It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wikileaks: CIA 'Stole' Russian Malware, Uses It to ‘Misdirect Attribution’ of Cyber Attacks

page: 6
42
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

Furthermore, none of the items in the library match what was found in the DNC hacks nor were any of them tools used by Fancy Bear/Cozy Bear.



Cute names, but do you have any details beside fur texture?



What you have is some malware collected from the wild and a bunch of leading text from WikiLeaks to steer you into making an unsubstantiated conclusion. Which is what you have done. Congratulations on being easily misled.


Just curious, do you think the same thing of the NSA/Snowden "leaks"
Just stuff collected in the "wild" eh?




posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Diisenchanted
So does this mean that the lefts entire argument about the Russians hacking the DNC are null and void.

Seems they have no credibility. Russian hackers lol


It's now clear that the CIA is able to "pose" as "Russian hackers" whenever it so chooses.
link< br />
So how is the CIA FBI and the Fake news media going to spin this one?


Oddly I wrote about this possibility a while back...guess who's eating crow (croe) right now...

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 3/7/17 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tempter
If this is true is it possible the CIA is responsible for hacking into the DNC?


Good o.p. Good point I'll need to check on this. However that includes the truth of the original claim in the OP which seems to have come from the Russian media.
edit on 07pmTue, 07 Mar 2017 21:08:06 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Diisenchanted

There were seventeen intelligence agencies that confirmed the Russian involvement. Hacking was only part.
They were also behind the Hillary is sick, Hillary has brain ephasia (made up word) and many of the fake stories about her.


Sillyolme might just be the most accurate username of anyone here.

But since you think Russia runs the NYT:




Mrs. Clinton, 65, was admitted to NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia hospital on Sunday after a scan discovered the blood clot. The scan was part of her follow-up care for a concussion she sustained more than two weeks earlier, when she fainted and fell, striking her head. According to the State Department, the fainting was caused by dehydration, brought on by a stomach virus. The concussion was diagnosed on Dec. 13, though the fall had occurred earlier that week.

The clot was potentially serious, blocking a vein that drains blood from the brain. Untreated, such blockages can lead to brain hemorrhages or strokes. Treatment consists mainly of blood thinners to keep the clot from enlarging and to prevent more clots from forming, and plenty of fluids to prevent dehydration, which is a major risk factor for blood clots.


That of course is before all her very public coughing fits, needing ample time off on the campaign trail while Trump was doing multiple rallies a day, and her collapsing on a NY sidewalk in broad daylight.

I mean, I know a few of you lefties try to blame Russia for everything but you take the cake with your continued asinine statements.



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Possibilities was the focus but yes I could have used better wording but never saying yourself as I have not checked




posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Diisenchanted
a reply to: reldra



Russian Insider. Cute. Is this Stuxnet? There is a very good article in The Guardian and NYT on that.


Sorry I don't read fake-news!



But Rusian Insider is real? I am straining to follow your train of thought there. Not because of the word Russian, really, just because the site has no history or integrity. You weren't even able to link to it properly.


Look, I agree. The Russian Insider honestly sounds sketchy. Not to mention that it is a RUSSIAN paper - of course it would deflect the blame to the CIA. If we want to take this story seriously, it NEEDS to be verified by another source - and not just one that copies The Russian Insider - or by reading the source documents.

Do this, and trust me, it will work out better.

Edit: Okay so on my first round of research, I only found shady sites with no credibility, but I was finally able to find a cache of credible sites reporting on this after modifying my search terms. Here is a link.


One nugget of particular interest to Trump supporters: a section titled “Umbrage” that details the CIA’s ability to impersonate cyber-attack techniques used by Russia and other nation states. In theory, that means the agency could have faked digital forensic fingerprints to make the Russians look guilty of hacking the Democratic National Committee.



Nothing in the documents connects the CIA to any Trump Tower wiretaps, which may or may not have ever existed at all anyway. Nor does the leak provide any evidence of a CIA scheme to pin the DNC hack on the Russians. But in the internet age, it doesn’t need to.


Wikileaks CIA Dump Gives Russian Hacker Deniers the Perfect Ammo - Wired
edit on 07pmTue, 07 Mar 2017 22:27:06 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)


We definitely need an investigation to get to the bottom of this - but because the issue is so important and both the Republicans (who side with Trump, mostly) and the Democrats (who side with the intelligence agencies) are biased, we NEED a bipartisan committee if we want to get the TRUTH and not some biased #.

Trump and his administration still have a lot of Russian connections. Russia still could have been the ones to hack the DNC and Podesta.
edit on 07pmTue, 07 Mar 2017 22:33:54 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2017 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Did this actually come from Wikileaks? If so, then 99% it is true. If it's just from a Russian website, then it shouldn't be taken at face value. Honestly though, would anyone be surprised if this was true, the CIA are some shady mofos.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

Well ask and you shall receive. How about this from USA Today.

The documents also suggest that one of the agency’s divisions – the Remote Development Branch’s UMBRAGE Group – may have been cataloguing hacking methods from outside hackers, including in Russia, that would have allowed the agency to mask their identity by employing the method during espionage.



“With UMBRAGE and related projects the CIA cannot only increase its total number of attack types, but also misdirect attribution by leaving behind the ‘fingerprints’ of the groups that the attack techniques were stolen from,” Wikileaks said in a statement.
USA Today
Hopefully this helps clear up some of the questions attributed to this story.



Did this actually come from Wikileaks? If so, then 99% it is true. If it's just from a Russian website, then it shouldn't be taken at face value. Honestly though, would anyone be surprised if this was true, the CIA are some shady mofos.

Yes it did come from wikileaks. I read it there as well. You just can't link wikileaks according to ATS rules.
edit on 8-3-2017 by Diisenchanted because: to add

edit on 8-3-2017 by Diisenchanted because: add space



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 12:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Diisenchanted

Here is what the NY Times had to say about it.

Another program described in the documents, named Umbrage, is a voluminous library of cyberattack techniques that the C.I.A. has collected from malware produced by other countries, including Russia. According to the WikiLeaks release, the large number of techniques allows the C.I.A. to mask the origin of some of its attacks and confuse forensic investigators.
NY Times
So yes this is sounding very real.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 12:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: wacher
Wikileaks has the signature of dumping thousands and thousands of hacked documents. Russia does not. Thousands and thousands of Podesta emails were dumped in October 2016. It does not appear to be Russia's signature.


It actually does. That Russia handed them to wikileaks. Until the investigation is done, and I hope it is done well, it is quite possibly the Russian government that had been meddling, bigly.

Trying to call it a false narrative is naive and jumping the gun.

It's equally as likely that the CIA was behind the Russian 'fingerprint'. To deny that fact is plain ignorance.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 01:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Diisenchanted



So does this mean that the lefts entire argument about the Russians hacking the DNC are null and void.


No.

What this means, if true, is that the CIA has the tools to do so, but it is not proof that they did.

Unless clear evidence is presented, it is still possible Russia was behind the hack.


No heat it means is that there is a 50/50 chance that either did it.... leaning towards it being the CIA sinde it just Fame put that Podesta was lobbying for the largest russian bank to end Obamas sanctions against russia.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 01:09 AM
link   
An interesting video showing how the CIA can compromise a smartTV, and how you can stop them:




posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 01:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Diisenchanted
So does this mean that the lefts entire argument about the Russians hacking the DNC are null and void.

Seems they have no credibility. Russian hackers lol


It's now clear that the CIA is able to "pose" as "Russian hackers" whenever it so chooses.
link< br />
So how is the CIA FBI and the Fake news media going to spin this one?


I'd say its an example of wikileaks being 'turned' as a result of Assuange bieng taken sick a short time after the baywach girl took him meal at the Equadoeran Embassy where he was suddently taken ill short time later.

An amoured car was there within minutes soon after and Assange as never been seen again in circumstances that verify is identify by persons who knew him personally for years.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 01:43 AM
link   
More like Russia handed a "hacker" information about CIA capabilities, and that hacker gave it to Wikileaks.

Once Wikileaks was given the signal, they dumped this information. Nice timing Wikileaks by the way, nice timing...

You see, now Russia can say:

"Hacking? We Russians not hack America during election! Russia was framed by your SEE EYE EH (CIA) -- We Russians are innocent! You have spies that can frame us, our friends *cough* sorry, I mean Wikileaks showed this!"

Yeah, now Russia has plausible deniability they had anything to do with any cyber espionage during the election ... just as things are starting to heat up and people are beginning to investigate more deeply.

Timing and source are both suspect, and it gives Russia the perfect "out" -- as they are totally distancing themselves from the Trump presidency right now. You all do realize that inside of Russia they never, ever talk about Trump anymore -- right? He's dead to the Russian media for the most part.

This entire thing is to "hot" for Russia right now, and they want nothing to do with it. I can't believe how blind people are to this. Even if you worship Trump's golden hair, this makes way to much logical sense from a geopolitical perspective.

It's pretty clever, I will admit that.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 02:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Kettu



Is that the way you deny ignorance ?


originally posted by: Arrestme

CIA has 5 test covert 'listening post' servers called 'PocketPutin'



And then there's this.
Former CIA boss blames millennials for leaks
@ 1:23





Time to switch from idiocy to patriotism : ask yourself WTF are you defending by deflecting the obvious onto the Russians ?



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 05:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Diisenchanted



So does this mean that the lefts entire argument about the Russians hacking the DNC are null and void.


No.

What this means, if true, is that the CIA has the tools to do so, but it is not proof that they did.

Unless clear evidence is presented, it is still possible Russia was behind the hack.


Zero evidence has been presented. And yet, you guys and your media continue to spread this narrative despite the fact you like a single shred of evidence.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 05:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burntheships



Never said that, nothing of the kind.


You said the content of the emails are the issue, not the hacking. If foreign powers did hack the DNC, do you have a problem with that?

The comment you were responding to was in regards to the Dems, media and IC being correct that Russia did hack the DNC.

So is it ok or not, or does it depend on the content of the emails?



And you still have no proof that it was the Russians that hacked Podesta's emails. So no foreign entities involved, as far as can be proven.


And no evidence has been shown to prove anyone else was behind the hacks. It appears no solid conclusion can be made whatsoever.



Except that they appear to have "non political" loyalist operatives inside the IC community working on their behalf. We shall see how long that lasts.


It would be hard to hide behind irrefutable proof, regardless of the friends they have.

Do you have that?


Do you have a problem with the corruption exposed in the DNC? Do you think the American people deserve less information when they go to vote? If the Russians hacked the DNC emails, why did Hillary win the popular vote? What effect did it have even if they did it? And again you have no evidence that the Russians did it. You're just going based off of Democrat Party propaganda media.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Just because the source is trash doesn't mean that the content is BS. Do some research



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Russia says it did not hack John Podesta. CIA has not said it did not hack John Podesta. Russia has plausible deniability.



posted on Mar, 8 2017 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: thehai

What makes it plausible?



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join