John McAfee Thinks North Korea Hacked Dyn, and Iran Hacked the DNC (csoonline.com) 149
"The Dark Web is rife with speculation that North Korea is responsible for the Dyn hack" says John McAfee, according to a new article on CSO:
McAfee said they certainly have the capability and if it's true...then forensic analysis will point to either Russia, China, or some group within the U.S. [And] who hacked the Democratic National Committee? McAfee -- in an email exchange and follow up phone call -- said sources within the Dark Web suggest it was Iran, and he absolutely agrees. While Russian hackers get more media attention nowadays, Iranian hackers have had their share... "The Iranians view Trump as a destabilizing force within America," said McAfee. "They would like nothing more than to have Trump as President....
"If all evidence points to the Russians, then, with 100% certainty, it is not the Russians. Anyone who is capable of carrying out a hack of such sophistication is also capable, with far less effort than that involved in the hack, of hiding their tracks or making it appear that the hack came from some other quarter..."
Bruce Schneier writes that "we don't know anything much of anything" about yesterday's massive DDOS attacks. "If I had to guess, though, I don't think it's China. I think it's more likely related to the DDoS attacks against Brian Krebs than the probing attacks against the Internet infrastructure..." Earlier this month Krebs had warned that source code had been released for the massive DDOS attacks he endured in September, "virtually guaranteeing that the Internet will soon be flooded with attacks from many new botnets powered by insecure routers, IP cameras, digital video recorders and other easily hackable devices."
"If all evidence points to the Russians, then, with 100% certainty, it is not the Russians. Anyone who is capable of carrying out a hack of such sophistication is also capable, with far less effort than that involved in the hack, of hiding their tracks or making it appear that the hack came from some other quarter..."
Bruce Schneier writes that "we don't know anything much of anything" about yesterday's massive DDOS attacks. "If I had to guess, though, I don't think it's China. I think it's more likely related to the DDoS attacks against Brian Krebs than the probing attacks against the Internet infrastructure..." Earlier this month Krebs had warned that source code had been released for the massive DDOS attacks he endured in September, "virtually guaranteeing that the Internet will soon be flooded with attacks from many new botnets powered by insecure routers, IP cameras, digital video recorders and other easily hackable devices."
Alternative headline: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Alternative headline: (Score:2)
Re:Alternative headline: (Score:5, Insightful)
Please remind me . . . . why is anything this assclown says worth listening to?
Re: Alternative headline: (Score:5, Insightful)
Because we have a 24 hour news cycle and insufficient real news to fill it.
Re: (Score:2)
Check out the movie "Gringo" for more info on this wack job. He literally eats shit.
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah... "deserted in droves".
The high level of discipline of both Navies is the only reason you're alive right now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Their Ministry of Defence has issued and awarded medals in commemoration of the close overflight of USS Cook, and the "stupid Americans shit themselves and deserted in droves when they saw what our planes could do to their rustbuckets" is not even a meme anymore - it's an established fact.
This is also similar to one of the theories being put forward for why Russia would want to hack the DNC and release embarrassing emails. Not to influence the election, but as propaganda at home where Vladimir Putin can say to the Russian people "Look how corrupt those Americans are. Don't believe anything they say about me."
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure it can serve two purposes. Putin has greatly benefited by stocking the flames of discord in the West, whether that's Brexit or other issues between EU members, or throwing spanners in the US election. It allows him to punch well over his weight. But he certainly would more likely benefit from a Trump presidency than from a Clinton one, if for no other reason than it is likely there would be four years of chaos in Washington.
But yes, this definitely gives him some propaganda to spread at home as wel
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wild speculation from a crazy guy? Thanks Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3)
Wild speculation from a crazy guy? Thanks Slashdot.
Slashdot is becoming the People Magazine of tech.
I could do without all the stories about what tech billionaires, tech crackpots, and tech billionaire-crackpots think.
Re: (Score:2)
It almost makes me nostalgic for 3D printing, the kleptocurrency du jour, and frequent contributor Bennett Haselton.
Re: (Score:1)
or more like the Time magazine of tech.
any more fairy-tales about quantum computing, AI, cold fusion or virtual reality and it'll be more like the Time Cube of tech.
UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this
IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED, ESPECIALLY to COMPUTER
BULLETIN BOARDS.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
NSA Whistleblower: US Intelligence Worker Likely Behind DNC Leaks, Not Russia [zerohedge.com]
Instead of 17 agencies, only the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have offered the public any input on this matter, claiming the DNC attacks “are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts.”
Without offering any evidence, these two — not 17 — agencies hinted that the Kremlin could be behind the cyber attack. But saying they believe the hacks come from the Russians is far short of saying they know the Russians were behind them.
“[w]e have the information. If the F.B.I. asks, we are ready to supply the I.P. addresses, the logs, but nobody contacted us.”
“It’s like nobody wants to sort this out,”
Of course they don't want to sort this out. They want to blame the boogeyman and divert focus away from the actual crimes they committed, which were exposed by these hacks/leaks.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, they've been planning to blame Russia for almost a year now:
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/25651#efmABRADsAGxAIRAMIAN3AU-AZ2Aa5AelAe4AlZA2SA3bA6eA-xBIPBJy [wikileaks.org]
Remember: CNN authorization is required to view this.
https://popehat.com/2016/10/17/no-it-is-not-illegal-to-read-wikileaks/ [popehat.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> It was a pretty unprecedented move to declare Russia as being behind the hacks and wouldn't do so if they didn't have solid evidence.
Or their bosses told them to. Don't remember what they said about the yellowcake or how they stumped for the Iraq war? Or how they decided that negligence requires intent, despite that being a literal contradiction in terms? If there is intent, it *can't* be negligence, literally by definition.
Re: (Score:2)
What evidence. Russian IP[ address? Same signature and attack vector that has allegedly been used by Russian Intelligence in the past?
https://www.wired.com/2016/07/... [wired.com]
Does it really matter who did it? IMHO what matters is what was exposed. Blaming the Russian is only trying to shift the focus of the public away from the e-mails. And our great 4th estate is helping them.
Re: (Score:1)
He is either a fucking idiot, or a genious. Only time will tell.
Re: (Score:1)
Wild speculation from a crazy guy? Thanks Slashdot.
Would you rather wild speculation from a crazy woman, like we've been getting from one of the candidates? (I do find it hilarious that people frequently deride Trump as being "crazy" but he's the one who's lucid enough to recognize that we have no evidences, at all, for where the leaks came from.)
John McAfee is at least some form of computer security ... er ... well, expert I don't think is quite the right word, but at least he has a computer security background. So I have some faith that his speculation is
Check me on this... (Score:3)
But isn't McAfee that guy who bragged about hiring a hooker to do his taxes while he screwed his accountant?
Re: (Score:2)
All I know is I wouldn't want to be locked in a room with McAffee if he was high on bath salts and hungry.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you want to be locked in a room with Hilary or Donald under any circumstances?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, I'm not frightened of either of them. Donald Trump would likely remain what he is, an annoying and idiotic blowhard with the attention span of a first grader, so I'd probably just end up tuning him out. I'm sure I could have a lengthy lucid conversation with Clinton.
Re: (Score:2)
Then I'd tune her out too, except I don't actually buy this common caricature of her
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't read the email leaks, have you? Her own staff say she "needs an adult" and that she "doesn't know what planet she's on" sometimes, among other things.
The shouting bit is also in there--people were conspiring to figure out how to avoid having her shout at them.
Cui Bono? (Score:2, Insightful)
There's lots of senseless finger-pointing going around. Anonymous doesn't get anything by shutting down Netflix (Americans aren't going to pressure the State Dept. over it to restore Julian's internet). So, who benefits by shutting down Twitter while Wikileaks is rolling out anti-Clinton hits and the Twitterverse is trying to work out what the leaks mean? North Korea? Only if they're doing it for the lulz. Or promises of favorable treatment under a Clinton administration.
Re:Cui Bono? (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't know why Clinton would care. Wikileaks has become nothing more than a joke about someone who doesn't have anything on her trying to make people think he does. Every time Julian opens his mouth his credibility sinks further.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They demonstrate subterfuge, lying, but mainly a lot of strategizing. It's not terribly pleasant at points, but if you think the Trump campaign isn't at least trying to do the same thing, then you're either naive or willfully blind. The big difference is, of course, that Clinton is actually capable of staying on message and of creating and more importantly sticking to tactical plays, as opposed to being a blow hard who, in a goddamn speech announcing his plans for the first one hundred days of his presidenc
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They demonstrate subterfuge, lying
The emails we've all be pawing through for the last several weeks (not just Podesta's, obviously - Clinton's own, as released by the FBI and State in as absolutely slow a manner as they can muster, when those should have been FOIA-able records the day she left office) demonstrate that she was lying under oath before congress. The bulk of the emails, yes, simply show that she and her team lie regularly to their supporters and the voters, on almost every matter before them. But what matters is her fictions s
Re: (Score:1)
Next several weeks? Try the next several years, if the anointed one manages to ascend to her throne.
That stuff isn't going away, and the opposition once she is inaugurated won't all be just Trump supporters. There are a lot of people, both on the left and the right, who will make it stick.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I'm sure the Republicans will waste lots of time on conspiracy theories that produce nothing, egged on Breitbarts and Trump TV. And it won't amount to anything at all. This is just Birther Scandal Part 2.
It's a pity the Republicans didn't pick someone like Rubio, but they didn't, they picked Trump, a man so ridiculous that even many of those who can't stand Clinton cannot abide the thought of him winning.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should anyone be beholden to support a populist halfwit who says horrendously awful things, some of them so bad that he's actually putting the GOP in a position of losing the Senate, and, if things keep going as they are, even the House.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is different from any other politician in what particular way?
Politics is ugly. Sausage making seems surgically antiseptic.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people claim she lied to Congress, though how exactly Wikileaks demonstrates that is beyond me.
Re: (Score:3)
in general most of the American public outside of hardcore supports of Mr. Trump quite frankly don't give two shits about Hillary Clinton's emails. Really. Most people are just going..yeah yeah politics is dirty and shrug it off.
Which is exactly why we are now in the current situation where we have the two worst candidates in modern history. Lying to congress and destroying evidence are more than just dirty politics, it's serious crimes that would land anyone else in prison.
If the GOP had nominated ANYBODY else, Mrs. Clinton would be losing this election.
Tell that to John McCain and Mittens Romney.
Re: (Score:2)
Just keep making those claims, because they, like the claims that Clintons murder people, generally show the own state of your mind rather than how evil the Clintons are supposed to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cui Bono? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. All Wikileaks has done is confirm what most people know about major political campaigns, that lots of things are discussed, sometimes in brutal terms, and then are either dispensed with or implemented in some fashion. But really, anyone who has read any "insider" book about any major political campaign in the Western world in the last 200 years knows that this sort of thing goes on. Christ, Spielberg even made a movie about how Lincoln used some pretty questionable methods to get the 13th Amendment passed before the Confederacy surrendered.
I think some of those who think Wikileaks is a story probably are guilty of wishful thinking, but even if some of the emails have legs, they're backing a candidate who seems to need to be at the top of every news cycle, and rarely in a good way, thus giving the Wikileaks emails little or no oxygen to burn. I think others, around here anyways, are that subgroup of people, who whether due to Aspergers or similar neurological conditions, seem to want to see the world as being nothing but straight parallel lines, and whenever it deviates from that, they are emotionally incapable of tolerating it, and thus must immediately paint everything the darkest black.
But even more what appears to be a majority of voters, Hillary's real and perceived shortcomings simply don't seem to be adding up to putting Trump in the Oval Office. Frankly, I don't even think Trump wants it. He is either the stupidest person to ever get a major party nomination, or he is intentionally smashing the bus into the wall, almost as a test to see just how long his supporters can hang on. I'm sure they'll be tuning in next year to Trump TV to get 24 hours a day of conspiracy theories, insane rhetoric, absurd populism, and the daily injection of Alt-right outrage.
Re: (Score:3)
What do we want?
Parallel lines!
When do we want them?
Forever!
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have some evidence Kerry is trying to shut Assange up? If Kerry had that much sway over Ecuador, then Assange would be in the custody of the US, Britain or Sweden by now.
You see, this is the problem, you can't just get away with one layer of conspiracy, you just have to keep layering one conspiracy on top of the other.
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus Christ, "voter intimidation" now? Does the hyperbole ever end?
Face it, your candidate played the buffoon. More than likely he was playing you, but if you want to keep blaming the victor for the loser's real or self-contrived inadequacies, that is your problem. Voters have more than once in the history of democracy been faced with the choice between a flawed candidate and a dangerous one, and in most cases they will pick the flawed one. On the few occasions that a dangerous one has been chosen, it hasn
Re: (Score:2)
At worst Clinton represents much the same course in international affairs as has been going on for eight years. It's hardly dangerous, and Clinton would hardly be the first president to have a policy of containing Russia. In fact, that's been general US policy, save for about fifteen years after the collapse of the USSR, since the end of the Second World War.
But but but (Score:2)
NSA whistleblower says DNC hack was not done by Russia, but by U.S. intelligence [theduran.com]
That's what I saw on FB
Re: (Score:2)
Well its better for the NSA to publicly pretend to not have the emails so that when clinton is president they have something to extort her with.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wikileaks has now released FIFTEEN tranches of thousands of emails each and there's been absolutely nothing extortion-worthy in any of them.
Conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories. You'd think after 30 years, people would give up making up shit about Hillary Clinton. It just ends up making you look even more stupid. Assange, Wikileaks and the GOP have damaged
Re: (Score:2)
You're always here, and always with a reason we should just laugh off all this negative stuff.
Do they give you a bonus in addition to the stipend for working the phone banks?
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that the negative stuff isn't anything that wasn't already known or guessed, either about Clinton or about campaigns in general, and other "stuff" is little more than quote mines and imagination used to fuel claims of things in the email that don't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the part for laughing. The laughing comes when you remember that goofballs in the "alt-Right" actually nominated someone who is so awful that people are willing to overlook all "this negative stuff" about Hillary.
Re: (Score:2)
Now suddenly it's a "hack", which sounds much scarier. Yes, I get that in principle a leak can be an intentional act by a "good guy" on the inside while a hack could be 100% the work of some foreign "bad guys" but in reality,
Who fucking cares? (Score:1)
Stop posting all the crap this guy talks. It's like old rancid meme, no one wants to hear about it anymore.
North Korea? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a country with virtually no internet, comparatively few computers (per capita) and, as such, minimal infrastructure to nurture and support high-level programmers.
How then, would North Korea be responsible for major hacking when other countries with vast numbers of programmers could be responsible? China, India, Pakistan, Russia and any number of underground American anarchistic groups are vastly more equipped to do so.
Let's say, for a moment, that North Korea DID hack DYN. Where would they get the expertise? Well, who's their neighbour? China. Why does their neighbour tolerate North Korea rather that simply rolling over it? So they can use North Korea as a pawn/puppet to launch clandestine attacks.
I'm not suggesting China did it, I am just suggesting that it is highly unlikely that North Korea did it.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be so quick to dismiss NK as a possibility [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
What the average North Korean citizen is capable of and what the North Korean intelligence service is capable of are likely two very different things.
Re: (Score:2)
Time of day, ip ranges, code litter, emoji.
From UK and US, contractors, ex intelligence service people find language and emoji so quickly.
"How Russia Pulled Off the Biggest Election Hack in U.S. History" (OCT 20, 2016 ) http://www.esquire.com/news-po... [esquire.com]
Every aspect of the litter seems to have been left to point at Russia and be easy to find and be media for "open source intelligence" groups
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Iran has no reason to hack the DNC. The Democrats have given them all that they could have ever hoped for and more [wikipedia.org].
TFTFY.
He also said he was going to become President (Score:2)
http://www.recode.net/2015/9/2... [recode.net]
says John McAfee (Score:2)
Is this really coming from McAfee? (Score:2)
Maybe this insightful commentary really comes from McAfee's tax accountant - or from a prostitute in Bangkok... :-D
Isn't it time the tech community wrote him a Dear John letter?
Consider the timing (Score:2)
John McAfee & Donald Trump the prefect team (Score:2)
WTF? Not all attacks are covert (Score:2)
WTF Does he not even consider the possibility that the hacks aren't meant to be truly secret, merely deniable. It would hardly make a very effective threat/warning if the target didn't realize where the attack came from.
It wouldn't make much sense for Putin to say, "Nice democracy you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to it," if we believed the DNC hack came from the North Koreans.
Besides, we didn't want stuxnet attributed to us but that didn't able us to guarantee everyone believed so
They would like nothing more than to have Trump (Score:2)
This seems unlikely to me.
Considering Clinton supported and is a fan of the nuclear deal Obama made with Iran to lift sanctions, it would appear that she would be the favorite candidate for Iran self interest.
Considering that Trump has said publicly that he thinks that deal was horrible and that he could have done much better getting the US a better deal (presumably a worse deal for Iran), and the hard line he has taken with what he thinks of Iran and nukes etc... I seriously doubt Trump would be a better c
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, she's not the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being, she just happens to be the only sane one running for President.
Showmanship (Howard Stern, Lady Gaga) vs sociopath (Score:2, Insightful)
> she just happens to be the only sane one running for President.
Howard Stern, Donald Trump, and Lady Gaga have quite a flair for being outrageous,a natural showmanship. In other words, they are clowns. None are good choices for president, IMHO.
On the other hand, we have Hillary. Here's how WebMD describes Antisocial Personality Disorder, also known as sociopathy:
--
Symptoms usually include antisocial behavior in which there is little concern for the rights of others such as indifference to the moral or
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with your attempt to define Hillary as a psychopath / sociopath (both deprecated terms, they're not long enough) is context. In the setting of politics, media and business those traits are actually highly functional. That's how you get ahead in those fields. Then you run into the Peter Principle but that is another problem.
You missed the preamble to the personality disorders. They are spectrums and they can only be really defined as a disorder when they cause harm. As far as politicians ar
Re: (Score:1)
> Donald is most assuredly a narcissist and again, it's gotten him to the Republican candidate for the President of the United States
Definitely. One staffer who worked directly with three or four presidents said is his book that all four had very similar personalities. The most striking thing was their arrogance, ego. The bastards all thought they could and should be president! Trump is no exception.
> The problem with your attempt to define Hillary as a psychopath / sociopath ... can only be really
Re: (Score:2)
So what are your qualifications to diagnose psychiatric conditions, and how many times have you met with Clinton to confirm your observations? I mean, you wouldn't just be some asshole on the Internet googling up WebMD and then simply forcefitting your personal beliefs on Clinton into what really is a very general description from an online site, would you?
Re: (Score:2)
While Trump is most assuredly a clown, Hillary is very likely a sociopath, so "the only sane one" would have to go to the clown, Trump.
What color is the sky in a world in which running a visa mill, bragging about having sexually abused many women, raping at least one woman, and Trump's typical deliberate corporate malfeasance are not sociopathic behavior? Does photosynthesis work on your planet?
Just Bill being Bill (Score:2)
> bragging about having sexually abused many women, raping at least one woman
But enough about Bill Clinton. How about having a full-time attacking the victims in order to reduce the damage to your husband's political reputation?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But enough about Bill Clinton.
This is not about a Clinton. We're talking about Trump right now. We can talk about Clinton later if you like, but if you can't stay on topic then there's no reason to waste time on you.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Six measures Trump vows to take during first 100 days as president:
1. "A Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress."
2. "A hiring freeze on all federal employees."
3. "A requirement that for every new federal regulation, 2 existing regulations must be eliminated."
4. "A 5-year ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government."
5. "A lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government."
6. "
Re: (Score:3)
Item 1 is likely never going to fly, and I question the legitimacy of it anyways. If voters in a district or state like their representative, why shouldn't they be able to run for an open ended number of terms? There are some decent reasons for limiting the President's terms, but none of those really apply to Representatives or Senators. It's like declaring "All engineers and doctors must retire after ten years!" Beyond that, I doubt there would ever be enough approval among the states to get it through.
Ite
Re: (Score:2)
1. Take power away from and even punish the free press.
2. Allow more countries to have nuclear weapons
3. Cede Eastern Europe to Russia
4. Punish women for having abortions
5. Contest the election when he loses
6. Try to force our ally to fund building a ridiculous wall between our countries
No one who reads Slashdot should be supporting Trump. This is news for nerds, not news for rubes.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, I can't fucking believe this is modded up, as if these are the only two people in the country who are running.
Plenty of countries have abolished first past the post elections. The first step in doing it over here is demonstrating an actual desire for a third party. Vote Johnson or Stein or whomever else you fancy. Don't let anyone win you vote by default because they claim to be the only not-Trump party. Lots
Re: (Score:2)
Until the US has a different voting system for presidents, you're stuck with the two big party candidates, with third party candidates simply acting as proxies. Besides, voters don't elect a president, they elect an electoral college whose members are pledged to vote for a certain candidate.
Re: (Score:2)
Until the US has a different voting system for presidents, you're stuck with the two big party candidates, with third party candidates simply acting as proxies.
That's only true if you're going to be stubbornly myopic about the whole thing. The more votes third parties get, the more politicians will sit up and realize that they might be able to make a name for themselves (and get revenge at an ossified party structure that many of them probably despise) by sponsoring legislation to abolish first past the post ballots, or at least start supporting an alternative wing of their party a bit more openly.
Besides, voters don't elect a president, they elect an electoral college whose members are pledged to vote for a certain candidate.
All the more reason not to throw away your vote on Trump or Hillar
Re: (Score:2)
Except there isn't going to be a world war. Putin isn't suicidal, and isn't going to start lobbing nukes at the US or its allies.
For fucks sake, we went through this for forty years during the Cold war, and there were a few moments then where tensions did get dangerously hot, and nothing happening now even comes close. Yes, Russia is saber rattling, and NATO is back, just like the old days, but just like then, it's as much for domestic consumption as anything else, and the Russia of 2016 is a pale shadow of
Re: (Score:2)