Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Democrats Security Communications Government Networking Privacy Republicans The Internet News Politics Technology

FBI Investigating Possible Hack of Democratic Party Staffer Cell Phones (cnn.com) 107

In what may be part of the original Democratic National Committee hack, the FBI is currently investigating a possible hack involving the cell phones of a small number of Democratic Party staffers. CNN reports: The development comes on the same day Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson told lawmakers that 18 states have asked for help in warding off cyberattacks on their electronic voting systems. Law enforcement officials have reached out to the staffers individually about "imaging" their phones to search for evidence of hacking, such as malware. Investigators are still probing whether this attempted hack is part of the original breach of Democratic National Committee emails -- which is widely thought to be the work of the Russian government -- or a new hacking attempt. "Our struggle with the Russian hackers that we announced in June is ongoing -- as we knew it would be -- and we are choosing not to provide general updates unless personal data or other sensitive information has been accessed or stolen," interim DNC Chairwoman Donna Brazile told CNN. Cybersecurity was a major theme at the debate last night between Republican nominee Donald Trump and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. While Clinton blamed the Russians for the "election-related cyberintrusions," Trump said "It could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It could also be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds." We will update this story as it develops.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FBI Investigating Possible Hack of Democratic Party Staffer Cell Phones

Comments Filter:
  • by skids ( 119237 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2016 @09:24PM (#52973439) Homepage

    Online users brush aside weightist comment, just happy to be noticed.

    Sorry. Couldn't resist.

    • Online users brush aside weightist comment

      Not me [medium.com]. What a douche.

  • a couple of our own U.S. intelligence services are angry about certain issues, it is them not "Russian Hackers" bothering Obama admin and Hillary campaign.

    The Russians, pffffffttt.

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      You don't think the Russians wouldn't like a disruptive candidate like Trump winning the election. They're playing similar games elsewhere, like assuring an old style Trot like Jeremy Corbyn stays in charge of Labour in the UK, and feeding all sorts of anti-EU fires throughout the rest of Europe. Russia knows that it has absolutely no hope of every beating a unified West, so it's going to do its best to screw with that unity.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by alvinrod ( 889928 )
        Makes a certain amount of sense that they would favor Trump, if only because he's far more likely to get into bed with them than Clinton, but they could be going after the Democrats out of spite for opposing them in Ukraine/Syria. You have to wonder how much they have, because as much as been leaked so far, it hasn't amounted to anything, so either they've used up everything and are trying to find more or they're just waiting for the right moment before dropping it all so that there's no possible way for th
        • Early voting has already started in some places, if you want to swing a vote it helps to act before the voting is done.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          if only because he's far more likely to get into bed with them than Clinton

          You apparently missed the four years she was secretary of state. One of the most embarrassing turns at the state department, and one of those moments involved trying to "reset" relations with Putin.

          It's clear she is in no way ready for this job - proven by her past performance.

          • by gtall ( 79522 )

            I doubt the reset was Clinton's idea. She's shown very little initiative and vision in the campaign. I recall Obama running the first time on "resets" as the anti-Bush.

        • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

          by Tough Love ( 215404 )

          Russians know they can manipulation bankrupt Trump with oil money.

          • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

            Uh, they were already paying off Hillary when she was secretary of state. FYI: Trump isn't bankrupt, if you're believing that then you enjoy your kool-aid.

            • by gtall ( 79522 )

              Yes, but Trump is no 10 Billion $ man either. Look at his scams. He's strictly a penny-ante grifter. Anyone with 10 Billion doesn't start some of the silly scams Trump has been behind unless they are so blinded by greed that they seem like a good way to spend time.

          • Yes, because a country that is crumbling because of low oil prices [marketwatch.com] can affect the financial holdings of a real estate mogul. There's so much interplay between oil in Russia and property in New York City!
      • No, wrong question (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 27, 2016 @11:54PM (#52974065)

        Sure, the Russian Government looks out for it's own interests in terms of attempting to sway foreign Governments. So does the USA, just look at the Middle East, Africa, and a good amount of Eastern Europe. Look how much money the US allowed to flow to Serbia, Georgia, the Ukraine. If you believe that Trump is somehow worse for the US than Hillary, or more beneficial to any Foreign power you either don't know Trump's platform (and the reason for his success) or don't care to figure it out.

        One could say that Trump is too concerned with US interests, but that's not what people claim. US Allies have concerns about how he would renegotiate our current treaties because he comes off as too hard line for US interests. One could also argue that cutting taxes as much as he plans would have an adverse effect. Again, the arguments all go way the hell out in the weeds to "he loves Russia", and quite frankly that is a losing argument.

        They both do business with Russia, and Hillary did hers while serving as Secretary of State. It's pretty obvious that pay for play landed a Russian company exclusive access to about 75% of the Uranium mines in the North America. The Clinton's don't care who's money they take, as long as they believe they gain enough political power in the bargain. If you believe Hillary's claim that she left the office broke, the Clinton duo has banked 111 Million dollars personally, and almost $2,000,000,000.00 for the foundation while she worked as a Public servant and he collected his Presidential retirement. If you believe you rake in 132million a year for giving speeches, I have a bridge for sale.

        The one thing I noticed and heard Dennis Prager talk about today was Hillary's plan to force companies to share profits with employees (in addition to a huge hike in Federal minimum wage, extended required paid time off). The level of authoritarianism being published is frightening, and mimics what countries like Russia do today. Companies already off-shore or simply move jobs to avoid excessive taxes, and you think anyone will invest when they receive negative revenue for investing?

        Neither candidate is good, but the lies about Trump are helping him more than hurting him. The days of not being able to find information don't currently exist, which is why you can bet your ass that the First amendment will be under assault from day one of a Hillary Presidency. You think Obama is good at ignoring FOIA requests, imagine how she will be.

        Posting anonymously since the Hillary shills will hammer any negative post.

        • by gtall ( 79522 )

          Yes, but Trump has the attention span of gnat. He thinks stiffing contractors is good business. He thinks NATO is a protection racket. He's shown no ability to learn anything new and doesn't appear to know very much as he stands now. He's easily rattled, he cannot keep his ego under control, and he's somehow hoodwinked the Christian Right into thinking of him as a Baby Christian. After he decides to default on U.S. debt obligations, the U.S. can forget about having an economy any better than a banana republ

      • You think the Russians/Chinese/any number of nations would be attacking ALL the campaigns devices?

        Really?

        The reality is that everything sending or receiving data via the Internet is under attack, constantly, and many of the attackers are either employed, supported, or financed by state actors. Not that it matters, for if they spot an unaffiliated attacker succeeding, they will attack THEM. Why steal from the bank if you can just roll the robbers as they 'escape' with the goods? Actually a good strategy to q

    • Problem is, it could be just about anyone. From what has been disclosed, and the "candidate's" personal history, the entire setup is farcically leaky. Trump is again correct about that one.

    • Pootsky doesn't like Hil'ry because she publicly questioned the legitimacy of his election.

      • Pootsky doesn't like Hil'ry because she publicly questioned the legitimacy of his election.

        And the Democrats are more worried about the legitimacy of Trump's erection!

        They write themselves, folks!

        Strat

      • by gtall ( 79522 )

        No, it is because she thinks of Putin as a sawed-off runt who has all the humanity of Stalin.

  • That needs to be implemented fast https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] .

    • by Anonymous Coward
      Wouldn't Honesty be a better solution? Oh I know, what am I a citizen or something?
  • by Anonymous Coward

    is imaging the phones...

  • by Tough Love ( 215404 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2016 @10:35PM (#52973745)

    Let's start with the important question: Android or Ios?

  • "Our struggle with the Russian hackers that we announced in June is ongoing -- as we knew it would be -- and we are choosing not to provide general updates unless personal data or other sensitive information has been accessed or stolen," interim DNC Chairwoman Donna Brazile told CNN.

    If you find it to be a "struggle" to keep your phones or your computers safe from "Russian hackers", then your party and its candidates are clearly not competent to hold higher office.

  • by Shane_Optima ( 4414539 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2016 @10:44PM (#52973771) Journal

    The development comes on the same day Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson told lawmakers that 18 states have asked for help in warding off cyberattacks on their electronic voting systems.

    This is one of those phrases that should result in people instantly being fired but, for some reason, never does.

    How long ago did the first Diebold issues come out? And this is still a thing?

    I'm almost terrified to ask but these "cyber" attacks they're worried... that wouldn't be a reference to internet based attacks, would it? Did some psychopath finally decide that that best way to fix electronic voting machines was to connect them to the internet in any setup that didn't involve an air gap?

    • by msauve ( 701917 )
      " should result in people instantly being fired but, for some reason, never does."

      Firing a government bureaucrat is even harder than firing a union member. Even if there's unequivocal, bona fide, just cause.
    • The real news here is that 32 *states* believe their IT is good enough to secure their infrastructure against cyberattacks by the best teams that the biggest nations of the world have been able to militarize. We're not talking about script kiddies here.

      Even if the attackers only have a 2% chance of breaching any of those elections, you're talking about a 50% chance of at least one state election being compromised. Any state not having a verifiable paper trail as a backup is insane.

      • Any state not having a verifiable paper trail as a backup is insane.

        Yes, and this is a pretty big indictment of the laziness (...or cynical job protection) of IT experts. They've had 16 years to explain to people that the best way to secure and streamline the infrastructure is also the cheapest: optical scanners backed by random double-checking with hand counts, with a few statisticians on hand to flag any suspicious-looking results that should be audited. Black box systems that don't involve a paper trail are more expensive, incur additional expenses in auditing and harden

        • ... of which there is no shortage visiting slashdot, seem to have already established and agreed that the best way to secure an election is to NOT USE COMPUTERS !!!
          How much MORE money do you want to spend to only guarantee that your system is still hackable?
          Why can't we just go with paper and count them by hand like every other ficking civilised country in the world?

          You want to point the blame at the laziness of IT experts. We are the experts, we told you that it can't be done, and you stick your fingers in

    • The development comes on the same day Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson told lawmakers that 18 states have asked for help in warding off cyberattacks on their electronic voting systems.

      This is one of those phrases that should result in people instantly being fired but, for some reason, never does.

      How long ago did the first Diebold issues come out? And this is still a thing?

      I'm almost terrified to ask but these "cyber" attacks they're worried... that wouldn't be a reference to internet based attacks, would it? Did some psychopath finally decide that that best way to fix electronic voting machines was to connect them to the internet in any setup that didn't involve an air gap?

      Here's what I'd do if I were Russia and I wanted to screw with the election.

      Hack the voting machines and state websites for tabulating and reporting results, and have them all go Trump by a few points.

      Of course people will realize something is screwy from the exit polls and the voting patterns. They'll audit, figure out what's going on, and the real results will get out, it might take a few hours or a few days but it will get settled and they'll figure out Hillary won.

      But do you really expect Trump to just

  • why we have Homeland Security? It's supposed to let the FBI ask the NSA dudes "um, hey. know how to hack these cellphones, or find out if they've been hacked, or even better, know how to make it harder to hack em?"

    Cuz we all know the NSA can hack your cell phone 9 ways to friday.
  • Hmm... (Score:1, Troll)

    by EmeraldBot ( 3513925 )
    No one thinks it's suspicious that the DNC is the target of frequent and recurring attacks, while the Republicans haven't been touched once, and that Trump refuses to blame Russia for anything? No one thinks it's suspicious that several of his advisers have strong ties to Russia? No one thinks it's suspicious he's directly paid by Russia? Good god people, skepticism is helpful in the right amounts, but to pretend this isn't Putin's way of helping his financially submissive bitch into office is naive beyond
    • Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by nomadic ( 141991 ) <nomadicworld&gmail,com> on Wednesday September 28, 2016 @12:13AM (#52974175) Homepage
      The hilarious thing is Trump supporters will believe the stupidest, most easily disproven conspiracy theories about Clinton, but insist that the well-supported fact that Russian hackers are messing with the election is a crazy conspiracy.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Epistemology is the problem. Once you start talking about state-level actors tying to influence elections, you don't really know what you know any more.

      Are there really Russian hackers, or are they just a conveneient bogeyman for the DNC to blame? If they're Russian hackers, are they leaving evidence on purpose or on accident? Are they trying to help Trump or are they trying to give cover to Clinton?

      If they prefer Trump, is it because they believe he'll be a pushover, or do they believe that Clinton will fo

    • by Anonymous Coward

      No one thinks it's suspicious that the DNC is the target of frequent and recurring attacks, while the Republicans haven't been touched once, and that Trump refuses to blame Russia for anything? No one thinks it's suspicious that several of his advisers have strong ties to Russia? No one thinks it's suspicious he's directly paid by Russia? Good god people, skepticism is helpful in the right amounts, but to pretend this isn't Putin's way of helping his financially submissive bitch into office is naive beyond belief.

      Two theories:

      First, the RNC isn't as dumb and spent a little more time, effort, and money on security. Easy peasy, no hack.

      Second, the RNC didn't fuck over candidates in the primaries with corruption, and therefore the theoretical inside guy had no reason to fuck them back, or they DID get in and it's just boring, not worth releasing. What the DNC did to Bernie Sanders was WRONG, it was ILLEGAL... and someone grabbed a bunch of data and released it. No need for hackers of any kind. Just someone with a

    • Of course, if the DNC weren't doing all these shady things that get revealed through email and phone hacks, then there wouldn't be much to be embarrassed by.

  • Why can't someone hurry up and hack Trumps phone for some entertainment?
    • Why can't someone hurry up and hack Trumps phone for some entertainment?

      Because nude selfies of Trump would make goatse look like My Little Ponies

  • Here is the evidence that it is the Russian government:

    The researchers at the aforementioned security firm are basing their conclusion on three signals: the hacker used Russian computers to edit PDF files, he also used Russian VPN -- and other internet infrastructure from the country, and that he was unable to speak Romanian.

    That's really thin evidence to support the assertion that it's the Russian government. Once you start accusing governments, any government could leave those kinds of clues, including the US governemnt. Non-governmental actors can forge that kind of thing, too.

    • Incidentally, this is a topic where both sides can argue with each other and both be right. If Trump says, "we don't know it was the Russian government, and Clinton says, "experts say it was the Russian government;" those aren't logically contradictory positions.
    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Its as easy as that, a set of "Bear" tools that are so well understood in the West, a time zone and ip range.
      With the same tools its easy to access any Western networks, stay totally undetected, enter any network, get amount of data over hours, days weeks, months and exit.
      On exit be sloppy and ignore all logs, methods, code fragments and get discovered? Lots of litter to find for private sector experts hours later.
      What nation would invest in one time access using a method thats in the media and already
  • Didn't Hillary have the wet works guys deal with the leaker already?

I find you lack of faith in the forth dithturbing. - Darse ("Darth") Vader

Working...