Hmmm. This is actually a pretty retarded comment

Hmmm. This is actually a pretty retarded comment.

Other urls found in this thread:

abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/electors-call-intelligence-briefing-russian-hacking-allegations/story?id=44150943
phys.org/news/2016-11-wikileaks-founder-denies-russia-podesta.html
arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/the-public-evidence-behind-claims-russia-hacked-for-trump/
washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.34b67326cbe1
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>"hackers"

Not really.
The important part is asking why it wasn't brought up before the election.

But anyone can use a computer, how can you tell who was behind the keyboard?

>implying OP knows anything about hacking

It's not actually, if you read between the lines. Trump remember has intel briefings so can't come just out and say it.

What he's trying to say is IOCs (indicators of compromise), the signatures used by intel agencies to identify hackers is shady at best. Just because one hacker uses the same tool and other similarities doesn't mean they are the same people.

The CIA took a bunch of secret IOCs to crowdstrike who did analysis on them and thus "Omg, it was teh Russians!" because those IOCs that broke into various totally insecure Hilldog servers were the same as previous attacks against US infrastructure suspected to be Russians.

So in effect they are comparing signatures to other signatures that both may or may not be Russian. It's super shady, bullshit method of identity which is why you never hear them bring this up formally. If there was actual Russian interference then Obama should be doing something instead of just leaking innuendo in the media and staging some political senate theater.

tl;dr Trump is right, unless you catch a guy and can prove he is the source of a specific IOC it's sort of impossible to determine who is actually doing it. For all we know it's Kenyan hackers using Russian jumpboxes for last 5 years

This is gonna be pretty interesting to see see unfold.

abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/electors-call-intelligence-briefing-russian-hacking-allegations/story?id=44150943

You wouldn't download a vote?

How deep in delusion can trump fans get?

So far he has not shown any evidence at all that he is this smart and competent.

It was brought up before the election, dozens of times before, even by the programmers of the voting machines.

Nobody actually listened, and the mainstream media actively suppressed it.

I'm talking about IOCs being held up as godly identification in the outing of nation state level hackers, I don't care about Trump.

In other news, you can easily fake an IOC signature. You just set up a honeypot and collect some nation state hacking attempts, draw up IOCs out of them then go attack another country using those indicators. "The Russians cyberattacked X country! We have proof! These seekrit IOCs match!"

>what are advisors
>advisors

>be in france
>run all traffic through russian VPN
>le CIA thinks russian did all the hacking
>sheeeiiitttt

not an argument

Idiot.

are you retarded?

...

>So we had to get very, very tough on cyber and cyber warfare. It is a huge problem. I have a son—he’s 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers. It’s unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe, it's hardly doable. But I will say, we are not doing the job we should be doing. But that’s true throughout our whole governmental society. We have so many things that we have to do better, Lester. And certainly cyber is one of them.

It's just hilarious to watch everyone scramble over themselves to find a way to discredit Trump's victory.

>We came in with the Internet. We came up with the Internet. And I think Secretary Clinton and myself would agree very much, when you look at what ISIS is doing with the Internet, they’re beating us at our own game. ISIS.

It made the media look bad so they have to do everything in their power to try and discredit it

>Trump makes retarded comment

Any more news OP? The present day of the week has a 'y' in it?

Well it's trump, can you expect anything but retarded

Who is this Sup Forums?

phys.org/news/2016-11-wikileaks-founder-denies-russia-podesta.html

>everyone scramble over themselves to find a way to discredit Trump's victory.
Welcome to politics in the USA. It happened to Bush. It happened to Obama. Now the president elect with have to suffer through it. It sucks. But that is where we are at as a nation. Hopefully, you live in a country where folks are more civil.

>70 year old double digit IQ spoiled narcissistic amphetamine junkie makes a retarded comment

WELL COLOR ME SURPRISED

You're farting into a headwind here, m8.

>As far as the cyber, I agree to parts of what Secretary Clinton said. We should be better than anybody else, and perhaps we’re not. I don’t think anybody knows that it was Russia that broke into the DNC. She’s saying Russia, Russia, Russia—I don't, maybe it was. I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay?

You are retarded, he is right. You can hack something using open wifi connection in bus or train and throwing away later your computer. Computers are cheap now.

being a commie must suck

Yeah, but there are plenty of times when the IoCs are accurate and useful. You can't dismiss the evidence just because it's plausible that the evidence was faked. You need proof that the evidence was faked to support the claim that the evidence was faked.

NEOCOSTANZA IS WEARING NEW BALANCE HE'S A FUCKING NAZI

Being a fascist must suck.

All an IOC is, is a signature of attack that you can match to other attacks. It doesn't say who the attacker is, if they are state sanctioned and not just mercenaries for profit, or even what country they live in just the last location before you run into a stone wall trying to get VPS logs out of Russian ISPs.

If I use their argument style against them, then clearly Assange is lying because his agenda is to deny Russian involvement. There is no public evidence to back his claims and thus we can conclude that he is lying. He's just trying to continue his destruction of Hillary Clinton.

Bruteforcing mail servers with a method can be useful to buy drugs online. Now who is the retarded?

Falling for the """anti establishment""" meme sucks harder.

Do you know what an IoC is? It's way more than an IP address. Why don't you give me ten types of IoCs that aren't IP addresses and then I'll take your opinion seriously.

so wait is Sup Forums anti-trump?
I thought hackermen would be happy about meme president

>falling for the """"alt-right"""" Meme sucks harder.

arstechnica.com/security/2016/12/the-public-evidence-behind-claims-russia-hacked-for-trump/
>No smoking gun

>The FBI warned the DNC of a potential ongoing breach of their network in November of 2015. But the first hard evidence of an attack detected by a non-government agency was a spear-phishing campaign being tracked by Dell SecureWorks. That campaign began to target the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and others in the middle of March 2016, and it ran through mid-April.

>"[SecureWorks] researchers assess with moderate confidence that the group is operating from the Russian Federation and is gathering intelligence on behalf of the Russian government," the report from SecureWorks concluded.

>the only way that the full scope of Russia's involvement in the hacking campaign and other aspects of the information campaign against Clinton (and for Trump) will be known is if the Obama administration publishes conclusive evidence in a form that can be independently analyzed.

>so wait is Sup Forums anti-trump?
Trump is going to take a shit on net neutrality. What do you think?

His son is cyber though. :^)

>take a shit on net neutrality
that has been happening since the net was first cooked up by the military, no?
the internet is basically the wild west. and it was fun while it lasted

Yes, it's a signature of attack meaning methods/tools used and how the data was moved. IPs have nothing to do it with the IOC signature they are indicators of compromise to match behavior of the person doing the compromising.

The problem is often criminal hackers will sit around an IRC channel or forum and trade methods/tools so will have similar IOCs, yet they are different people. Another problem is you can pay a mercenary group somewhere to do political hacking for you, like China, who's APT2 (advanced persistent threat 2) turned out to be a petty criminal organization when researchers turned used BeEF to clean out their baidu/chinese fb cookies. They were also arrested in kenya trying to do a massive break and enter into Safaricom/M-Pesa.

tl;dr they weren't state sanctioned, they were a crim group belonging to a corrupt gov official who was taking cash to do nation state haxxoring

What are the chances that by "hacking" CIA is more worried about good old' "subversion" ? A concept too difficult to explain to your average Joe without scaring him about the first amendement and net neutrality.

so the russians hacked into the DNC and revealed them to be heavily corrupt and nasty, and now the media response is "Put the DNC in power, hacking is unfair"

I don't even understand

how many times do I have to say it? net neutrality is fuckin gay

CIA doesn't give a shit about subversion. They are the subverters. When an agency whose sole purpose is to infiltrate and topple governments deemed enemies of the state starts using its tricks on your state, you should be worried, and you should be doubly worried because now its target is the US.

The people who work against subversion are DHS, FBI, NSA, and SS. It's why the FBI instantly called bullshit on the CIA's claims.

Wait, what?
It's no longer about the ruskies """influencing""" the elections outcome, but some shmucks "hacking" the voting machines?
The fuck did I miss?

>crim group belonging to a corrupt gov official
>not state sanctioned

Really stretches the definition of state sanctioned, but makes retaliation much easier.

You do know that if an IoC is "C2 server used in this other campaign as well as that other campaign" then it's pretty clear who the perpetrator is, correct? The C2 server could be shared among groups, but high tier groups tend to keep their resources compartmentalized to minimize detection. If the tactics, techniques and procedures match and the toolkit is the same/similar then it's easy to do attribution to a group. That's why high end group have names like Equation or Cozy Bear instead of individual handles. It's really hard to spoof C2 server stuff even if you steal their code, but if you're that good then you might be able to hack back and use their tools as your own.

>What are the chances that by "hacking" CIA is more worried about good old' "subversion" ?
That was brought up this evening on the PBS Newshour.

>A concept too difficult to explain to your average Joe
Wat?

>the russians hacked into the DNC and revealed them to be heavily corrupt and nasty

>now the media response is "Put the DNC in power, hacking is unfair"
Who in the media is saying this? I only watch CBS, PBS, and Meet The Press (NBC). None of them are claiming the out come of the election would have been different without russia. I haven't heard anyone day "put the DNC in power".

CIA mainly handles human intelligence though, it's not unreasonable to speculate that their source for the hacking accusations could be from their assets within Russia. It would be more the FBI or NSA's job to look for evidence of the "IP address in logs" form.

>The FBI is not sold on the idea that Russia had a particular aim in its meddling. “There’s no question that [the Russians’] efforts went one way, but it’s not clear that they have a specific goal or mix of related goals,” said one U.S. official.
>The Federal Bureau of Investigation suspects Russian intelligence agencies are behind the recent hacking of the emails of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman and of a contractor handling Florida voter data, according to people briefed on the investigations.

The FBI isn't denying Russian involvement, they are just questioning the motives.

>It's why the FBI instantly called bullshit on the CIA's claims
The only thing I have heard about the FBI is that they are not willing to give a motive as to why Russia interfered. When the FBI makes statements they generally have to hold up in a court of law.

What is the point of contention (bullshit) between the FBI and CIA? I feel like this story is moving so fast, I can't keep up.

The FBI disagrees with the CIA's and Crowdstrike's findings, mainly because it's a bunch of "trust us" and "our secret informants" type evidence. It doesn't hold up in any court of law and the FBI is a law enforcement agency, so everything they do has to stand the rigors of a courtroom whereas the CIA can just say whatever and not have to prove anything.

They also disagree in motives because on paper the Kremlin was better friends with the Clintons than they are Trump. Remember they both gave each other tons of money/contracts and benefits over the years.

Still can't believe how phony they are all. Putin has been making backroom deals with so many heads of state that it's driving me crazy. The Clintons and the Trump are just the latest power brokers for sale to the highest bidder. None of them give a damn about politics.

>Hopefully, you live in a country where folks are more civil

Hah, I'm as close to federal property as it gets.

actually the cia didnt find anything as they said
washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.34b67326cbe1
"The CIA presentation to senators about Russia’s intentions fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.

For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin “directing” the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks, a second senior U.S. official said
>U.S. official said there were minor disagreements
>intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence
this is how dnc puppets is handling this shit they literally dont have nothing

>wapo
Note how the article (aside from one place where they bother to drop in the word "alleged") is worded to indicate that it's already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Russia had anything to do with the leaks and that it wasn't, say, Seth Rich. Because it hasn't been proven, at all. They've presented zero evidence, and they never will, as their op is to create context for undermining faith in the US electoral system.

Net neutrality is bull shit. It's just a way to gather lobbyist money from special interests who want a cell phone style exemption. Wake me up when someone talks about forcing 100Mb/s without data caps for $20/mo nation wide. You know first world shit.

>The FBI disagrees with the CIA's and Crowdstrike's findings
You have a link from a news organization for that? Everything I'm finding deals with the motive.

Hi Boris, I'd this the kremlins story now? Too bad the CIA and no doubt the NSA are onto you.

this cia you mean? kek

This.

The FBI has become red-pilled by browsing all the Sup Forums threads.

Degenerate liberals are so butthurt about getting their shit pushed in they're now turning to conspiracy theories, 'muh Russian hackers' Remember king nigger said voter/election fraud was impossible in the run up to the election.

I should've /thread this 3 hours ago. oh well.

>OP not making a definitive stance.

>The FBI has become red-pilled by browsing all the Sup Forums threads.

...

>The important part is asking why it wasn't brought up before the election.
It fucking was. Even in the first debate, Hillary accused Russian hackers of manipulating the election and Trump of being Putin's marionette.

...

the fact that this shit is already imploding on her face and on dnc shows how pathetic they are by going so far to accuse a country without even the proper intel just because they lost
and even so even if russia was behind the hacking (which i really REALLY doubt..more like from inside did the job..) and released the emails they actually did the world a favor to show how much of an evil person she is
(not that trump is better but at least trump doesnt hide it )

...

UH OH PASSKEK ALERT!
WEE WOO WEE WOO I GAVE MONEY TO THE JEWS!

>he typed the word "cuck" in all caps
>da jooz

honest question, is CIA attempting a soft coup with shit like this? retarded faggots.

nah its dnc using even obama to leverage the system
truth is they dont have nothing that connects their failure as a party to russia at all
they are trying to shift the blame from them that picked hillary instead of sanders to everyone else LITERALLY but them..

Soft coup happened decades ago, famalam. Now they're just consolidating true power (establishing a massive database of blackmail material on every future leader - politicians, businessmen, judges, etc.).

President in 2040: "abolish the CIA!"
CIA: "Hey, check out these logs and images we have of you doing "
President in 2040: "Right... I meant: double your budget?"
CIA: "Good boy."

>truth is they dont have nothing
Mitch McConnell has "the highest confidence in the intelligence community, and especially the Central Intelligence Agency". And he supports a congressional investigation. Is he trying to help Clinton? Or does he have another agenda?

...

Russians are subhuman anyways.

I quote the bit about his 10 year old son whenever someone brings up cyber security in regards to Government intervention.

Recall that trump will have access to all the top-secret files on the clintons and the rest of the political establishment, and also has a loose mouth on twitter.
I wonder why they want to get rid of him.

You clearly understand very little. People can travel all over the world today, have you ever heard of an airplane. Even if the hack came from Russia it could be Chinese, or Russian code used by the Chinese or someone else. Or even if it was Russian, it may not be state sponsored. Even Russian banks and Russian government websites get hacked by non government Russian hackers.

>implying the DNC "hacks" weren't actually leaks

>not a single proofster in the thread
That's all the proof you need, ironically

He has a point you know, donald trump is pretty smart.

...

>Subhumans
>first in space
user, by accomplishments alone, your people are the ones who are subhuman.
Even the best classical music comes from Slavs.

>CIA: it was the Russians
>where's the evidence
>CIA: it's secret
Hmmmmmmm

Its amazing to see the democrats become the red scare party

>Sup Forums
You have to go back.

you could maybe lift a fingerprint off the jellies keycaps

Not only a red scare party.
They irony of Democrats who are supposed to protect minorities, being against the electorate which is a system precisely designed to protect minority states from the tyranny of a few, is also there.

Non-retarded people hated both main candidates (third party candidatos were preety shitty too).

It was an election between a shit sandwich and a shit sandwich with a different bread.

If you're serious, until you put on real arguments, people will assume you're just trolling otherwhise.

>chronic cartoon masturbators thinking what he said isnt true.

really goes to show you just how bad Sup Forums is at technology ever since reddit got here.

I don't know user. Trump is hard to hate because he doesn't hide his assholery.
He makes it apparent that he is an asshole.
He pretty much hints it if not outright saying it, he's an open book. It's the kind of people who are open books that are the hardest to hate.

The people who are the most easy to hate though are those who create artificial and false outer appearances which are always made to appear "righteous" and "good", while hiding a pile of shit underneath. Those leave the worst aftertaste in people's mouths.
That's Hillary. A false outer persona.

To make an example out of Saudis:
1. Trump is a businessman and everyone expects him to do business with them, since that's what he does. It's apparent. He doesn't give a fuck about what the Saudis do, neither morals or ethics.
2. Hillary however is the "righteous" symbol of feminism. Yet she is financed by, and supports, the Saudis and their Wahabbi shit.
She is righteous on the stand, yet her dealing with the same people who treat women as garbage is supposed to be swiped under the rug? Get the fuck out of here.

I'd say Hillary is worse than Trump from any angle.
At least Trump will be stonewalled during his term, his power limited.

Sup Forums has the best meme on this which is essentially, "you claim that the Russians stole the election by hacking documents that show the DNC stealing the election."

Can Sup Forums not infect every board?
Can't wait for Trump to elect a FCC chairman who will make it 50 cents per post.