Guccifer 2.0 - Game Over

Adam Carter, who has been commenting and digging into the Guccifer 2 story for some time now, has published what appears to be the definitive analysis of Guccifer 2. It's a comprehensive and detailed reports and enters into technical areas I have no knowledge of. The bottom line is his interim conclusion that Guccifer 2.0 is an executive at CrowdStrike who was working closely with Hilary's campaign and the DNC hierarchy.

http://g-2.space

For those who are unfamiliar with the author if this report, Adam Carter, they might care to visit his Twitter page and read his many past posts there. In particular, I found the following one illuminating:

https://twitter.com/with_integrity/status/1019855981986091008

I would add to the foregoing the report by VIPS and Bill Binney, a former senior officer of the NSA who has shown that the so called "hacked emails" were, in fact "leaked" by someone inside the DNC because the known download speeds are consistent with a portable storage device, and far too fast for an over the internet leak to occur.

Finally, below is another page from Carter's Twitter page:

https://twitter.com/with_integrity/status/903020675887239177

A blowup:

 

So, its democrats' incompetence that lead to the hacking of their emails on both secure and non-secure servers?

 

if you'd read the article you'd be better informed when making a post about it.

 

So a Russian troll tries to cast doubt on the Russian origin of Guccifer 2.0. I'm so shocked.

 

I would say that there is always a better hacker than one who should protect it. Sometimes the hacker has an easy job, sometimes harder ... sometimes security person or software is better, sometimes not.

 

It is exceedingly obvious that "Guccifer 2.0" is not a Russian intelligence agent.

 

Says another well-known Russian apologist.

 

Not to many members of this forum. Sadly.

People come to love the chains that imprison their minds and only they can break free of that impediment.

 

So would that make you a well-known DNC apologist?

 

I posted my thoughts on Guccifer 2.0 on another forum. I will repost them here:

According to the official theory, he hacked into the DNC's servers leaving Russian fingerprints all over the place. The malware and coding were Russian and the text modifications he made in certain files and programs were in Russian, too. Assuming you had any interest in concealing this hack from your adversaries, this would be an incredibly stupid and amateurish way to hack them. It would be very easy to write up fresh malware that was basically untraceable, but instead they used malware which was known to be associated with the Russian government.

Mmmmmmm.

And after this hack was revealed, did this Russian super-hacker disappear into the ether like any trained agent of the Russian government would after their operation was blown? Nope. He started a Twitter account and gave a bunch of interviews to western media outlets, hyping the hack at every opportunity.

Look at me everyone! I hacked the DNC! But I'm totally NOT a Russian! Oh! Hey Wikileaks, my good pals! We're totally in cahoots together - wink wink.

Yea, that totally sounds like an operation directed by the Russian intelligence services at the behest of Putin. It doesn't sound made up AT ALL.

 

Agreed!
But with certainty, some see it differently here ... and let me guess: These people love Trump!

 

Well, except for the fact that almost none of what you wrote is true.

#1, the Mueller indictment clearly shows that the GRU was behind the hack. The links are numerous and way more than just "Russian fingerprints left behind." We know the servers they used, the phishing emails involved, etc. All point to Russia.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/mueller-indictment-russian-hackers-699306/

So we know the hack was done by the GRU. Guccifer was the "distribution" side of the operation.

Since we know that the GRU did the hack, AND we know that the information released by Guccifer came from the hack, that should be enough for any reasonable person to conclude that Guccifer was a Russian. Unless you really want to argue that the GRU would hack a server, and then send the results to a random Romanian hacker.

However, we have more than that: Guccifer-specific evidence pointing to a Russian origin:
https://medium.com/@thegrugq/evidence-guccifer-2-0-is-russian-intel-55f9f8b3f135
https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/report-guccifer-20-unmasked-at-last-a-10737

-- Guccifer made a mistake at one point -- failing to log into a VPN that was obscuring his location -- and left behind an IP address that belongs to the GRU;
-- The Guccifer persona used Russian-controlled infrastructure. Indeed, it used much of the same infrastructure as known Russian hacking units.
-- Guccifer didn't appear until the day after it became known that the hack was discovered and had Russian fingerprints.

So we have two possibilities here:
1. The GRU hacked the DNC, and used the Guccifer account to distribute the results
2. Multiple Western intelligence agencies collaborated to construct an elaborate hoax wherein they posed as Russians to hack the DNC server and then release all sorts of damaging information. Putting aside the complete lack of evidence of such a thing, there's also the question of "Why would they do that?"

Personally, I think we should go with the hypothesis that not only has all the evidence behind it, but also makes sense. As opposed to the "it's a hoax!" claim that has zero evidence behind it, and doesn't make sense besides.

 

only if you close your eyes and ignore all the evidence

 

It shows nothing of the sort. It's just a bunch of allegations that cannot be verified. You choose to believe them because it promotes your partisan political agenda.

The first possibility expects us to believe that the Russian government cannot hack a server without leaving its digital fingerprints all over the place. That's laughable to anyone with a cursory understanding of cyber-security. There are teenagers living in their mother's basements who could pull off such a hack, let alone professional operatives working for the Russian government. The idea that a Russian intelligence operative would somehow forget to log into a VPN before conducting a high-level hack against the most powerful country in the world is utterly asinine. One would have to be a complete dunce to believe it, just as one would have to be a complete dunce to believe that Russian security services would attempt to assassinate a defector living in Britain by wiping an exotic, Russian-made nerve agent on his doorknob.

The far more likely explanation, and one you failed to consider, is that the data was leaked by an internal source and that a few key officials within the intelligence agencies simply covered it up and blamed it on the Russians. That does not require any grand or elaborate conspiracy to work. It simply requires a few people to lie.

 

There is no evidence. Just a bunch of allegations being made by government officials.

 

Let's unpack that.

The indictment comes with detailed evidence showing the Russian connections. I find it persuasive, in its technical detail and breadth.

You ... have nothing. You simply claim the evidence is made up.

So, on the one hand, we have detailed evidence. On the other hand, we have you disbelieving the evidence simply because you don't like it. Instead you postulate an alternative explanation for which there is no evidence, and indeed is pure conspiracy theory. And a theory that doesn't even make SENSE.

No, actually, it's the conclusion of EXPERTS in cybersecurity, both government and private.

It's not a question of pulling off the hack: as you say, the main part of the hack was a simple spearphising operation: getting DNC staffers to reveal their passwords.

But the technical stuff around that is complicated, and people aren't perfect.

We found the server that hosted the fake Google password screen. We traced ownership of that page to the GRU.

Once they gained access to the DNC server, they installed malware and edited/deleted logs. Doing that while covering your tracks is complicated, and it's relatively easy to make mistakes, even for professionals. Again, this is the conclusion of people who do cybersecurity for a living.

So this is the core of your argument: That the Russians don't make mistakes. That's it. That's all you've got.

Well except for the fact that there's no evidence of an internal leak, nor a motive for multiple Western intelligence agencies to see a hack and suddenly decide to blame the Russians for it. And notice I said "multiple Western intelligence agencies". It's not just a few people.

You have no evidence or motive, and now your scenario gets even more ridiculous: Someone leaked information from the DNC, no hack involved, and after the fact some Western intelligence agencies decided to hack the DNC server to plant evidence that the Russians did it.

At least try to come up with a theory that makes sense.

 

Was Guccifer supervised or handled by CIA or NSA?

 

So now it was the CIA/NSA who hacked the DNC emails??

 

For the umpteenth time, the DNC emails were not hacked sir. They were leaked by somebody on the inside. It's hard to carry on a real conversation with a poster with a fundamental misunderstanding of what happened.

 

Indeed. Please post the evidence that it was a leak, not a hack. Because the leak claim has been pretty thoroughly discredited.

 

I've read the indictment. It shows nothing of the sort. It's just a bunch of allegations that cannot be verified and which will never be tested in a court of law - how convenient for you and Mueller.

But if you feel differently, then go ahead and quote a small portion of the indictment which you believe constitutes actual evidence against the Russian government. Let's have our own trial right here and see how well your case stands up to serious scrutiny.

Actually, I claim that there is no evidence. It's just allegations made in an indictment that will never go to trial.

Even if that were true, that would put my theory on the same level as yours.

Except government experts never analyzed the DNC's servers, Crowdstrike did. And not only were they paid by the DNC to do so, which is a clear conflict of interest, but one of their co-founders is a Russia-hating zealot. Apparently, you expect people to take their word as gospel.

It's the conclusion of people who were paid by the DNC. In other words, not the least bit credible, and certainly not proof of anything.

You expect people to believe that a high-level Russian hack was revealed because one of their operatives forgot to log into a VPN. That's like saying Navy Seals forgot to bring bullets with them on the Bin Laden raid. I say again: Laughable.

(The Nation) A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack

James Clapper and few other government officials are not "western intelligence agencies".

That isn't what I said.

I said it was leaked and then covered up by the DNC-hired Crowdstrike and a few Trump-hating intelligence officials.

That is far more believable than the Russian government conducting an amateurish hacking operation where they clumsily leave their fingerprints all over the place.

 

I'll get to the rest of your post shortly, but let's address these two points:

First, you find the concept of a few intelligence officials abetting a coverup by the DNC to be more credible than "Russian hacker makes mistake." I find that silly.

Second, what exactly was being covered up?

Third, the Nation article has been rebutted in detail -- mostly by noting its premise about download speeds is faulty -- but I'll just point out your hypocrisy here: You don't believe Russian agents would make a mistake, but the analysis referenced in the Nation is based on presumed mistakes made by your alleged coverup -- namely, the failure to alter key metadata.

So for your theory to work, Russians have to be perfect while their American counterparts are bumbling idiots. Sure, that's believable.

 

Man, damage control sure is working overtime.

 

How ironic, since the whole "Russian interference/collusion" narrative was just damage control in response to the DNC's dirty laundry being aired out during a presidential campaign, a narrative that found continued use after Hillary unexpectedly lost to Trump.

Don't focus on the DNC's corruption and incompetence. Instead, look at this shiny Russian distraction!

 

The DNC's corruption does not change the fact of Russian interference.