Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]

Re:Technical report on DNC hack [pdf] by elif on Thursday December 29, 2016 @09:25PM (#13282052)

The problem with relying upon motive and established MO exclusively is that anyone is therefore capable of framing whomever they like.

This is the next generation of warfare, attribution is simply impossible. Even if there existed actual forensic evidence it could not be relied upon.

Reacting to purported attacks at face value will leave you like a 1-layer chess player, potentially acting on behalf of your adversary.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Technical report on DNC hack [pdf] by lern_too_spel on Friday December 30, 2016 @12:36AM (#13282749)

As I said above, the attribution does not rely solely on motive. All private security firms that analyzed the attack have attributed it to Russia, and they would not stake their reputations on such a flimsy argument.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Technical report on DNC hack [pdf] by unclepresent on Friday December 30, 2016 @11:21AM (#13285109)

all private security firms ? name one, please

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Technical report on DNC hack [pdf] by lern_too_spel on Friday December 30, 2016 @11:57AM (#13285374)

I named three in my first comment above. There are also Mandiant (FireEye) and SecureWorks. Previous attacks with the same malware were attributed to Russia by Threatconnect and Microsoft, who calls the "Fancy Bear" group "Strontium."

[ Parent | on HN ]