viernes, 16 de diciembre de 2016

MercatorNet: Russia and the US election hacks: sorting through the confusion

MercatorNet: Russia and the US election hacks: sorting through the confusion
Russia and the US election hacks: sorting through the confusion

Russia and the US election hacks: sorting through the confusion

Did Putin really share Democrat secrets?
Jeffrey Pawlick | Dec 16 2016 | comment 1 

Over the past couple of weeks, Americans have been alarmed by article titles along the lines of "Russian Hacking in US Elections" or "The CIA and FBI on Election Hacking." 
Yesterday in fact, an article in the New York Times bore the title: "The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the US."
These headlines are vague at best and confusing at worst.  "Hacking the election," to many people's minds, suggests the idea that Russia penetrated information systems used to collect votes, changed the total numbers, and fabricated a win for Trump. And "weapons" and "invasions" suggest physical damage—bombs.
Of course, that is not the case.  The Russian operations were neither direct nor atypical. And they were not surprising.  On the other hand, the evidence for Russia's involvement seems stronger by leaps and bounds than what Trump has been prepared to admit.
Clarifying what it means to hack the elections
A top CIA official has said that Russia influenced the elections not only to undermine confidence in American democracy, but also specifically to support Trump.  This support, however, would not have come in the form of altering the vote count. 
Instead, Russia reportedly penetrated both Republican National Committee and Democrat National Committee networks, but only released (damaging) information about the Democrats, thereby boosting the cause for Trump.
In addition to the DNC hack, Russia also seems to be responsible for the breach of the email account of John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign.
How could this happen?
While such high-level breaches are alarming, they are entirely feasible.  Russian hackers reportedly penetrated the DNC networks using a family of exploits alternatively called "The Duke," “Cosy Bear,” or “APT 29.”  This is the same family of malware (malicious software) which recently targeted the state department. 
APT stands for Advanced Persistent Threat, a class of attacks which give agents insider access to a system.  APTs deactivate security systems and override alerts in order to remain under the radar.  Some persist in a system for months before they are detected.
APT 29 is delivered by some type of social engineering such as a phishing email. After penetration, the malware searches for security products to disable.  Then it sends a signal back to a compromised website to indicate successful penetration.  Next the APT installs a set of commands and modules which give attackers backdoor access. 
With this access to the DNC servers, the attackers obtained emails which they released during the past summer, much to the Clinton campaign’s chagrin.
How strong is the evidence for Russian involvement?
The strongest statement for Russian involvement came in early October.  That declaration was unanimous: all 17 US intelligence agencies voiced agreement on Russian involvement. 
Since October things have been a little less direct.  This week the New York Times published the aforementioned claims that Russia hacked both the DNC and the RNC, but only publicized material from the DNC.  The Times seems to be the only major news agency to make this statement.  As evidence, they cite “interviews with dozens of players targeted in the attack, intelligence officials who investigated it and Obama administration officials who deliberated over the best response.”
Then today NBC said that US intelligence officials believe with a “high level of confidence” that Putin was personally involved in the Russian campaign.  They argue that Putin himself approved orders to interfere in the elections.  NBC’s sources are “two senior officials with direct access to the information.” 
According to other reports, the CIA and FBI are not completely in agreement.  Apparently, since the October statement by all US intelligence agencies, officials from the FBI have become more skeptical than their counterparts in the CIA.
In the way of independent analysis, the editors of Arstechnica published a detailed article about the reasons to suspect Russian involvement.  They note that the families of malware used to execute the attacks were built specifically for espionage, and have been used before against Russian opponents.  In addition, the attack software was regularly maintained and professionally updated in a way that would require long-term and organized funding.  Finally, evidence from the code includes time-stamps from someone in the same time zone as Moscow and St. Petersburg, as well as software from someone speaking Russian. 
Of course, a sophisticated attacker could leak these details to intentionally implicate the Russians.  Still, most independent analysts have agreed with Russian involvement.
And the President-Elect…
Finally, Trump’s response to the hacks has been simply to shrug off the claims and remind everyone that “the election ended a long time ago.”  Rather than addressing the evidence directly, Trump has launched an ad hominum attack on the CIA. 
“These are the same people,” he noted, “who said Saddam Hossein had weapons of mass destruction.”
While sensationalist headlines about “The Perfect Weapon” obscure the facts about what really happened, the response from the Trump transition team has done little to make things more clear.  Overall, porous political claims have been quick to rise to the surface, while solid technical evidence is taking more time.
Jeffrey Pawlick is a PhD Candidate in Electrical Engineering at the Tandon School of Engineering, New York University.

Dear Readers: The team at MercatorNet wish you and your families a very happy Christmas and New Year. Thank you for staying with us on the journey to becoming one of the internet’s most addictive websites. And a special thanks to all those who have donated recently.
We are closing up shop for a while, until January 9. For now, we hope you enjoy today’s varied Christmas menu – and take Joseph Bottum’s advice for the feast ahead:
Break out into song, if you can. Break out into sentimentality, if you can stand it. Break out into extravagance and vulgarity and the gimcrack Christmas doodads and the branches breaking under the weight of their ornaments. Break out into charity and goodwill. But however you do it, just break out. What other response could we have to the joyous news of the Nativity that God has broken in, smashing the ordinary world by descending in the flesh?

Carolyn Moynihan
Deputy Editor,

Our pick of the films of 2016
By Staff of MercatorNet
MercatorNet’s nominations for the best entertainment of the past year
Read the full article
Joyous surrender: a rhapsody in red (and green)
By Joseph Bottum
However you do it at Christmas, just break out.
Read the full article
Christmas is not for Christians
By Campbell Markham
Even if the French Council of State thinks it is.
Read the full article
Merry Christmas all!
By Marcus Roberts
And a look back at 2016.
Read the full article
The voiceless victims of domestic violence
By Greg Donnelly
The unborn child is often a victim too, but who is held accountable?
Read the full article
Russia and the US election hacks: sorting through the confusion
By Jeffrey Pawlick
Did Putin really share Democrat secrets?
Read the full article
Regretting motherhood is a symptom of 21st century anti-natalism
By Carolyn Moynihan
Bristol Palin has copped the sharp end of this ideology.
Read the full article
The plan revealed at Christmas
By James Schall SJ
The birth in Bethlehem makes the drama of human life intelligible
Read the full article
Linking headlines: post-truth, euthanasia and elder abuse
By Margaret Somerville
Feelings trump facts when thinking about euthanasia
Read the full article
Donald Trump claims torture ‘works’ – but what does the science say?
By Coral Dando
Treating detainees as human beings produces far more reliable information
Read the full article
Mamas are doing it for themselves
By Tamara El-Rahi
It takes a community to raise a child, but how much help should parents accept?
Read the full article

MERCATORNET | New Media Foundation
Suite 12A, Level 2, 5 George Street, North Strathfied NSW 2137, Australia

Designed by elleston
New Media Foundation | Suite 12A, Level 2, 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | AUSTRALIA | +61 2 8005 8605 

No hay comentarios: