cyber security firm hired democratic national Committee announced Monday that the two groups linked to Russian intelligence infiltration of the Democrats responded to the network and steal confidential information related to rice in the elections.
Two
days later, a hacker claiming to be the work loner who said he was not affiliated with the Russians and called himself a “Guccifer 2.0,” leaked what appeared to be a 200-page document, which consists largely of surprising the opposition research by Donald Trump.
The leak to question who exactly was responsible for the hack on the Democratic headquarters.
If it was really the Russians, the DNC security firm’s computer networks, CrowdStrike, claimed that this figure was 2.0 Guccifer? (The name harkens back to real Romania lone wolf who hacked the Bush family for example, and is now in jail in Virginia.) It was the DNC’s cyber team misattributed breach of the wrong group? It was not detected by the various violations that were successfully stolen more confidential information?
Then, on Thursday, which is a flurry of articles tech media threw a curve ball: Many cyber security experts suggested that perhaps Guccifer 2.0 Contraindications claiming work independently, in an elaborate effort to believe CrowdStrike’s assertion that the Russians were behind in violation.
At the same time, to further increase the mist cyberwarfare, the presumed Republican nominee-registered Donald Trump raised the possibility Wednesday that Democrats had pretended to hack your own network trouble leaking negative stories to the press Trump. “Maybe they do not hacked; maybe they just want to get it out there,” Trump mused in an interview with Greta Van Susteren of Fox News. (This seems unlikely, because of the alleged oppo research Trump released so far was largely based on previously published articles voters could already find themselves on Google. The document featured in chapters such as “Trump is not the core” and “Trump is a liar.”)
In a high-pitched and warped media environment an election year, unraveling the tangle of finger-pointing may have serious political consequences.
If hackers indeed turn out to Russia, it is confirmed that a powerful foreign state seeks to influence, or at least a spy, domestic US politics.
If hackers turned out to be politically motivated domestic actors, American voters-not to mention the Clinton and Trump campaigns, one would expect more potentially unsavory acts to the surface before the election day. For example, in addition to claiming responsibility for the DNC hack, Guccifer 2.0 The hacker also bragged access to documents of the presumed Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s State Department computer and democratic donors’ financial information. If these allegations are true, and a huge emphasis on the “if” -it could be a game-changer, strange already in historic election year.
Alternatively if the hackers turn out to be a random ne’er-do-wells out of excitement, immediate impact on the US electoral politics may be limited, but raises disturbing questions about the safety of all the political communication.
As of now, the question of who exactly is behind the DNC hack, hack, and may be related to the political groups is a Republican, and both Hillary Clinton and Trump networks, is still a question mark.
What top US technology know for sure that at least two groups of hackers were willing to take a big risk and to make significant investments to use the DNC network. Who is behind the attacks is unclear, and, unfortunately, a satisfactory response is not likely to come any time soon.
“The name has been incredibly hard, I would not say impossible, but it is very difficult,” Nathaniel Gleicher, director of cyber strategy Illumio, told TIME. “Studies like this will not wrap up quickly, and often do not roll up at all, because it is very difficult to say where they came from.”
Amit Yoran, president of the company’s computer networks RSA was noncommittal about whether you ever have a smoking gun.
“I think the merit is one of those subjects that people want to hurry, because it makes it sexier reporting you want to make a meaningful story is not technology,” he told TIME. “Saying you know who was responsible makes for a very intriguing story. But it is also very difficult to do well in the cyber domain, especially in the refined a short time actor.”
Gleicher, who served as director of cyber policy of the National Security Council at the White House, adding that in this case, it may be particularly difficult because the culprits apparently hidden in the DNC system for a long time.
CrowdStrike, cyber-security firm hired by the DNC, reported that at least two groups of hackers who breached the DNC network system had been last summer.
“Because they were there for so long, it will be very difficult to relax everything, to follow back to reality,” Gleicher said.
Reg Harnish, CEO Graycastle Security, the New York-based data networks company, says he is uncertain Crowdstrike research and determination that the Russians are to blame-is the “end of the story.”
“I am personally involved in hundreds of these studies, and it does not end up in the same place, which began,” he told TIME. In this particular case, he said, is complicated by “all the politics going.”
“You have people politically correct or outright lying” Harnish added. “I believe that there is a lot of misinformation out there right now.”
Scott Borg, director of the US Cyber Consequences Unit echoed skepticism. “The best guess is that the second (and obviously less skilled) two intruders had no Russian intelligence service,” he told Politico on Thursday.
“We are also unsure of the first group,” he added.
CrowdStrike said in a blog post Monday that there were two separate infringements of the DNC network. One group of hackers, who called CrowdStrike Cozy Bear, had been online since summer 2015, and largely follow the DNC e-mail and chat communication.
Second, where a company called Fancy Bear, triggered alarm bells when it penetrated the network in late April, targeting opposition research files Trump, CrowdStrike said.
The statement sent to TIME, CrowdStrike defended the assessment that the DNC had been breached by hackers linked to the Russian intelligence service.
“CrowdStrike stands fully in the analysis and identification of findings of two separate Russian intelligence services are covered by opponents in the presence of the DNC network in May 2016,” the statement said. After that issued the Guccifer 2.0 arguments are moved to the DNC network and said it was to “examine the authenticity and origin of the documents.”
“Regardless, these allegations do nothing to reduce the involvement of the Russian government related to perception”, which CrowdStrike statement said.
DNC is not going to respond to several emails and voice messages TIME asks the organization had informed the Federal Bureau of Investigation or another federal law enforcement agency.
The FBI could not confirm or deny that it was investigating the infringement. A spokesman at CrowdStrike said she had not heard of the company cooperate with any federal investigation.
“It would surprise me if they did not get international law enforcement or intelligence agency involved in this case,” Yoran said. “It deals with potentially extremely sensitive information that could have a major impact on US policy.”
