Came across this https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...s-hacked-russia-aide-typo-investigation-finds Wouldn't it be obvious in the Gmail logs that someone was logging into their accounts other than the owners of the accounts ?
Probably would, but I don't know many users that actually check out their login history for possible intrusions.
I think the reason they got hack was just plain stupidity. One of the wikileaks emails I saw was an email they sent out saying the passwords need ed to be changed and there in the body of the email was new passwords. DUH
There are so many phishing attempts that, if people do not have their guard up, it's easy to fall prey: 84 Percent of U.S., U.K. Organizations Have Been Breached by Spear Phishing Attacks Holiday phishing scams New Amazon Phishing Campaign Targets Holiday Shoppers
I understand how easy it is to fall prey to that, but put new passwords in the emails after you know you 've been hacked.
Proper Analysis of the so called hack https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2017/01/election-hack-faq https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/russia-malware-ip-hack Looks like it wasn't Russia. Even if it was, we got to discover Lots of juicy real info about the DNC's etc dirty tricks etc.
Deniers: listen up! https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/16/world/europe/russia-ukraine-malware-hacking-witness.html
Do you think this might be fake? The NY Times always seemed pretty credible, same for Ars Technica which also published this story. I, on the other hand, should never be trusted, especially with money
From the NYT article: That sounds very much like the effort behind Stuxnet. It'd be hilarious if the US and Russia bought code from some of the same cybercriminals.
Then there is this. http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/rohrabacher-assange-russia-earth-shattering-political-impact
"...Roughly 20 years later, the California Republican still goes a little gooey over Russia’s strongman president. Rohrabacher, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia and emerging threats, has navigated a remarkable arc from self-professed “ ultimate cold warrior” to friend of the new, and increasingly grumpy, Russian bear. More than anyone in Congress, he has become a reliable defender of the Russian point of view... To the extent Russia has any friends other than Rohrabacher in Washington today, they are for the most part officially paid for—a slew of slick and ineffective PR people and lobbyists who have eagerly taken millions of dollars from Russia in recent years to help burnish its image..." http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/putins-washington-113894
It seems to me too many people are prepared to blindly believe anything as long as it is presented to them by the mainstream media. Doesn't anyone consider that the suspect is not much of a suspect if they don't have a credible motive for doing what they are accused of doing? I would also ask, when the said suspect does not appear to have a credible motive, why does no one seem to consider it likely that a player who did have a credible motive was responsible and smart enough to create an evidence trail that pointed to someone else? I mean really. That just seems like common sense to me. A lot more common sense than to believe those responsible did not create an evidence trail that pointed to someone else.
You are right; however, we the people have little to no means to verify much of anything. Caveat emptor.
Julian did say he wanted to have his own press section in the White House and that he was going to tell Trump personally who hacked the DNC and that is wasn't Russia.
I felt that was true all along. A super power knows how to cover their trail, and such an easy trail is merely something to make it appear it was Russia. My hunch anyway.
"Report of Ukraine ‘witness’ to DNC hack stirs confusion... ...Ukraine’s Cyberpolice said Saturday the unnamed individual had no established links to hacking and that it isn’t clear that the man is even a malware author. The Times’ story has since been revised to eliminate the reference to a DNC link. A Ukrainian lawmaker has been quoted as saying that the Times misidentified the hacker entirely..." http://wtop.com/europe/2017/08/report-of-ukraine-witness-to-dnc-hack-stirs-confusion/
Yes. Reading the posts that followed my original link to the article, much more savvy people were seeing this story was more of a "story" and not news. I think that's very commendable. Yes, it is sad when a trusted news source appears to be stooping to sensationalism at the expense of bona fide news for the sake of readership. But, the warning was there in hindsight when this story wasn't reading like news, more like a spy novel. Lesson learned.
