News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf] by nl on Thursday March 12, 2020 @07:31PM (#22563167)
> Even CrowdStrike seems to be backing away from those claims in this last week

This is untrue:

As we’ve repeatedly stated, we stand by the findings and analysis of our investigation, and, as detailed in our company statement, we’ve provided all forensic evidence and analysis to the FBI as requested. Additionally, our findings have been supported by the U.S. intelligence community and other cybersecurity companies.

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...

> Assange... say[s] "It wasn't the Russians"

Has he actually said that? The actual quotes I've seen have not been definitive:

"The same day, Assange told NBC News that "it's what's in the emails that's important, not who hacked them." When asked by NBC News if WikiLeaks might have been used to distribute documents stolen as part of a Russian intelligence operation, Assange replied: "There is no proof of that whatsoever. We have not disclosed our source."[1]

and

"On Sean Hannity’s radio show, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said that hacked Democratic documents sent to reporters at Gawker and The Hill may have come from Russia. But, he said, he is confident the emails he received did not come from the same source.".. "“Our source is not the Russian government,” said Assange, later claiming WikiLeaks did not receive its material from any state actor, Russia or otherwise."[2]

(Note "state actor" - which would align with the idea that the hacking group is just under direction of Russian intel, not that it is part of it)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0

[2] https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/310654-assange-some...

Re:Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf] by ci5er on Thursday March 12, 2020 @07:41PM (#22563234)
I came across more recent statements from Crowdstrike, but failed to save them, and must dig them up again. Will attempt to do so (I've noticed that Google has gotten more efficient at letting me fail to find previously discovered materials, but I hope to be able to be back with my references)

Re: Assange - yes - he is quite circumspect.

Re:Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf] by nl on Thursday March 12, 2020 @08:25PM (#22563516)
I don't get this at all.

All the evidence points to it being the Russians, Putin himself said it might have been "patriotically minded" Russians, all US intel agencies say it was the Russians, all non-US agencies say it was the Russians.

And you claim to be baffled as to why people say it was the Russians?

Maybe it wasn't, but it's not exactly baffling why people say it is. There are no real counter theories at all - the only counter claims sort of say "Deep State" but nothing else.

Re:Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf] by somesortofsystm on Friday March 13, 2020 @08:29AM (#22566706)
What evidence? Press reports about intelligence agencies is not evidence.

Where is the direct, observable, undeniable evidence?

If you don't have it, then don't keep parroting the nonsense.

Re:Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf] by nl on Saturday March 14, 2020 @02:34AM (#22573609)
a) My argument wasn't that it is correct, it is that it isn't baffling that people say it.

b) What kind of evidence wouldn't you deny?

Re:Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf] by somesortofsystm on Saturday March 14, 2020 @09:08AM (#22575005)
Any actual evidence at all would suffice. The word of America's criminal intelligence agencies does not.
Re:Chelsea Manning ordered to be released [pdf] by nl on Sunday March 15, 2020 @02:33AM (#22581783)
I'll take that on good faith then. This is a reasonable that lays it out nicely: https://www.emptywheel.net/2016/12/10/evidence-prove-russian...