You've added something that was not in the article. The IP address was not necessarily in the GRU HQ. The IP was in Moscow. The IP allowed the agent to be identified. That might mean the IP was in the GRU HQ but not necessarily. Once the agent was identified, they knew (possibly based on other intel collection) that he works out of (has as a "home" office) the GRU HQ.

It is in the article:

> U.S. investigators identified Guccifer 2.0 as a particular GRU officer working out of the agency’s headquarters on Grizodubovoy Street in Moscow.

This quote still leaves open the details on how they connected the IP to the officer or actual locale.

Ha ha. I'll go get the complete top secret NSA report and post it here, and then we can arrange a Q&A with the NSA officers to address your further questions, as there certainly will be some.

Which we should take at face value

> (How much faith to put in an anonymously sourced claim about what was in the logs of an unnamed social network is a separate question, of course.)

Parent already addressed this. Unless you have evidence to the contrary the "what if" game does not take us very far.

I like to play the "what if" game as well as the "who profits" and "what has happened historically" game...

As well as the whatabboutism game ("what about the other side pointing fingers? Who has done worse?").

I don't like thought stoppers.

With any intelligence information 'what if' is most reasonable approach. It is absurd to trust anyone that has the objective to spread misinformation.

In comparison why would you trust anybody who is a professional liar on any information? Just because you have no other more reliable information does not turn the liars lie into a truth.

That seems WILDLY unprovable.

Tell me; how did The Daily Beast, an org that has Chelsea Clinton on their board, get the external IP addresses of the Russian Intellegence headquarters?

Please read the article properly before commenting - It helps you to stop jumping to wild, crazy conclusions

It wasn't the DailyBeast conducting the investigation, they are just reporting on it

Tracked to a specific office in their HQ... by an external IP address... lol, ok.

You are not as anonymous as you think when you are online - An IP address can easily identify a particular office in a government building

There are many, many cases where a journalist has tracked down specific wikipedia edits to a particular office or intranet in a government building all from their IP address

You can find a ton of stories with a quick google search: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/government-w... https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/investigation-into-o...

Yep. I agree - it's pretty easy to slip up and public IPs are fairly easy to monitor.

It reminds me of this project https://github.com/edsu/anon which "lets you tweet about anonymous Wikipedia edits from particular IP address ranges"

You can see it working at Congress Edits - https://twitter.com/congressedits

>Yep. I agree - it's pretty easy to slip up and public IPs are fairly easy to monitor.

Public IPs are NOT easy to monitor correctly when A. It's supposedly Russian Intelligence HQ B. They are claiming they can identify the specific office it came from

The Clinton boogie man at it again eh?

Did I post something incorrect? Do you want to explain who maintains the current and past list of external IP addresses belonging to Russian Intel?

The NSA and/or the CIA?

Teenagers can hack NASA [0] so I don't think a sufficiently motivated attacker, possibly backed by a nation state, couldn't pull off something like this as a false flag.

[0]: https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=119423&page=1

> Teenagers can hack NASA [...] so I don't think a sufficiently motivated attacker [...] couldn't pull off something like this

Right, the fact someone could compromise a random government agency in the 90s clearly means someone else could compromise Russian military intelligence in 2016, because NASA's IT security in the 90s is totally comparable to the GRU today, absolutely.

> possibly backed by a nation state

Which nation state, exactly?

Considering a U.S. ally had their tendrils so deep inside GRU that they had a live video feed, you should probably reevaluate your assigned probabilities.

You mean the recent story which broke by Dutch intel?

There is no public video recording to substantiate their claim. You'd think this entire debate would be settled if on YouTube we could all just watch visual proof of Russians hacking the US.

They also claimed that the video feed came from a university building in Moscow's Red Square. I challenge you to find such a building on a map of the Red Square.

Your entire posting history is devoted to obscure conspiracy screeds whenever Russia is involved – it's truly remarkable your account has persisted this long.

That's an extremely offensive thing to say. Also, that is not a true characterization of my comment history. If you do want to discuss that topic, I am more than happy to engage in discussions supported by sourced material.

Did you find that university building inside the red square yet? Where is it on google maps?

The story which made it to HN: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/01/dutch...

My analysis is below, but I encourage you to look at Suzie Dawson's epic takedown here: https://steemit.com/steemit/@suzi3d/10-reasons-the-dutch-rus...

So, just because the US intelligence community gets attribution details in 2014 doesn't mean they didn't fake the attribution for the 2016 DNC hack. That's like me registering an account with your username on some site and posting stuff with it - many digital "fingerprints" can be faked. Readers of HN should know this (lol).

Also, the author's claim that the US intelligence community attributed the DNC hack is dubious. James Clapper did, and he threw around a debunked "17 intelligence agencies" slogan[0], but the man's a retired partisan[1]. Recall that the DNC would not let the FBI do actual forensics on their hacked server[2] - well, there's one intelligence agency that didn't get a chance to make an official attribution. Recall too that the Crowdstrike's hack report claims were debunked by the Ukranian army[3] & authenticity of the C&C software was questioned by many in the cyber security community[4].

Like, who didn't know that Russia had hackers? We also know that the DNC/DeepState have a scapegoat.

[0] https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/07/06/clapper_c...

[1] https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-11-17/lawmakers-re...

[2] http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/05/09/the_fbi_i...

[3] https://www.voanews.com/a/cyber-firm-rewrites-part-disputed-...

[4] http://www.zdnet.com/article/no-smoking-gun-for-russian-dnc-...

>Right, the fact someone could compromise a random government agency in the 90s clearly means someone else could compromise Russian military intelligence in 2016, because NASA's IT security in the 90s is totally comparable to the GRU today, absolutely.

Because such hacks don't happen today?

>Which nation state, exactly?

Well, which nation state likes false flags and BS excuses like WMDs for their target du jour?

Are you referring to the Kremlin? There is a wealth of allegations of such activities attributed to them:

The most infamous (and heinous) oft sighted example...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings

And there are plenty of more recent allegations such as the framing of North Korea for the attempts to disrupt the Winter Olympics:

https://www.wired.com/story/russia-false-flag-hacks/

Parkland shootings etc etc

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2018/feb/22/...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/after-the-parkland-s...

I find it amusing that those who call false flag sound as if they are the ones flying a false flag. It's exactly the sort of action one would expect to call out if I was trying to turn a population in on itself. False flag is a recently common accusation which did not used to be common on the internet.

False flag is the quicksand of online drama. People allude to them a lot more often than they are found in the wild.

Blaming everything on "Russian hackers" also didn't use to be "common on the internet".

As words, phrases and fads spreads on the press, so they do on the internet.

Where have you been? "Russian hackers" has been an internet trope before memes were a thing.

Not referring to the internet trope (or the existence of hackers in Russia and/or Eastern Europe), but the actual BS press "Russian hackers behind this and that", which is the "WMDs" of late 2010s.

What do you mean "WMDs of late 2010s"? The WMD excuse I'm familiar with was the one to invade Iraq was early 2000's, and anyone with half a critical mind could see that it was a flimsy argument at best in order to appeal to the hawks at home who wanted blood after September 11th. And American citizens who had studied Islam at all would understand that the only reason the Sunni, Shia, (and Kurds, ethnic not religious minority) had not openly killed each other in Iraq was due to Saddam's non-discriminating iron fist, and that invading could have potentially destabilized the country into a pariah state.

I'm not going to change your mind on what you think is BS, but I do disagree with you. If you have the chance, I highly suggest talking to retired CIA operatives that were active during the Cold War -- the stuff they talk about (when allowed) can be pretty eye-opening.

Back in my day it used to be "chinese hackers" but I guess we have always been at war with Eurasia.

Why would NASA's defences be comparable to GRU?

...and NASA is known to have top opsec?

And it's still 1999?