Comments
FBI, DHS Report Implicates Cozy Bear, Fancy Bear In Election-Related Hacks
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
MikeH762
50%
50%
MikeH762,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/13/2018 | 7:42:44 AM
Analysis

Nice post. 

MikeH762
50%
50%
MikeH762,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/13/2018 | 7:42:42 AM
Analysis

Nice post.

MikeH762
50%
50%
MikeH762,
User Rank: Apprentice
2/13/2018 | 7:42:34 AM
Analysis

Nice post. 

Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
1/4/2017 | 12:46:18 AM
Re: Not Election Hack
If I read JHWMP's comment correctly, I don't think JHWMP was saying that it wasn't a hack (the DNC was certainly hacked) -- but, rather, was taking the stance that it the hack is not properly characterized as an "election" hack.

Which, of course, is an entirely different debate.
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
1/4/2017 | 12:42:47 AM
Re: Not Election Hack
Worth noting that, regardless of what happened and what evidence exists and/or comes out in the future, a substantial portion of cybersecurity experts do -- and will likely continue -- to doubt the Obama Administration's narrative on this, especially because they/we can never know what remains classified on this issue.

Brian Krebs just wrote a long brain dump on this very point in his most recent blog post: krebsonsecurity.com/2017/01/the-download-on-the-dnc-hack/
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
1/3/2017 | 3:25:49 PM
Re: Not Election Hack
Without getting into the politics of this discussion, it's worth mentioning that Julian Assange has gone on record to note that neither the Russian government nor any other state actor was responsible for the DNC/HRC/Podesta email leaks that Wikileaks received and published.
nosmo_king
50%
50%
nosmo_king,
User Rank: Strategist
1/3/2017 | 2:21:41 PM
Re: Not Election Hack
"My point is that the definitive attribution to Russian actors is at best conjecture."

You assume you know all that is to be known on the topic and that is most likely incorrect.

If you do not have a Top Secret security clearance you will never get the whole picture of precisely what evidence is being held by the US intelligence agencies.

To protect collection methods and those conducting that collection, most evidence is never shared publicly and what is shared publicly is typically only a tiny fraction of what is actually there.

Having worked in that environment for years comfirming attribution in most cases is possible to neary 100% these days, whereas disclosure of how that attribution was obtained is less than 10%.

The upshot is that when Mr. Trump gets his Top Secret briefing on the issue sometime this week it will be interesting to see what words fall out of his mouth following that, as he will have seen the complete picture for the first time.
ClarenceR927
50%
50%
ClarenceR927,
User Rank: Strategist
1/3/2017 | 11:27:05 AM
Re: Not Election Hack
Instead of twisting the events through your very obvious political beliefs how about you look at the actual work actual security professionals with the skill and experience to investigate these matters actually did in an objective manner?  IF you could do that you would see both that the selective leaking of hacked data wsa done by a Russian resource and with the very obvious intent of disruption the US election.  You would also learn that ther was no insider doing the leaking. I am old enough to remember a time conservatives would have been a bit upset about that no matter who wsa running. in 2016 apparently it is OK if done to one party.
Shantaram
0%
100%
Shantaram,
User Rank: Ninja
1/2/2017 | 8:58:59 AM
Re: 192.168.l.l
Keep sharing such posts! Thank you
michaelfillin
100%
0%
michaelfillin,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/1/2017 | 4:43:21 PM
Re: FBI, DHS Report Implicates CozyBear - Vectors not discussed
Agreed
Page 1 / 2   >   >>


Want Your Daughter to Succeed in Cyber? Call Her John
John De Santis, CEO, HyTrust,  5/16/2018
New Mexico Man Sentenced on DDoS, Gun Charges
Dark Reading Staff 5/18/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
Flash Poll
[Strategic Security Report] Navigating the Threat Intelligence Maze
[Strategic Security Report] Navigating the Threat Intelligence Maze
Most enterprises are using threat intel services, but many are still figuring out how to use the data they're collecting. In this Dark Reading survey we give you a look at what they're doing today - and where they hope to go.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-11354
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, the IEEE 1905.1a dissector could crash. This was addressed in epan/dissectors/packet-ieee1905.c by making a certain correction to string handling.
CVE-2018-11355
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, the RTCP dissector could crash. This was addressed in epan/dissectors/packet-rtcp.c by avoiding a buffer overflow for packet status chunks.
CVE-2018-11356
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, 2.4.0 to 2.4.6, and 2.2.0 to 2.2.14, the DNS dissector could crash. This was addressed in epan/dissectors/packet-dns.c by avoiding a NULL pointer dereference for an empty name in an SRV record.
CVE-2018-11357
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, 2.4.0 to 2.4.6, and 2.2.0 to 2.2.14, the LTP dissector and other dissectors could consume excessive memory. This was addressed in epan/tvbuff.c by rejecting negative lengths.
CVE-2018-11358
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, 2.4.0 to 2.4.6, and 2.2.0 to 2.2.14, the Q.931 dissector could crash. This was addressed in epan/dissectors/packet-q931.c by avoiding a use-after-free after a malformed packet prevented certain cleanup.