Report: Intel About Russian Hacking Came From Dutch Intelligence Agency

A report in the Dutch press and picked up last week by US media claims that not only did the Dutch intelligence agency AIVD provide information about the DNC hack, they were looking over the shoulders of Cozy Bear — literally — as it was happening.

Dutch agencies provide crucial intel about Russia's interference in US-elections

It's the summer of 2014. A hacker from the Dutch intelligence agency AIVD has penetrated the computer network of a university building next to the Red Square in Moscow, oblivious to the implications. One year later, from the AIVD headquarters in Zoetermeer, he and his colleagues witness Russian hackers launching an attack on the Democratic Party in the United States. The AIVD hackers had not infiltrated just any building; they were in the computer network of the infamous Russian hacker group Cozy Bear. And unbeknownst to the Russians, they could see everything.

That's how the AIVD becomes witness to the Russian hackers harassing and penetrating the leaders of the Democratic Party, transferring thousands of emails and documents. It won't be the last time they alert their American counterparts. And yet, it will be months before the United States realize what this warning means: that with these hacks the Russians have interfered with the American elections. And the AIVD hackers have seen it happening before their very eyes.

The Dutch access provides crucial evidence of the Russian involvement in the hacking of the Democratic Party, according to six American and Dutch sources who are familiar with the material, but wish to remain anonymous. It's also grounds for the FBI to start an investigation into the influence of the Russian interference on the election race between the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and the Republican candidate Donald Trump.

According to the report, not only had the Cozy Bear HQ's network been compromised by Dutch intelligence, so had their security cameras, which were used to capture images of the hackers as they entered and exited.

The Cozy Bear hackers are in a space in a university building near the Red Square. The group's composition varies, usually about ten people are active. The entrance is in a curved hallway. A security camera records who enters and who exits the room. The AIVD hackers manage to gain access to that camera. Not only can the intelligence service now see what the Russians are doing, they can also see who's doing it. Pictures are taken of every visitor. In Zoetermeer, these pictures are analyzed and compared to known Russian spies. Again, they've acquired information that will later prove to be vital.

Reportedly, the Dutch used this extraordinary access to relay vital intel to the NSA and FBI teams during the 2014 breach of State Department computers by the group.

One of the things that I've wondered since it was first revealed that the FBI had been attempting to warn the DNC that their systems had been compromised by Russian hackers for months, was what had tipped the FBI off to the attack in the first place. And now we may finally have an answer.

The report was the result of a joint investigation between newspaper, de Volkskrant (cited above) and Dutch TV news program, Nieuwsuur (News Hour). The reporting from Nieuwsuur is here. A couple of relevant excerpts:

The information shared by The Netherlands about the hacks at the DNC ended up on the desk of Robert Mueller, the Special Prosecutor leading the FBI investigation into possible Russian interference in the American elections. As early as December, the New York Times reported that information from, among others, Australia, the United Kingdom and The Netherlands had propelled the FBI investigation.

Last Sunday on Dutch television programme College Tour, Rob Bertholee, head of AIVD, said that he had no doubt that the Kremlin was directly responsible for the Russian cyber campaign against U.S. government agencies. Bertholee as well as Pieter Bindt, who was heading MIVD at the time, personally discussed the DNC matter with James Clapper, at the time overall head of the US intelligence services, and Michael Rogers, who is soon to retire as the head of the NSA.

Both articles also go on to mention a displeasure among intelligence officials about their US counterparts' handling of this intelligence with an implication that "openness" by US intelligence agencies compromised their operation and led to a loss of access. The articles are heavy on flair and light on specific details but they might provide some additional insight into the events surrounding attacks against the US government, the DNC, etc by Russian state hackers as well as the US IC's attribution of the hacks to those groups.

a reply to: theantediluvian

But but. I thought this was all a vast illuminati conspiracy to make the gop look bad?!?!

Do the democrats own all the worlds intelligence agencies too!!!

Damn you obama!!!

Lol

originally posted by: theantediluvian
A report in the Dutch press and picked up last week by US media claims that not only did the Dutch intelligence agency AIVD provide information about the DNC hack, they were looking over the shoulders of Cozy Bear — literally — as it was happening.

[snipped]

So, what specifically was "hacked?" Like, for example, there are other experts that say it's unlikely the DNC leaks were hack-related. Moreover, if it's just them messing with democrats, without proof it affected the election, then what are the implications beyond relatively normative intelligence operations and 'interference' such as we do (and a lot more) in other countries? For example, when we are helping stage coups in other countries, who are we to be crying about Russian intelligence trying to hack our databases? We should guard against it yes. But this pearl clutching sounds like partisan hackery or hypocrisy regarding US foreign policy.

Sooooo, if i am reading this correctly

Russian hacks = bad
Dutch hacks = good

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: theantediluvian

But but. I thought this was all a vast illuminati conspiracy to make the gop look bad?!?!

Do the democrats own all the worlds intelligence agencies too!!!

Damn you obama!!!

Lol

At the same time, part of the Russian hysteria are a series of accusations beyond the proof, such as Trump collusion with them. Those are serious accusations, and so far I haven't seen the evidence for that aspect.

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
Sooooo, if i am reading this correctly

Russian hacks = bad
Dutch hacks = good

Haha, yes, all US ally hacking and election influence is good and just how the world works, but if an enemy does it it's literally nazism. Get with the program!

Also, I thought Hillary told Trump supporters that they should accept the election results and deny conspiracy theories..? I'm confused..

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

So, what specifically was "hacked?" Like, for example, there are other experts that say it's unlikely the DNC leaks were hack-related.

Like I said, the articles are heavy on flair and light on detail. As for other experts saying that the DNC leaks were unlikely to be hack-related, I think what you're mostly referring to is the blog post from some unknown person referring to himself (or herself) as "The Forensicator."

I've responded to the claims made in the blog post a number of times as it's cropped up on ATS. There's a few posts starting here and some others here. In addition to pointing out that the files considered were from the DCCC hack and not the DNC hack, here are some points I raised (I also get into the methodology in other posts):

1. We have absolutely no idea between what computers this hypothetical transfer occurred.

2. It's just as likely that the hypothetical transfer occurred between two boxes at the DCCC... prior to exfiltration.

3. It's also equally likely that the hypothetical transfer occurred between computers at Hacker HQ.

4. It's also possible that transfer were between servers in datacenters somewhere which is the point I was trying to make when I asked if the DNC (now I know DCCC) servers were on site at the offices or not. I regularly get transfer rates in the neighborhood of 20MB/s between VPSes at different ISPs, thousands of miles away. I'll be happy to screen shot it if you're skeptical. We already know that in the case of the DNC hack, that they were using US VPSes, purchased with BTC, for their C2 servers.

The claim that this analysis "proves" an inside source falls completely flat on its face on the above alone without even getting into the hazy methodology of estimating transfer speeds from gap times.

If the hypothesized transfer rate cannot exclude the aforementioned transfer scenarios — which are entirely consistent with a hack — what is the "whole point" again?

The fact remains that there are several threads of evidence showing that this was a hack which I've detailed in a number of threads. A couple of them: here and here.

I'd also add that it's undisputed that Podesta's Gmail password was phished and there's been ample evidence produced about that exact event which shows that it was part of a massive and complex phishing campaign.

Moreover, if it's just them messing with democrats, without proof it affected the election, then what are the implications beyond relatively normative intelligence operations and 'interference' such as we do (and a lot more) in other countries?

That's a bit of a loaded question. It's impossible to gauge what effect the email hacking had on the election. Even trying to estimate it would require excluding noise from any number of distinct factors to tease out a signal that make it virtually impossible. That doesn't mean there was no effect or that we shouldn't be concerned.

As for the hypocrisy of our foreign policy. The same could be said of every global power, not least of all Russia. And I can't see the Russians catching us doing something similar, shrugging their shoulders and saying, "Oh well comrades, we had that one coming!"

I'm an American and I care about my country and its interests first. That's not to say that I don't condemn the government's meddling in the domestic affairs of other nations but I don't think it's unreasonable, considering that we're far from unique in this regard, to expect that our government should respond as any other would when an equally and arguably worse offender meddles in ours.

In other words, it's great to be critical of our own actions but it's not a reason to excuse Russia of theirs.

digg'n up old topics

couple of days ago still fresh

👮

I promote nothing, just an alternative take


h t t p s://steemit.com/steemit/@suzi3d/10-reasons-the-dutch-russia-hacking-story-is-fake-news

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

Here let me fix that for you - Russian hacks into U.S. resources are BAD
Dutch hacks into Russia are GOOD. You must be a Russian or an avid Trump humper.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Honestly, I think the issue of collusion has been blown out of proportion by everyone involved. The Democrats want to keep the possibility of Trump colluding alive because it's got the biggest bang against Trump but at the same time, the pro-Trump crowd wants Russian interference to completely hinge on whether or not Trump personally colluded with the Russian government.

I've personally never believed that Trump colluded with the Russians to get elected. There's been smoke, he's definitely had his share of shady dealings with shady Russians and there are things that are easily taken as indicating the possibility but at the end of the day, I don't think it's there and that's been my opinion all along and I've seen nothing to persuade me otherwise.

I do however believe that the Russians were actively trying to exert influence through people on the campaign and as I laid out in the OP in my sig, there's solid evidence that Paul Manafort was in fact trying to peddle influence to the Russians. The emails are pretty conclusive that he was at least trying to do it. What's far less clear is what became of it.

Whatever his reasons may be — his ego, fear of some other impropriety coming to light, fear that somebody in his campaign was colluding, whatever — Trump's reaction and his sustained and extraordinary efforts to derail investigations, dismiss Russian interference, etc only make him look guilty af. I think it also raises serious questions about his leadership and whether or not his inability to address Russian interference exposes us to undue risks.

It's all hands to the pump to deflect from the memo it seems.
I have a hard time believing the Dutch could do anything of the sort. They are usually busy with...other...things.

The Dutch and the British were involved in spying and hacking on USA targets and soil. The NSA hired and worked with them in a collaborative effort.

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

I'd definitely sign that, even if we ignore the fact that the Russian hack was targeted at America, and the Dutch were literally hacking the hackers. And even if the allegations on Trump are false that doesn't mean Russians aren't engaging in cyber warfare. So Dutch hacks = good, yeah. It wouldn't be smart to sanction them informing the US on threats like this. If it's all true what they say in the article, sounds plausible anyway.

It's ironic that some of Trump's supporters are worried about foreign nationals illegally entering the US and voting, but they don't have a problem with foreign governments using a hostile act, such as a hack, to influence US voters. I don't think either is acceptable, for the record.

If the dutch had hacked the computers of a Russian opposition party, then maybe it would be comparable. But it doesn't look like their aim was help out a particular faction in Russian politics.

originally posted by: xuenchen
digg'n up old topics

couple of days ago still fresh

Closed.