Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Botnet Crime Government Security Politics

John McAfee Thinks North Korea Hacked Dyn, and Iran Hacked the DNC ( 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

John McAfee Thinks North Korea Hacked Dyn, and Iran Hacked the DNC

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 22, 2016 @02:36PM (#53130733)
    John McAfee Thinks People Care What John McAfee Thinks
  • So... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Xenographic ( 557057 ) on Saturday October 22, 2016 @02:42PM (#53130757) Journal

    Wild speculation from a crazy guy? Thanks Slashdot.

    • 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.

      • It almost makes me nostalgic for 3D printing, the kleptocurrency du jour, and frequent contributor Bennett Haselton.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      NSA Whistleblower: US Intelligence Worker Likely Behind DNC Leaks, Not Russia []

      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.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Yeah, they've been planning to blame Russia for almost a year now: []

        Remember: CNN authorization is required to view this. []

      • You ACs are real dopes. There is mounting evidence uncovered by private firms that corroborate what the FBI is claiming. 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.
        • > 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.

        • What evidence. Russian IP[ address? Same signature and attack vector that has allegedly been used by Russian Intelligence in the past?

          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.

    • by dalan ( 462305 )

      He is either a fucking idiot, or a genious. Only time will tell.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      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

  • But isn't McAfee that guy who bragged about hiring a hooker to do his taxes while he screwed his accountant?

    • 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.

      • Would you want to be locked in a room with Hilary or Donald under any circumstances?

        • 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.

  • 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)

      by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Saturday October 22, 2016 @02:54PM (#53130807)

      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:Cui Bono? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Saturday October 22, 2016 @03:15PM (#53130875) Journal

        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.

        • by clovis ( 4684 )

          What do we want?
            Parallel lines!
          When do we want them?

    • 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)

        by PopeRatzo ( 965947 )

        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.

        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

        • 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?

          • 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.

          • You're always here, and always with a reason we should just laugh off all this negative stuff.

            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.

    • The bit that really worries me is the very label "hacking". These things used to be known as "leaks", and they were generally acknowledged by freedom-loving people on both sides of the aisle (but more often on the left) to be necessary for a free democracy to remain free and healthy.

      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,
  • 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)

    by XB-70 ( 812342 ) on Saturday October 22, 2016 @03:24PM (#53130909)
    I have a real problem whenever anyone accuses North Korea of hacking something.

    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.

    • 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.

    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      We have seen the West push for Russia and the week of posts on Slashdot repeating its Russia and only ever Russia.
      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 ) []
      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
    • Yeah, we are supposed to believe North Korea p0wned Sony too, but the poor bastards can't even configure a DNS properly. Hogwash.
  • 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?

  • From a timing perspective, it seems to me that it is either Russia or Wikileaks. The US was threatening some sort of retaliation against Russia for the DNC hacks, and, of course, it is annoying to have one's internet cut-off (Wikileaks).
  • John McAfee should have been Donald Trumps running mate.
  • 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

  • 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

This process can check if this value is zero, and if it is, it does something child-like. -- Forbes Burkowski, CS 454, University of Washington