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.
Trump wins post debate polls among bed-sitters (Score:3)
Online users brush aside weightist comment, just happy to be noticed.
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
Re:Trump wins post debate polls among bed-sitters (Score:5, Funny)
Out here in the boondocks, we're wondering about beds that weigh 400 pounds. Waterbeds maybe?
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Oh yeah, no bias here at all.
https://i.sli.mg/gyqNxI.png
Re: (Score:2)
He deserved it.
Re: (Score:2)
The moderator also complained far more about Trump overrunning the alotted time.
Boohoohoo, he's got such an anti-Trump bias.
Tardy Trump can't help it if he needs a little more time.
Re: (Score:3)
Gee, I thought the moderator complained about Trump not addressing his questions.
Trump was attempting to follow his campaign's strategy of responding to any uncomfortable question by filibustering with a spew of soundbites. "The people don't want to hear about that, they want to hear about....". Kellyane Conway does it really well, with a big smile on her face. Other Trump surrogates are not as good, and apparently, Trump himself is the worst of the bunch. He would start a filibuster, but lapse into utt
Re: (Score:1)
Online users brush aside weightist comment
Not me [medium.com]. What a douche.
no "Russian Hackers", that's B.S. (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
It is rather interesting that the Republicans managed to nominate the one person Hillary could actually beat. It's almost like they are begging to stay out of the White House.
Re: (Score:2)
"It is rather interesting that the Republicans managed to nominate the one person Hillary could actually beat"
Let's clear this up how, ok?
The 'Republicans' did NOT nominate Trump. The primary voters were in some states Democrats/'independents', in other states nominal Republicans. The GOP did as much as it dared to to discredit Trump, and he won anyways. Why?
Because too many non-Democrats are no longer supporting the Republican Party, name it the GOP or the GOPe as you wish. They have their reasons
Trump is
Re: (Score:2)
Trump originally attracted a following last year because he was the only candidate that clearly supported enforcement of our southern border.
Re: no "Russian Hackers", that's B.S. (Score:2)
One of the coalitions.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Russians know they can manipulation bankrupt Trump with oil money.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Wells Fargo.
Re: (Score:2)
No, wrong question (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Pootsky doesn't like Hil'ry because she publicly questioned the legitimacy of his election.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is because she thinks of Putin as a sawed-off runt who has all the humanity of Stalin.
Solution for Democrats (Score:2)
That needs to be implemented fast https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] .
Re: (Score:1)
The ultimate hack... (Score:1)
is imaging the phones...
Re: (Score:2)
In other words: just like everyone else.
Re: (Score:3)
In other words: Not IT material.
The President of the United States is not an IT job. Despite your delusions of grandeur, your ability to configure an email server does not translate into competence at governing a nation and governing a nation does not require knowing how to configure a email server.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's start with the important question (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's start with the important question: Android or Ios?
Re: (Score:1)
your struggle (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Repeat after me, security is a process, not a product.
And yet, which products you choose to purchase is critically important. Some of them simply can't reasonably be secured.
Electronic Voting Systems (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Firing a government bureaucrat is even harder than firing a union member. Even if there's unequivocal, bona fide, just cause.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
IT experts, American and foreign alike, ... (Score:1)
... 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
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re:Certainly the work of heroic Russian hackers . (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not. He's doing it to stick it to the US. I'm sure Snowden moderates what he says about Russia, but he still criticizes them.
A warrant isn't "evidence." Snowden, whether you agree with him or not, seems to think he was doing the right thing for our country. The existence of a "moral imperative" is a subjective judgment.
Re: (Score:3)
(I couldn't resist - or is anybody here naÃve enough to believe that Mr. Snowden is not being, er, *asked* to help with their efforts in this regard?)
Why would he even be useful in that regard? He accomplished what he accomplished because at the time he had access. Now he doesn't. He's only useful to Russia as a PR symbol.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
No citations or evidence to support my viewpoint. Such a shame common sense isn't.
No, it is. You've just explained why nobody is taking you seriously. There's nothing to support your viewpoint. It's common sense to ignore it until such time as there is. He's useful tp Russia even if he does nothing but speak occasionally and rile us up, keep us arguing amongst ourselves. If he gets caught being involved in espionage then he loses all credibility, and it's easy to leak information in that fashion. It makes more sense to assume that they're just using him to nettle us.
Remind me again (Score:2)
Cuz we all know the NSA can hack your cell phone 9 ways to friday.
Hmm... (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Hack Trump (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Russian government (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Done deal (Score:1)