CIA Involvement In French 2012 Election

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Regarding websites, you do not need to be in the country where it's IP is located. You can log into a website from anywhere in the world - You don't say.

Who don't realize you can access a domain from anywhere in the world

On the contrary that's exactly the point the article was making, how you could have failed to understand this begs belief. ...[text shortened]... or the FBI nor anyone else who has parroted the claim has produced any credible evidence for it.

You say it's obvious that domains can be accessed anywhere in the world; but your article goes into detail about who a domain/IP belongs to and where it's located. He starts off by saying these domains have no relation to Russian hackers, and sites their locations and owners as "evidence" why.

The article you posted is a sham. You don't need networking expertise to see that.

Originally posted by DeepThought
It was zerohedge.com which is to all intents and purposes a Russian propaganda site. Also it relies on the user not copy and pasting the first URL [1] given into their browser. The file exists, but doing that leaves out the style file. After a little investigation I found the parent directory [2]. The purpose of the release is not to provide e ...[text shortened]... 2] https://www.us-cert.gov/security-publications/GRIZZLY-STEPPE-Russian-Malicious-Cyber-Activity

Thank you, that was very informative.

So the accusation is false.

But, unfortunately, unsurprising.

Originally posted by vivify
You say it's obvious that domains can be accessed anywhere in the world; but your article goes into detail about who a domain/IP belongs to and where it's located. He starts off by saying these domains have no relation to Russian hackers, and sites their locations and owners as "evidence" why.

The article you posted is a sham. You don't need networking expertise to see that.

You can call it what you like, neither you nor the FBI nor any other parrot of the lie has produced a single iota of evidence that the Russian state sponsored hackers were responsible for hacking the DNC.

Why to demonstrate that citing IP addresses and then claiming any kind of evidence on their basis cannot be claimed. What are these technical indicators that your proof hangs upon? You have not said, so why don't you.

Originally posted by DeepThought
It was zerohedge.com which is to all intents and purposes a Russian propaganda site. Also it relies on the user not copy and pasting the first URL [1] given into their browser. The file exists, but doing that leaves out the style file. After a little investigation I found the parent directory [2]. The purpose of the release is not to provide e ...[text shortened]... 2] https://www.us-cert.gov/security-publications/GRIZZLY-STEPPE-Russian-Malicious-Cyber-Activity

A Russian propaganda site, bwahaha, more empty rhetoric.

The purpose of the release is not to provide evidence of Russian hacking. - Deep Refuted!

Really, here is the link form the article and I will quote the FBI's own report to you, cited in the article.

This Joint Analysis Report (JAR) is the result of analytic efforts between the Department ofHomeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

This document provides technical details regarding the tools and infrastructure used by the Russian civilian and military intelligence Services (RIS) to compromise and exploit networks and endpoints associated with the U.S. election, as well as a range of U.S. Government, political, and private sector entities. The U.S. Government is referring to this malicious cyber activity by RIS as GRIZZLY STEPPE.

Previous JARs have not attributed malicious cyber activity to specific countries or threat actors. However, public attribution of these activities to RIS is supported by technical indicators from the U.S. Intelligence Community[/b[, DHS, FBI, the private sector, and other entities.

and from the same document


DHS recommends that network administrators review the IP addresses, file hashes, and Yara signature provided and add the IPs to their watchlist to determine whether malicious activity has been observed within their organizations. The review of network perimeter netflow or firewalllogs will assist in determining whether your network has experienced suspicious activity.

Now in view of your claim we are left to wondering what it is you are talking about for clearly the document states that it was produced to provide proof of Russian state sponsored hacking. Lets view that in reflection of your claim

The purpose of the release is not to provide evidence of Russian hacking. It is a list of IP addresses for system administrators to take note of and block.

when the very same document released by the FBI states and I quote. ' This document provides technical details regarding the tools and infrastructure used by the Russian civilian and military intelligence Services'.

Now I will give you a chance to retract your statement and ask that you at least read the documents in future. I suppose its pointless to ask you for these technical indicators of the Russian state sponsored hacking for if you cannot even get the propose of why the document was issued what hope is there for you?

Originally posted by vivify
Thank you, that was very informative.

[b]So the accusation is false.

But, unfortunately, unsurprising.[/b]

No its not apparently Deep thought is rather selective in the information that he likes to glean from FBI releases. Your willingness to believe anything that cements your preconceptions is truly worrying, echo chamber, cookie cutter etc etc

Originally posted by DeepThought
Just a point, but "spying on" isn't the same as "interfering with". What is described in your OP is just information gathering. Unless there is evidence of actual interference, in other words trying to alter the result, I think this is a non-story. The purpose of releasing it is probably to make a Le Pen victory more likely with the Kremlin friendly result of a collapse of the EU.

Just spying on????

Really?

That's the defence???

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You can call it what you like, neither you nor the FBI nor any other parrot of the lie has produced a single iota of evidence that the Russian state sponsored hackers were responsible for hacking the DNC.

Why to demonstrate that citing IP addresses and then claiming any kind of evidence on their basis cannot be claimed. What are these technical indicators that your proof hangs upon? You have not said, so why don't you.

This is moving goalposts. You offered a "refutation" of what the FBI presented, and I showed you why their argument is dumb. Switching the onus to me having to prove Russian hacks makes your copy & paste no less flawed.

Originally posted by vivify
This is moving goalposts. You offered a "refutation" of what the FBI presented, and I showed you why their argument is dumb. Switching the onus to me having to prove Russian hacks makes your copy & paste no less flawed.

You demonstrated nothing other than you did not understand anything about the article or the FBI's ludicrous claims and infact by your own reasoning you have established that IP addresses cannot be used as legitimate evidence of Russian state sponsored hacking. These were part of the 'technical identifiers' that were provided and actually the onus is on you and anyone else who makes a claim such as 'the DNC was hacked by Russian state sponsored hackers'. Did you seriously think that simply repeating the same thing again and again that it might come true? There is nothing flawed about the copy and paste you are simply slobbering because it contains no evidence and even Deep Thoughts slippery attempt was refuted by the FBI's own document.

Tell us what 'technical indicators', from the U.S. Intelligence Community there are and I will believe you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You demonstrated nothing other than you did not understand anything about the article or the FBI's ludicrous claims and infact by your own reasoning you have established that IP addresses cannot be used as legitimate evidence of Russian state sponsored hacking.

Dude...I was refuting that IP's foreign to Russia *wasn't* evidence against Russian hacking. Your article tried to make this seem like an issue, which was stupid.

So basically, you're attacking me for something I didn't say. You are currently using a fallacious argument.

These were part of the 'technical identifiers' that were provided and actually the onus is on you and anyone else who makes a claim such as 'the DNC was hacked by Russian state sponsored hackers'.

False. The FBI is far more credible and authoritative than some random conservative on a chess site. If you think the FBI is wrong, the onus is on YOU to prove them wrong. What you've provided as a "refutation" is laughable.

Originally posted by vivify
Dude...I was refuting that IP's foreign to Russia *wasn't* evidence against Russian hacking. Your article tried to make this seem like an issue, which was stupid.

So basically, you're attacking me for something I didn't say. You are currently using a fallacious argument.

[b]These were part of the 'technical identifiers' that were provided and ...[text shortened]... g, the onus is on YOU to prove them wrong. What you've provided as a "refutation" is laughable.

Technical indicators, where are they, that's all I wanna know. Cough them up! I haven't said the FBI is wrong what I have actually said is that they have produced no credible evidence that the DNC was hacked by Russian state sponsored hackers.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
A Russian propaganda site, bwahaha, more empty rhetoric.

The purpose of the release is not to provide evidence of Russian hacking. - Deep Refuted!

Really, here is the link form the article and I will quote the FBI's own report to you, cited in the article.

This Joint Analysis Report (JAR) is the result of analytic efforts between the ...[text shortened]... or if you cannot even get the propose of why the document was issued what hope is there for you?

Do you actually read what you copy and paste? This is copy and pasted from your post:

DHS recommends that network administrators review the IP addresses, file hashes, and Yara signature provided and add the IPs to their watchlist to determine whether malicious activity has been observed within their organizations.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Just spying on????

Really?

That's the defence???

Well, when accusing people of wrongdoing it helps to get the offence right. The offence in this case was information gathering against the political parties involved in an election. There is no evidence presented that they favoured any one candidate or attempted to alter the result of the election. The purpose of the OP is to defend Russia against the legitimate complaint of the Americans that they interfered in the US election. That the French may feel they have a legitimate complaint that the Americans gathered information is neither here nor there regarding the Russian hacking activities. So first there's tu quoque and second a false equivalence.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
LOL pussy hats on, we must be allowed to kill our babies, its our right! march! march! march!

Are you implying that I'm a dickhead? 😠

Originally posted by DeepThought
It was zerohedge.com which is to all intents and purposes a Russian propaganda site. Also it relies on the user not copy and pasting the first URL [1] given into their browser. The file exists, but doing that leaves out the style file. After a little investigation I found the parent directory [2]. The purpose of the release is not to provide e ...[text shortened]... 2] https://www.us-cert.gov/security-publications/GRIZZLY-STEPPE-Russian-Malicious-Cyber-Activity

Nothing to see here. It does not meet the internet truthiness test of being a truthy web site.

Sorry Robbie.

Edit: And Hillary never lied, just so ya know.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
As a web developer i am sure you know how networking functions. Shall we consider the technical evidence for these unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations?

To see the evidence of Russian hacking first hand, I downloaded the CSV file and converted it into a spreadsheet. The CSV file and the XML file both contained the same data. Here is the XML ...[text shortened]... www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-01/if-there-really-was-evidence-russian-hacking-nsa-would-have-it

I looked at that list too and thought it looked just like a bunch of open proxies that any half decent Kali Linux user could have used for that cheap hack on Podesta. No meat at all in that report.