to Russia?
Because the Russians are good at it? Because it would make traceability harder?
Barry Ritholz had a good article this morning:
There seems to be a whole lot of this at play, particularly from the left on this stuff.
Russiaphobia would be pretty rational given the scope of interference in our election, and the probability tools will exist in the future to make it more effective.
I find the whole idea that you can play with what people see in news feeds frightening.
Bots still contend in the marketplace of images and ideas. Only misrepresenting the number of internet identities with the same thought or similar thoughts.
And you think that Breitbart-oriented US hackers who might frequent certain areas of 4CHAN and other boards are not capable of carrying out the sort of bot attacks on social media described and moreover doing it as volunteers just for the LULZ of bringing down Hillary Clinton?
So in 2008 we know David Brock was feeding themes for Dailykos diaries.
I can’t prove it but I see the same themes in virtually the same words in Clinton diaries in DKOS in 2016 against Sanders.
Where does a Socialist World Review article from 1999 come from? I don’t seriously doubt someone in the Clinton campaign pushed opposition research into DKOS against Sanders.
There is a certain naivete that has existed about social media and blogs.
The problem Tarheel is you will never be able to prove x to y to z in real time.
Which is what completely undoes the use of character as a contrasting talking point in elections. How do you sort out the character assassination in real time so that people understand what the reality is? Which criticisms of Hillary Clinton are valid and which are not? The GOP has been playing this blurry line for a quarter of a century now, and playing it to their advantage. Adopting their tactics has just corrupted both parties with the disease; voters remain confused.
I have often maintained that an information war creates a hall of mirrors that distorts democratic processes. We have lived in that hall of mirrors for over 70 years and it too much seems normal now.
The naivete about social media and blogs arose when they were not of significant commercial and political importance. Once they became effective — blogs in the 2006 election and social media in the Arab Spring-Occupy Wall Street actions — the PTB sought to turn them to their exclusive benefit and shut out the peanut gallery.
Say more about the Socialist World Review 1999 article. I’m not aware of that one.
I think David Brock learned a style of politics that worked for Republicans but is poison for Democrats despite many historical instances of Democrats also successfully winning with this style. Temporary victory and permanent damage to the Republic.
The information system we are currently using for political information is totally bonkers in all media, because so much is repetition of original reports and news coverage from sources with hidden agendas instead of open interests.
In that situation as I say above, the best tactic is to massively ignore the global hall of mirrors and work locally to offset the coming difficulties.
My scepticism about the wisdom of pursuing the Russia connection is my being a survivor of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and a few other less notorious brushes with nuclear catastrophe that were the result of chest-beating and near lock-step mobilization for war. In all of the incidents, one or a couple of people violated the rules or went against their advisers to walk back from disaster. We cannot continue to depend on solitary holdouts from a self-destructive frenzy. Playing hardball has low entry costs but high cost of failure.
I truly don’t get the either/or thinking. It is indisputable that Hillary Clinton ran a lousy campaign. That does not eliminate the possibility of Rusdian electoral meddling.
Tarheel’s remarks about the path to opposing Trump is very sensible whether or not the Russian hacking actually occurred.
Sorry, stupid typos using a smartphone….
Gertrude: The lady doth protest too much.