Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Government Politics

Putin Now Argues Russia Could've Been Framed For Election Meddling By The CIA (nbcnews.com) 455

In a news magazine show premiering tonight, Megyn Kelly reports that Russian president Vladimir Putin "has denied Russian involvement in the hacking and interference with our U.S. presidential eletion for some time. That changed earlier this week, and the story appears to be evolving yet again." An anonymous reader shared two articles from NBC: "Hackers can be anywhere. They can be in Russia, in Asia...even in America, Latin America," he said. "They can even be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very skillfully and professionally shifted the blame, as we say, onto Russia. Can you imagine something like that? In the midst of a political battle...?" The journalist asked the Russian president about what American intelligence agencies say is evidence that he became personally involved in a covert campaign to harm Hillary Clinton and benefit Donald Trump. "IP addresses can be invented -- a child can do that! Your underage daughter could do that. That is not proof," Putin replied...

Kelly told viewers that Putin -- the former director of Russia's domestic spy agency -- also suggested that the CIA could have been behind the hacking and noted that many people were convinced Russia was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy... Earlier, at a Friday forum moderated by Kelly, Putin likened the U.S. blaming his country for hacking the presidential election to "blaming the Jews"...

"Echoing remarks President Donald Trump made on the campaign trail, Putin also questioned the need for NATO."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Putin Now Argues Russia Could've Been Framed For Election Meddling By The CIA

Comments Filter:
  • Sure thing, Vlad!! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by haruchai ( 17472 ) on Sunday June 04, 2017 @06:33PM (#54548151)

    The CIA also faked all those meetings & communications between Russians & Flynn, Manafort, Kushner too

    • The CIA also faked all those meetings & communications between Russians & Flynn, Manafort, Kushner too

      Well, the CIA have faked evidence of weapons of mass destruction before to justify a war. The only reason the above is not believable is that it's not in the interest of those in power in the US for the CIA to fake evidence of such meetings, not because the CIA wouldn't do such a thing.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Wizardess ( 888790 )

      Please explain to me in simple terms what is illegal about this alleged activity? Regardless of whether we can prove it or not there is nothing that makes this activity illegal at the "treason" level so many people are screaming about.

      And if it is illegal, perhaps Barack H. Obama should be tried for messing with Israeli election politics and Thai politics among others. If WE do it to others, what right do we have to complain when others do it to us?

      This "thing" is a huge nothing-burger.

      {o.o}

      • There is no crime. Not even an allegation of a crime. Just innuendo created by nebulous contacts illegally leaked by anonymous sources.

  • by NoNonAlphaCharsHere ( 2201864 ) on Sunday June 04, 2017 @06:35PM (#54548159)
    "The defense calls Vladimir Putin..."
    • I don't know why it's considered news when a politician, accused criminal, participant in a scandal, etc., says something that's utterly predictable without regard to the facts.

    • by ghoul ( 157158 )

      Sounds more credible than the defense calling Hillary. Lock her up . Lock her up.

  • by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Sunday June 04, 2017 @06:44PM (#54548181) Journal

    "But you see, Evolution can't be right because. . ."

    "No, you're wrong. We've gone over this dozens of times before."

    "Well then, there's this which means. . ."

    "No, it doesn't. You're wrong again. I just explained why you're wrong."

    "But that doesn't include this which. . ."

    "Yes, it does. You're wrong. Get over it. You're plain, flat out wrong. Nothing you say makes sense. All of it's been shown to be false."

    "Nuh uh. I still have. . . . my imagination."

    • Or on Climate Change. Or on really anything else that doesn't fit with their preferred outcome - they'll ignore the facts and focus on any reed no matter how thin to cling to. If you manage to knock that away, they'll shift to something else. They can't possibly admit they just might be wrong. It's a dogmatic, as opposed to scientific, approach. "The earth is flat and the sun revolves around it because clearly it does, and that's what I've always believed, so I always will."
      • by sl3xd ( 111641 )

        Let's not forget the oldies but goodies:

        * Tobacco is a healthy activity everybody can enjoy
        * Tobacco is not addictive at all, how dare you suggest it is?
        * OK, maybe Tobacco is addictive, but it's not harmful
        * OK, maybe Tobacco is harmful, but it's not hurting others
        * So we were caught adding additional nicotine to make it as addictive as possible -- how does that make us the bad guys? We haven't done anything wrong

        * tetraethyl lead (leaded gasoline) is not harmful, and it makes our cars run great
        * Maybe the

      • "But but.. humans can't possibly affect the environment! It would be so arrogant to think man could do that!" (Tosses on 30 spf sunscreen to counter the hole in the ozone layer caused by manmade cfcs)

    • by bongey ( 974911 )

      Point to some hard evidence that Russian hacked anything. The only evidence links back to a Russian VPN service IP address, which means anyone could have been hacker.

  • by Minupla ( 62455 ) <minupla&gmail,com> on Sunday June 04, 2017 @06:52PM (#54548245) Homepage Journal

    I'm going to assume he's talking about spoofing, or the technique of inserting a packet stream into the internet and making it appear like it's come from somewhere else.

    This is in fact easily done if what you're attempting to do is DDOS a system. Doing it in such a way as to hack a system is NOT childsplay.

    Here's one problem. You're typically (in the childs play scenario. State actor level games are NOT child's play) transmitting in the blind. TCP requires a three-way handshake. Assuming no one involved in the internet today is dumb enough to allow source routing packets, and that everyone is using decent random number generators for their sequence numbers, you can't see the SYN/ACK response from the host (since that'll have gone to the IP you're impersonating)

    Add in ANY type of cryptography and you're totally hosed, as even the oldest version of SSL required you to exchange secrets, and since you're transmitting in the blind you won't see the response secret and it's game over.

    There was a time when it was possible, because TCP sequence numbers were guessable due to poor randomness in a number of TCP stacks. You could make an intelligence guess as to what the next sequence number would be and send some bracketing packets in the hopes of getting lucky (more likely on a slow system then on a busy one).

    And if you take your waybackmachine to the 90s, you'd find that source routing packets were honoured. It's been awhile since I ran into a version of anything that had that turned on by default.

    So unless you can get into the ISP that the victim machine is connected to, not happening for any real world situation. And pawning an ISP is decidedly not childs-play.

    So I give this claim 4-CRC errors out of 5.

    Min

    • by king neckbeard ( 1801738 ) on Sunday June 04, 2017 @07:16PM (#54548371)
      Given the low evidentiary standards used for blame attribution in these kinds of things, all that was needed to flag Russia is using a Russian based TOR exit node. IIRC, a large number of IPs associated with "Russian hackers" were just TOR exit nodes. The other evidence is activity times and Cyrillic characters and usernames. All stuff accessible to a moderately competent 4channer.
      • Not all attribution is equal, just like not all evidence is equal. A lot of evidence cited in attribution is definitely circumstantial. Reuse of malware is just one example I've seen cited. But that's not all there is - there's also a number of other things to look at, such as means and motive.

        That said, it's one thing to spoof your IP. It's another to try and convincingly plant enough evidence that someone else did a complex attack, especially after that code has been picked over by experts. That's not t
        • But I've seen no evidence of a complex attack. We've only seen super-obvious phishing, and nothing that couldn't be covered by using Russian malware over TOR.
          • by Sarten-X ( 1102295 ) on Monday June 05, 2017 @12:11AM (#54549389) Homepage

            You're not looking in (or being shown) the right places. As one example, I'll explain the Podesta "hack". Everything I say here comes from a particular thread on Twitter [twitter.com], which does a far better analysis than I will attempt here, or sources linked therein.

            Yes, it was phishing. I wouldn't call the phish email "super-obvious", as it matches Google's style pretty much exactly. The key detail is that the phish link went to a bit.ly site, notably created via the bit.ly API, which requires creating an account. From information leaked from that account by researchers at the time, the same phishing campaign went to about 1800 people, individually targeted but using a common framework.

            It's primarily from that mass of targets that we can determine motive [secureworks.com], and from that we can attribute who had that motive. Almost two thirds of the targets were either military personnel or authors. Of the authors, about half were experts on Russia or the Ukraine. Of the military and government personnel, two thirds were U.S.-based, 14% were linked to NATO, and a few key Syrian rebel personnel were targeted as well.

            Basically, the campaign that hit Podesta also targeted a lot of other folks, and the common thread is that Russia would want intelligence on them. There was no malware involved to be dissected, and no attempt to hide the origin of the campaign. In fact, the only way the analysis was possible was because the attackers had not set their bit.ly account private before they were discovered (though they did later). If the account were private, tracing a single victim's attack would have led only to a probably-hijacked server with a .tk domain.

            (end citing the Twitter thread)

            Similarly, other attacks can be attributed by the infrastructure they use. Some recent attacks on election committees, for example, used C&C servers that had previously been used in other attacks against Turkish and Ukranian governments, strongly indicating that the perpetrators of all the attacks were adversarial to Turkey and Ukraine.

            In other attacks where malware and persistence are involved (like the DNC hack), expert analysis usually relies on identifying precisely which APT group is responsible for the attack. Each APT typically operates independently, using their own in-house-developed tools and preferred techniques. That's perfectly reasonable, because when the goal is stealth, an attacker will use the techniques they're most comfortable with to avoid costly mistakes. Once they are identified, though, that becomes a weakness, as the same pattern can be identified in other victim systems.

            It is easy to spoof identifiers. Names, strings, and addresses can all be manipulated. What is more difficult to fake are behavior patterns. When a server starts seeing access requests for files starting every day at 2AM and ending at 10AM, it's a decent indicator that somebody with a seven-hour time zone difference is poking at your systems. Yes, that can be manipulated by having the attack teams work at odd hours, but it's just another bit of data. Then there's the localization of tools, exempted targets, and even the order in which tools are deployed.

            Remember: These aren't amateurs. The attackers involved are professionals, clocking in and doing a job. There are the good ones, there are the sloppy ones, and there are the managers who make stupid decisions they have to deal with, just like in any other government office. They have their routines they follow to make it through the day, and it's through analysis of those routines that analysts learn about the attackers.

    • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Sunday June 04, 2017 @08:57PM (#54548777) Journal

      So I give this claim 4-CRC errors out of 5.

      My friend, you better start checking your food for polonium.

    • by bongey ( 974911 )

      VPN idiot, and those were exactly the "russian ip" addresses were coming from.

  • The real point (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kelanos ( 4973983 ) on Sunday June 04, 2017 @06:53PM (#54548247)

    Our government has absolutely no transparency and our interests are not represented. Our country is essentially occupied by globalists.

    Everything else is a distraction, and odds are you fall for it at least once in a while as we all do.

    Engaging in the 'left vs. right' war is profoundly unhealthy. No responsible person acts this way.
    The real war is 'rational vs. irrational'. We're all being made to pay for the ignorance of philosophy in education.

    Instead of unifying with people we have most in common with we are fighting each other on behalf of our 'political leaders' that we have very little in common with and are indeed cruelly exploited by.

    The globalist occupation (and every evil thing that goes with it)might seem like too hard of a problem to take on, but it's the condition under which you live. Deal with it or deal with natural selection.

    You can't elect some one to live your life for you.
    Picking a side is not a valid choice.

    • "Let's all be Rational!" just doesn't have much of a ring to it. Elections are decided by the emotional. e.g. voters who can be swayed one way or another. If you push for rationality you'll just lose when the other side uses clear slogans and emotions to get votes. This is one of those "How the sausage is made" aspects of politics.

      Globalism isn't necessarily the problem. The problem is abandoning the poor and working class. Everytime anyone's done that a populist like Trump has ridden a wave of fear and
      • Problem is that BOTH sides have their own nutjobs causing a choice between the lesser of the two evils. I would actually prefer a candidate who is at least not on the evil side.

    • Re:The real point (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Sunday June 04, 2017 @08:14PM (#54548593)

      Our government has absolutely no transparency and our interests are not represented.

      Agreed. However, what you lack is the why. The reason why this has happened is because...

      • * the reductionist election scheme of first-past-the-post [wikipedia.org] has ensured one two parties can survive. After many iterations of tactical voting [wikipedia.org] we have ended up with only truly horrible candidates.
      • * hyperpartisanship has proliferated partly as a result of the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. [wikipedia.org]
      • * the extreme influx of money in politics and the extremely poor state of campaign financing.
      • * data driven gerrymandering has resulted in a least representative set of officials in a democracy.

      Our country is essentially occupied by globalists.

      Seems like "globalists" is the replacement boogeyman for "communists".

      The real war is 'rational vs. irrational'.

      I agree. It's irrational to allow politicians to choose their voters instead of voters choosing their politicians. It's irrational to think one particular ideology is to blame. It's irrational to believe the situation will improve without reforming the system to ensure the fairness of elections.

      We're all being made to pay for the ignorance of philosophy in education.

      It's not a lack of philosophy that is the problem, it's a lack of basic economics that are based on reality rather than an ideology.

      The globalist occupation (and every evil thing that goes with it)might seem like too hard of a problem to take on, but it's the condition under which you live. Deal with it or deal with natural selection.

      Replace "globalist" with "communist" and you're a dead ringer for a mccarthyist.

    • Word salad. Though, this kind of makes me want to print up a T-shirt that says "Proud Globalist" and wear it around town.
    • Our government has absolutely no transparency and our interests are not represented. Our country is essentially occupied by globalists.

      You could always apply for an H1-B visa. But you better hurry.

  • I don't give a shit. (Score:4, Informative)

    by BarbaraHudson ( 3785311 ) <barbarahudson@@@gmail...com> on Sunday June 04, 2017 @07:07PM (#54548311) Journal
    Both the US and Russia (and the former Soviet Union) as well as the UK have a LOOONG history of interfering in the internal politics of other countries by covert and illegal means. You reap what you sow - and that applies equally to everyone.
  • by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Sunday June 04, 2017 @07:19PM (#54548381)

    1) Did the Russians meddle in the election?
    2) If #1 is true, did the Trump campaign collude with the Russians in their election meddling?

    I'm no fan of the guy currently occupying the White House, but given Clinton's statements (while she was Secretary of State) regarding the 2012 Russian election... it's certainly plausible that the Great Bear Wrestler could have directed his hackers to target Clinton without colluding with anyone on the US side of things.

    Part of what muddies the waters here is that Trump's narcissistic ego won't allow him to accept that he won the election despite losing the popular vote. In his fantasies he won by a landslide and received a huge mandate from the American populace. So he won't listen to his intelligence agencies who are certain the Russians meddled; he talks about massive voter fraud without the presence of any corraborating evidence whatsoever, and so on. This sort of behavior creates the appearance of guilt in many people's eyes, whether the guilt exists in reality or not.

    It's certainly possible that his campaign is guilty of collusion with the Russians... but the mere existence of Russian meddling does not conflate to that.

    • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Sunday June 04, 2017 @07:43PM (#54548479) Journal

      It's probable the Russians would have tried to muck things up without any collusion. Certainly they were doing the same thing in recent European elections, and so far as I know, there's no real evidence in those elections that the Kremlin Approved Party was in any kind of contact. The problem with the Trump campaign is that there are some serious smoking guns here, and whether or not Trump himself has been implicated, he seems to have gone out of his way to surround himself with some people with some pretty troubling ties to the Russians.

    • by bongey ( 974911 )

      Clinton would have still LOST even without any of Podesta emails, which the MSM buried. Clinton still had the FBI and pediophile Anothony Weiner issue. Trying to make it ALL the hackers fault is just the DNC trying cover there asses.

  • by Dracos ( 107777 ) on Sunday June 04, 2017 @07:36PM (#54548449)

    Why would the CIA (or any of the alphabet agencies) move to put Trump in the White House? That's ludicrous.

    If any sufficiently large group of independent US hackers wanted to get any of the 2016 candidates elected, they probably would have aided Bernie or McMullin.

    • Who says that they wanted Trump in office? Maybe they wanted a weakened Clinton (who pissed off a lot of the intel community), and underestimated how bad of a campaign she was running.
    • by bongey ( 974911 ) on Sunday June 04, 2017 @09:26PM (#54548905)

      Hillary Clinton got off for mishandling classified information , which anyone working at the NSA/CIA would have gone to jail for much less than what HRC did. I can specifically someone in the NSA/CIA doing it just for this reason alone.

    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      The US mil, CIA, NSA, army, navy, intelligence groups are not like the expected clandestine services in most smaller nations.
      They have been set up by different parts of the US gov and have to get their funding and present their success in very different ways.
      Congress might have oversight and control total funding but operational issues are secret and the results might be long or short term and be very political.
      The US army might be tired of having to watch the CIA and MI6 back "moderates" around the worl
  • Each country is running its own propaganda, with most of its media following the government. In the end, I do not know how I can make an informed opinion on this story.
  • I wish some comic would make a cartoon of them lighting each others pants on fire.

  • by oh_my_080980980 ( 773867 ) on Monday June 05, 2017 @10:42AM (#54551307)
    http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2... [nybooks.com] "But the intelligence report does nothing to clarify the abnormalities of Trump’s campaign and election. Instead, it risks perpetuating the fallacy that Trump is some sort of a foreign agent rather than a home-grown demagogue, while doing further damage to our faith in the electoral system. It also suggests that the US intelligence agencies’ Russia expertise is weak and throws into question their ability to process and present information..."

Behind every great computer sits a skinny little geek.

Working...