Can Russia leak fake emails?

[Cicada]

Can they leak fake emails right before the election which can not be proven to be fake?

And if they can do that then no leaked email can be used as evidence in any criminal trial, right, since it may be fake?

[MADem]

1. If they change emails stored in the server, they can muddy the waters.

The Republicans did this with a National Guard letter re: George Bush, and destroyed Dan Rather's career.

And what "criminal trial" are you talking about?

Who would be on trial?

Putin?

[Coyotl]

31. The real question is, "Can Republican Dirty Tricksters and Swiftboaters do it?"

We need to stay focused on who we are running against.

There just is no way to make this stuff up!! This is a court pleading. Unbelievable.

First get some spy files from Israel, alter them to look like Argentine spy files, make them implicate Bush and Menem in corruption, blame Gore for the forged documents. Sound familiar. Did I mention blackmailing bribed journalists and, of course, the perennial covert Republican dirty tricksters. This genre of dirty trick came to be known as "swiftboating" when done to Kerry four years later by the same players!!

==========================
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/041901.P.pdf
Olavar (Triumph Communications International Group, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
Santibañes, Defendant-Appellee, and Ikon Holdings, Inc., t/a Ikon Public Affairs, Dick Morris, Roger Stone, Eileen McGann, John Does, Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court Decided: December 1, 2005

Triumph Communications International Group, Incorporated is a corporation that provides political consulting and public relations services and is owned and operated solely by Mattie Lolavar.

In early 2000, Miss Lolavar began discussions with defendant Dick Morris about the possibility of her working with Craig Snyder and defendant Roger Stone, who are partners in defendant IKON Holdings, Inc., another political consulting firm ... about the possibility of Triumph Communications’ assistance with work that IKON was doing for the government of Argentina.
These discussions lead to two contracts ... and provided that Triumph would act as a public relations consultant to "the Secretary of Intelligence of Argentina" as well as arrange various media events...

Miss Lolavar went to Argentina in August 2000 to assist de Santibañes with preparations for his testimony in Argentine congressional hearings inquiring into allegations that he and the Argentine intelligence agency, known as SIDE, were responsible for bribing various Argentine senators in exchange for political support. Morris and Stone assigned other tasks to Miss Lolavar while she was in Argentina. Among other acts, they instructed her to contact SIDE and obtain a list of journalists who accepted bribes from that organization in order to harm the credibility of those same journalists in reporting on a bribery scandal surrounding de Santibañes and President de la Rua, as well as requiring her to spread false information to the press concerning de la Rua’s political opponent, Dr. Carlos Menem. The charges and counter-charges related here are from the papers in the court file, as are the other facts.

A request that occasioned controversy between Miss Lolavar and the defendants was Morris and Stone’s request that she serve as an intermediary in an anonymous wire transfer of funds to an official in Israel. These funds were to be paid to secure intelligence files from the Israeli government to assist de la Rua’s political domestic disputes with Menem, and to imply a corrupt relationship between Menem and George W. Bush, who was then running against Albert Gore for the United States presidency. These files were to be altered by Miss Lolavar to appear to be SIDE documents.

When the defendants became concerned that this plot would be discovered and traced back to them, they ordered Miss Lolavar to orchestrate a press response to blame Vice President Gore for the dissemination of the documents, since it was known to them that the Gore campaign had been attempting to connect Menem with the Bush campaign.

[Lint Head]

2. Does the Pope wear a tall hat?

[Thinkingabout]

3. The emails are obtained by fraud, don't believe what are in the emails either, it is an

attempt to discredit Hillary and the DNC, it is says they are willing to destroy, time to move on and look at the emails the same as I do the rags in the check out lines.

[TheBlackAdder]

4. The DNC discredited themselves with the extremely poor stewardship of sensitive information.

[Thinkingabout]

5. Are you thinking about the breach of the data? Doesn't make it proper to steal information, it make

a thief a thief.

[TheBlackAdder]

6. A thief is a thief, but a mark is someone who sets themselves up to be one.

[Rex]

11. +1

[Thinkingabout]

23. Not so sure I agree the DNC set them selves up to have anyone to breach

The data bases, just because I set my purse on the floor does not mean others should invade my private property

[synergie]

32. And what is someone who blames the victim of a crime for the crime committted against them?

[TheBlackAdder]

34. Objective. When a mark knowingly put themselves in a such position, ignoring reasonable risks.

[synergie]

38. No, the term you are looking for is "despicable", objective people don't blame the victims of

crimes for the crimes, they blame the criminals. Those who blame victims are not capable of objectivity, reason or much human compassion or intelligence. Those who call victims of crime "marks" and put the onus on them and not the criminals are despicable human beings, and that is an objective assessment of such people.

[duncang]

8. Do you know it was extremely poor stewardship?

This wasn't some kind of kiddie hacker. They had a advanced program. When large businesses what have credit or banking info on their computers even then hackers have made it in. A virus program unknown or zero day to the makers of anti-virus programs just how are they going to protect themselves?

[TheBlackAdder]

9. Bull, they used rudimentary security, enough to allow SBS team to see HRC voter information.

.


They used firewalls and proxies to secure information, with common userids.

There were no individual userids and passwords, no single session tokens, no session state tokens, and the records were not locked down at the row or record level within the database. This is Mickey Mouse DP 101.

If your credit card company exposed all of your banking information to others, or let you see other people's information, you'd cancel that card in seconds. And this isn't something as lame as a firewall update.

They knew they were prime candidates for hacking, and did not follow a three-tier or greater topology. There was no application bus to fence off the outer DMZ servers from the inner layers or on the backend side. There were probably backdoors in their system.

Hackers and almost every country uses security teams that constantly probe every website searching for vulnerabilities. And, a single server is extremely open to hacking, to the point where there would be no traces of intrusion.


I've been in DP for over 25 years and have experience protecting billions dollar/day transactional processing systems.


.

[duncang]

12. Banking and credit card company hacks happen every year.

And only some of them show up in the news. A lot of them have been ransom hacks. Where the company pays a ransom to prevent release of info and no one even hears about it. And that is using all the procedures you mentioned above. Next consider they probably did not set it up themselves. But a real good chance they contracted it out. I doubt the dnc leaders are IT professionals or even consider themselves close to it. But they relied on what info they received from the IT folks. They probably made in good faith the "wrong" choice on who they chose as IT support. So I can see a rant against the hacker and the IT support company or individuals responsible for setting it up. Just don't agree with damning the dnc.

[TheBlackAdder]

16. Most hacks are by cutting corners, internal fraud and mishandled backups.

.


The ransom hacks are by small businesses and private entities. Don't buy into the hype on the internet.

As a business, proper dilligence demands that you don't throw the responsibilities over the fence without proper auditing measures. To sit there and blame another for not ensuring your prized data is secure is ludicris. I believe it was a party-affiliated contracting firm. But, you get as much as one is willing to pay, and many companies do not believe that security and disaster recovery are worth the expenses until the day they get hit.

Of all firms, the DNC is one of the top to get hacked, and they should have known it.

.

[duncang]

17. Still the question

I don't remember a year where some financial institution wasn't hacked. So personally I don't think me saying that every year there has been some kind of a hack to one is hype. I also said financial institutions get hacked with out it ever hitting the news. Which again is not hype, it's what has happened.

Was the DNC leadership to blame for the hack. Or was it the hacker? Or the IT professional they hired? Or was it theirs for working with and choosing the IT professional who set it up?

I understand you are saying you think the proper level of protection is at least what financial institutions have. But is it considered proper diligence for a email server that as far as I know wouldn't be handling actual classified and financial information?

Next. Who do you think the majority of the blame goes to? From your posts it sounds like the dnc. To me and others the hackers are the prime persons to blame. To me the next in line is the IT professional who set it up. Then following them the dnc. And whether that was a intentional way of keeping cost to appropriate perceived threat levels, mass negligence, or not understanding what the risks were. I don't know. But then the only people who would know would be those who were in any meetings between the two.

[TheBlackAdder]

21. Most organizations have internal IT departments, however, the buck stops at the Business.

.



Financial institutions get hacked because that is where the money is, and they often fund policies that are destructive to emerging nations. That said, the RNC and the DNC is where the parties are primarily headquartered, ignoring for the time being the state parties. So, if someone wants to hack into politics, they won't get much hitting a Safe-Way supermarket. All primary sites are plagued with constant probing and attacks on their networks. This is just common knowledge. But, it comes back to how serious the management is in securing their network. Many will put a cost-benefit equation to it. Which, in politics would be an extremely stupid act, verging on malfeasance.


Regardless of your contractors or subcontractors, management at the hiring firm is ultimately responsible and lapses in security are due to relaxed security perseverance. You can try and say one is more at fault than the other, but the hiring company is the one who made the decisions, they are the one that experiences the damage to their credibility, and they are the ones who should supervise and audit their IT infrastructure.

This is no different than firms bringing in auditors to audit their accounting departments.

There are dozens of IT auditing firms out there. Many financial firms hire former Russian and other high-profile hackers to secure their networks. They are very expensive, but uncover a series of infrastructure deficiencies.

.

[uponit7771]

14. This is false, SBS didn't hack or crack into anything

[TheBlackAdder]

15. I did not say that. I was implying that bad security supposedly allows them to see unsecured data.

[Demsrule86]

28. Hacking happens everyday

and many organizations are hacked... we have a terrible infrastructure in terms of the internet in this country...we are pretty much an open book...state was hacked at least three times...maybe more.

[TheBlackAdder]

33. Yep, And leadership of organizations who ignore it, or treat it lightly, are guilty of malfeasance.

[Demsrule86]

37. You can not secure a bad system which is at risk because of infrastructure...

And you know the entire US government and most of the banks were hacked...think about that.

[onecaliberal]

7. Of course they can, I won't believe a damn thing they say.

[bettyellen]

10. They can, I believe they already have.

[uponit7771]

13. Yes, absolutely and that's why the HRC campaign should disavow each one that can't be affirmed by

... the sender calling it fake and a scheme

[C_U_L8R]

18. I have an email from Trump right here

You wouldn't believe the stuff he admits to.

[Capt. Obvious]

40. Does the email expound on how much he donates to NAMBLA?

[Exilednight]

20. Fake emails are easily detectable. can they fake them? yes. Can they fake them without

Getting caught? No.

[Demsrule86]

27. That is not true. Intelligence from both sides can do it.

"However, we should still be wary of forgeries. A clever attacker might obtain a large volume of genuine email and then slip in a few additional documents calculated to achieve some particular end. In a body of many thousands of documents, not all will be scrutinized at once. We could imagine a situation in which a number of leaked documents are authenticated, without any particular attention being paid to the forgeries at first. Then, once the public has firmly in mind that the documents are genuine, journalists are pointed to the forgeries. A careful forensic analysis would likely be able to sniff out the forged from the genuine documents. But if the analysis is done only after the initial public discussion of the documents, it may be too late to counteract the propaganda impact."

http://www.techpolicydaily.com/technology/dnc-russia-fake-email-propaganda/

[Exilednight]

35. You found the flaw with your theory in the article you posted. Scrutinizing every email will

Weed out the frauds. They're easily detectable and can be identified with a bit of time.

[Demsrule86]

36. And you missed the point...it takes time...and could have an affect that is lasting

If such a thing was done say right before the election...there would not be time and even if it was done before...it would still do damage...thus I will not lend credence to any bullshit hacked emails...and one never knows they might improve their skills over time...thus Wiki and all the other BS is not going to influence me at all...they have destroyed their credibility by targeting Democrats in order to influence our elections.

[amandabeech]

22. It would be obvious to anyone who could tell that the Russians were

in the server, or so I've read.

Someone would have to point out which ones they were, though. A lot of material was in those files.

[Coyotl]

24. No evidence Russia has leaked any emails so far. Why blame them?

[Demsrule86]

26. There is a great deal of evidence that Russia hacked the DNC actually

so yes...the Russians are to blame and nothing the Russian hackers come up with is to be believed.

[Coyotl]

30. You are mistaken. There is evidence a computer with a russian IP was used.

If i were committing this crime, I'd use that computer service too, to hide my tracks. And to throw people off even more, I might pretend to be a Russian hacker like Gucifer.

Amazing how easy it is to fool people, isn't it. All you need is a Russian IP number. Anyone on the internet anywhere can pull that routing off.

So, you left out the great deal of evidence. But you already knew that.

[Demsrule86]

25. Yes they can do that easily.

This is why wiki is now useless and we simply will ignore it.

[FarPoint]

29. Yes they can...

None of the Assange / Wikileaks etc stuff has any credibility... NONE! Collection of evidence has a standard of custody and collection ...for a reason.

[Blue_Tires]

39. Sure... Assange has already done that before...