Sure - more info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0

>The U.S. Intelligence Community concluded that some of the genuine leaks from "Guccifer 2.0" were part of a series of cyberattacks on the DNC committed by two Russian military intelligence groups, and that "Guccifer 2.0" is actually a persona created by Russian intelligence services to cover for their interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. This conclusion is based on analyses conducted by various private sector cybersecurity individuals and firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, FireEye's Mandiant, SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, Trend Micro, and the security editor for Ars Technica.

> The U.S. Intelligence Community concluded

"Conculded"? It's nice that they concluded. If they want _us_ to conclude, then let them bring evidence.

I remember when the US concluded Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction". That did not turn out to be quite accurate.

In the case of WMDs in Iraq, it was based loosely off single and misused British intelligence.

There is overwhelming evidence with the DNC hack from the cybersecurity industry and intelligence communities.

Evidence cannot be "from the cybersecurity industry and intelligence communities"; it can only be from the affected machines. I believe you are conflating there being assertions by those communities with there being evidence.

If I am mistaken - please provide a link to such evidence.

I also remember that there was a report by many US intelligence agencies "confirming" the assessment - but they were all basing their opinion on the opinions by other agencies and/or CrowdStrike, the DNC-associated cyber-security firm which had actual access to the servers.

> DNC-associated cyber-security firm which had actual access to the servers.

Why use the wording "DNC-associated firm" instead of "firm hired by DNC"?

They're working with the GOP too https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-cyb...

That's stronger than a mere association actually, at least w.r.t. this issue. The DNC was interested in deflecting criticism regarding the leaked information, and arguing "We're under attack by Russia!" is very useful to that end. So, the firm they hired reaches this conclusion, opaquely, and based on exclusive access to the machines, which are then not examined by any other party.

That's literally standard practice.

It really sounds like you're accusing CrowdStrike of lying with zero evidence to back that up.

I'm not accusing them of lying, I'm just saying that CrowdStrike claims are not uninterested third-party claims. On this matter they are not much more trustworthy than their contractors; and they need to present evidence to make their case to the public.

None of your sources are evidence; they are just unsubstantiated opinions.

The era when an authority could simply issue a conclusion, and expect the great unwashed public to just believe it without question, are long gone.

We all have access to much more information than in the past and if we wish, can perform our own analysis and reach our own conclusions, independent of old media, private sector experts, assorted propaganda sources etc.

You're certainly welcome to disprove the findings from the individual cybersecurity firms if you think they're wrong.

Here, start with Fidelis:

https://www.fidelissecurity.com/threatgeek/archive/findings-...

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. That link contains zero evidence.

That's your best? Really? How gullible do you think we are? Colin Powell had satellite photos of trains! That was something, not evidence he said it was, sure, but something at least. This is nothing.

If you won't address the evidence in the article then you have confirmation bias.

Let me spell it out even more clearly. I have addressed the article in its entirety by pointing out it is NOT evidence or even close to being evidence.

It is an unsubstantiated claim on the internet from a very dubiuos source with clear ulterior motvie.

The bias comes in when one is determined to believe something it can be confusing as to whether some item or other in support of it is evidence or not. This isn't. When there's evidence I may change my mind but it's kind of idiotic to believe this stuff when we've been so roundly lied to before and by Colin Powell with so much more credibility, with so much more to lose. Anyway he did lose it all and on behalf of all such "trust me" claims and this kind of unsubstantiated claim can only work once when it turned out to be lies. Bet your life that this is not just another lie? The last one cost into 6 figures of deaths just spell out the stakes. (But obviously also a huge funding boost to the military industrial complex. Rising tides lift all ships and most probably believed the lie that incidentally was good for their careers etc.)

Demand evidence for incendiary claims. For me, I owe it my own self-respect. I owe it out of support for this "democracy experiment". We can't rule this out as a total and utter lie. We really can't. Maybe it isn't but damn. That kind of lie worked so well before. Colin took me in totally, I believed the hell out of that guy.

That's actually not a claim you could make. You don't know why the poster has, thus far, not addressed "the evidence in the article."

That said, I am also seeking out this "evidence," of which you write. The Fidelis article you linked to did nothing but show some similarity in naming schemes, binary packaging conventions, and code style. And, it's building a case upon the precedent of prior "evidence," which we cannot see for ourselves either.

We all know that the FBI could put all of its evidence in a GitHub repo, along with a README.md that explains how to run the code that offers the substantiated proof of their claims. The problem is, they don't have any.

CrowdStrike, lol.

user: zmoreira created: July 8, 2013 karma: 49

Mostly posts on "hot button" political topics that can wielded as wedge issues, aka chelsea manning, iranian airstrikes, and DHS. I'm guessing this is someone's alt account.

What's wrong with CrowdStrike? It's perhaps the most respected shop in that list.

> including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, FireEye's Mandiant, SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, Trend Micro, and the security editor for Ars Technica.

Some of these are not like the others.

The Ars article is at least very transparent about its conclusions and what evidence they're based on.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/06/gucci...

"We still don't know who he is or whether he works for the Russian government, but one thing is for sure: Guccifer 2.0—the nom de guerre of the person claiming he hacked the Democratic National Committee and published hundreds of pages that appeared to prove it—left behind fingerprints implicating a Russian-speaking person with a nostalgia for the country's lost Soviet era."

I never really got this argument. If someone embedded the username "J Edgar Hoover" in some documents, would we make the assumption that they pined for a return to cold war era FBI control over politics, or that they were just trolling? Dzerzhinsky was basically J Edgar's counterpoint in the east.

For the complete analogy, it should be the pinning of CIA control over politics based on Edgar Hoover's name because the GRU, which is accused of this operation is the military intelligence and Dzerzhinsky is the founder of NKVD/KGB/FSB - an FBI+DHS equivalent.

Direct quote from Mueller Report: "GRU officers used both the DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 personas to communicate with WikiLeaks through Twitter private messaging and through encrypted channels, including possibly through WikiLeaks's private communication system.”

Mueller claimed this was the case, but - his report, as released to the public, did not present evidence to establish these claims (nor, in fact, most claims in the report regarding Russian interference).

Also, "including possibly through Wikileaks" means nothing. "Including possibly through my second cousin's DIY basement mail server."

There was an indictment: https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download

I don’t know if there was further evidence not made public to protect sources and methods.

Of all the things that aren't evidence, an indictment is possibly among the most not-evidence things.

A judge famously said you could indict a ham sandwich. In practice, grand juries say whatever a prosecutor wants them to say.

And as Russian nationals, it's also unlikely they'll ever have to actually stand trial, which is when evidence would be required to enter the public record to convict them.

I also very much doubt the US government will want to go through a discovery phase with these people, so I'm not sure the DoJ really wants a trial to actually take place.

> to protect sources and methods.

Either you "protect sources and methods", and not make strong public accusations, or you make accusations and disclose evidence.

Doing one but not the other is indistinguishable from just making false claims - which the US is known to have done repeatedly in the past (another example - Gulf of Tonkin).

It's true, the Mueller report is light on actual evidence and in places rather heavy on hedging language.

But it seems not an unreasonable guess in this case that there was possible use of "WikiLeaks's private communication system" based on a Twitter DM that was quoted in the Mueller report:

On September 15, 2016, @dcleaks wrote to @WikiLeaks, “hi there! I'm from DC Leaks. How could we discuss some submission-related issues? Am trying to reach out to you via your secured chat but getting no response. I’ve got something that might interest you. You won't be disappointed, I promise.”