"Some 55,000 devices were affected in the United States and 14,000 in China, and Iran's share of affected devices was 2 percent," Azari-Jahromi was quoted as saying.
All: this thread is an unsalvageable trainwreck. If you want to recite low-substance talking points or smack each other over the head with political and national insults, please do it somewhere else. Posting that way here will eventually get your account penalized and/or banned; it's not in the least what this site is for.
Motherboard was able to make contact with the purported attackers.
This doesn't carry any of the typical fingerprints of a state-level attack. It was a single exploit against Cisco devices, combined with Shodan for an easy directory of vulnerable devices.
Given the recent surge in nationalistic sentiment among young people in the tech community in the last decade, it looks reasonable to stick with the simplest explanation here: one or more folks found a flaw and exploited it for fun and attached a flag to it for more fun.
There are situations for which "Russia did it" is an explanation that makes sense. I don't think this is one of them.
We should also beware of being too willing to jump to conclusions that anything was done by America's enemy-du-jour; the country's been down that road plenty of times before and it never goes anywhere good.
The only reliable APT fingerprints I can think of are things that are hard, like forging real certs, SCADA malware targeting specific hardware, jumping airgaps, coordinated friendly media pushes for cover, etc. The "Russia did it thing" was pretty funny to watch. Very convenient way to not talk about the contents. It's well known where _that_ data came from, the xfer rates (among practical admissions elsewhere) support it. William Binney has it right as usual.
I'm about as open book as it gets. Commenting with my real name. I'm more than happy with my positions, if there's something inconsistent, maybe you should point that out instead of implying I'm a shill.
I'm a little embarrassed to reference that particular article, but it should provide enough search term fertilizer for you to find other articles on the subject if you're interested.
I for one, am thoroughly tired and fed up with being expected to think of another human being from two hours flight away as some kind of alien.
It's absurd when I can have face-to-face conversations with people on the other side of the world using the device in my pocket. We are already in the midst of a functionally global civilisation only no one believes in it.
Here I am having effortless conversations with other humans from all over the world, yet somehow these same people are arbitrarily, absolute "others" who I might one day be expected to kill on the drum-beat and flag-wave of some demagogue who has managed to whip up the masses.
The biggest disappointment of the past few years is that no one has outmanoeuvred such a played-out ethos as nationalism and the ethnic chauvinism that frequently accompanies it. The biggest surprise is that so many technologists have apparently supported it.
People having self-determinism is the most important feature of having sovereign countries. It's a market of competing ideas. The internet makes it possible for someone in (insert country with less freedom of expression) to see what someone in (insert country with more) has. Making it out as a "some kind of alien" us vs them thing misses the point. People immigrate, and many countries (including my country) let that happen, and they get the benefits of that. It's pretty rare to even hear about the countries that don't allow others to become citizens, although they are pretty major players.
I think a level of global governance is a pretty darn good idea and not because of some well funded push either.
Just can't imagine any people living or dead I'd like to see in charge of the whole globe, particularly any politicians or bureaucrats I'm aware of, so hoping AI improves soon.
I imagine the ideal situation being loose global governance coupled with city/county level governance. That way if people want to wear funny hats or forbid cheese with dye in it or pray to aliens fine. But no slavery, war nor suppression of fundamental rights anywhere on the face of the globe sounds pretty good to me. Along with improved efficiency of trade and resource allocation.
> But no slavery, war nor suppression of fundamental rights anywhere on the face of the globe sounds pretty good to me.
It never just stops there. This is like expecting the vanguard government to give up control after the socialist revolution. There's more than enough history to demonstrate otherwise, and buying into that idea in 2018 is willful blindness.
The smaller and more localized the governments the better IMO. There's a reason the smaller countries have the best governments: US in the 19th century-early 20th century, modern Canada and some of Scandinavia, etc. Federalism with state/provincial governments a minimal federal government and no executive branch.
There is no history of a universal global government and not agreeing with your unsupported opinion isn't even close to "willful blindness".
Why you'd make this kind of a comment I'm not sure. But it's certainly not a response to my comment because it addresses different issues and then claims "this must always be".
As far as small and localized, great, yes, I agree. However, there are issues that affect all of at a global scale. We are becoming increasingly tied together at a global scale and people's preferences probably isn't going to change that. This necessitates some kind of global rule making.
If your point was that humans are corrupt, well, I agree. So not looking for the UN to take over world government, just pointing out some things to consider.
"based" is alt-right slang. It's basically a positive descriptor used for stuff they agree with.
Like most of the alt-right slang, it originally had other meanings, and it's sometimes used in those meanings too... But when the context is politics, it's the descriptor the alt-right uses for itself.
"alt-right" is also slang often used as a negative smear that jives with the preconceptions that people who are unhappy about current US politics have about the other side. Generally used to lump in the extremes ("rational" wiki's main feature).
Personally, when I don't like what someone said, I don't smear them with antisemitism. Buy hey, each to his own.
I have noticed that's a common go-to when anyone points out having sovereign countries is a good thing, maybe they just cant argue it on the merits. I'll leave it here, since it's non-HN stuff.
I never said sovereign states aren't a good idea. I believe they are, but I also believe the nationalistic sentiment is a double edged sword.
But all of this has nothing to do with my comment. The point was, You fire off with unbased claims that are tainted by paranoia. As a joke I referenced similiar type of claims. I guess It was a mistake since it gave you an easy out from actually substinating your claims.
Claiming something is based literally means it's based on something. That something is usually expected to be some fact or some research.
If that something is just your opinion, than it's misleading to use the term based.
The whole point of my original reply to the OP was seeking citations for his claim. Why did you even reply if it was just to add an opinion?
Why are you still on the whole global government thing? It has nothing to do with this discussion.
"based" in that context, like "my friend is pretty based" is slang. Very common in circles that are happy about the election outcome and the current US economy etc. Admittedly it's recent (2016ish) slang in that usage. It's basically like like saying "my friend is well grounded" or more specifically "my friend has self consistent opinions" with a touch of "I agree with my friends opinions". Please don't ask me for a cite, it's too new, and I would rather not link to a hundred thousand reddit posts.
I get how you could miss that "based" was not being used in the context you expected, although the period after it instead of "in" or "on" should be a clue, now you want me to explain GenZ? It's a demographic group. Like GenX.
(edit removed my mistake about who replied to who, it's a great feature of HN to delay replies)
As much as I don't like wikipedia, I give them props for not falling into the trap of using the "nationalistic" term there. It's ill defined, and not suited to gathering data since different people have different opinions on what it means.
I said "I like Gen Z", and then I said basically "there is nothing wrong in general with liking your country (aka being nationalistic)". I do in fact like them because they are (in my opinion) more pro-US than the previous generation. If you need a wiki to believe me about why I think that, then maybe the second and third sentences in the "Political views" helps. Maybe not. Maybe liking the president means the opposite to you. But wikipedia is junk, and I was stating my opinion so it's kinda moot.
I cant glean what you think I haven't responded to. Your orig comment that I replied to was a single word, I offered what I thought about the quote. Specifically, I saw it as dig on the latest trend toward nationalism, and I think that's a good thing. Maybe say more that just "What" if you are asking for something more specific.
If it wasn't done by the US government this is terrorism pure and simple, going by what the people in your source said:
>"We were tired of attacks from government-backed hackers on the United States and other countries," someone in control of an email address left in the note told Motherboard Saturday... "We simply wanted to send a message...." In addition to disabling the equipment, the hackers left a note on affected machines, according to screenshots and photographs shared on social media: "Don't mess with our elections," along with an image of an American flag...
Iran's gov, not it's people. The US faction in power in 1953 disposed Mossadegh, allowing a worse power structure to take hold. Pretty standard order out of chaos thing. Looking up old pics of Iran is interesting. Eisenhower knew he got played and left with a important warning about what we now call the deep state.
I haven't watched the Corbett Report completely but it had too much conspiracy theories in it.
Dulles brothers were very pro corporations and very very anti communist.
John foster Dulles that became secretary of state under Eisenhower after ww2 was pro Hitler at the beginning of war (before US involvement) as an ally against Soviets. US banks gave Hitler huge loans before the war that helped him to rebuild the economy.
The idea that a small country can challenge a corporation interest was something the Dulles brothers couldn't live with. The iran coup was the beginning. They used CIA to insure corporate interests anywhere in the world and they used communism as an excuse to do so.
Mossadegh was one of the most democratic leaders of the middle east at least. At the height of his power he refused to close communist newspapers that were attacking him.
Can you imagine Trump having that power and not using it because of his belief in free speech?
Thanks. "Can you imagine Trump having that power and not using it because of his belief in free speech?"
Whua? Yes of course. That's about as anti-conservative as it gets. His base would revolt. Free speech is right up there with property rights. Maybe you are confusing hitting back against (mockingbird) propaganda with a desire to do that, but I assure you, nobody is going to be closing newspapers, and he wouldn't want to if he could. Note is's not the conservatives trying to shut down speakers on college campuses, or remove YT chans they disagree with, or axe FB accounts (like Diamond and Silk) because they don't like what they say.
Does anyone really believe this was done by a pro-US entity (or the US itself)? This would only strain relations more than they already are, and I wonder effect this would have in Syria where the US is leaving and Iran/Russia still have a large interest in what happens in the area. It's always interesting to think about the 2nd or 3rd level effects that whoever did this was aiming for
I'm not sure that the administration bringing in John Bolton and making it really clear they want to tear up the Iran deal would necessarily consider it negative to strain relations with Iran.
It sounds like it wasn't a particularly sophisticated attack, so I'm quite willing to believe it was by a pro-US individual who doesn't particularly care about the subtleties of the geopolitics. That said, this is hardly going to move the needle when there are real events like Trump threatening to reintroduce sanctions.
I believe the title is clickbatey. The article clearly states that only 2% of affected devices were in Iran, while the Lion's share was in the US. Could someone fix this?
Given the USA nearly always operates with secrecy [no matter what agenda or party has traditionally been in power], I'll go with false flag operation. There are a lot of entities that would benefit from this that aren't the USA, like the incumbent government. I'm curious to hear other opinions, especially any that disagree with my initial assumptions.
Even though the bug report is thousands of years old now, there's still no patch available. Some people think this means the maintainer has abandoned the project.
I know that. I mean that I love HN mostly for smart comments. Sometimes I don't read an article, I read its comments. :) But blaming without evidence is not that kind of comments.
To me, this feels like a move to distract the target(s). If it is so it makes sense for both the US to be responsible (knowing such an obvious reference will be interpreted as originating from someone else. e.g. Russia) and also for its enemies (well, they want to draw attention).
"But sir, everyone will notice", said the operator, hesitating. "Use one of your tricks, I don't care", replied the commander. "Just get it done!".
"Mike, do you still have that script, the one with the American flag?" the first man whispered.
Anybody who's actually investigating this will not consider that a useful clue in either direction. It's easy to take it to ridiculous dimensions from "Go USA!!1" to "Now they'll think it was the USA" to "Now they'll think someone's framing the USA."
It's just not helpful digital evidence in any way because it was clearly intended to be seen in a world where you cover your tracks as much as you can.
If there is anything we have learned from the Russian meddling with our elections is that they are masters of counter-intelligence. I am willing to wager 100% these attacks were not by pro-US organizations. They just want the media to report it as pro-US, which hook-line-and-sinker they did. Please don't be fooled.
I mean, if I'm being asked to believe that they swung the election to Donald Trump with $100k in Facebook ads and a group about dogs I guess I'd have to believe they're geniuses. But I am pretty skeptical. The evidence for the attribution of DNC hacks seems quite weak too (and at worst it involves the genius maneuver of making public what Hillary Clinton's campaign actually said and thought).
> if I'm being asked to believe that they swung the election to Donald Trump with $100k in Facebook ads and a group about dogs
I'm not sure anyone's asking that. The social media results were not about ads bought. The issue was about accounts pumping specific content which was then reshared by actual voters. (and official news outlets) Those accounts were happily switching between being really interested in US, then French elections, then Brexit, with some middle east commentary in between. There's lots of research about them a few google queries away.
Based on the information that has been presented to the public the case looks quite weak. For reasons I think should be obvious, I'm not willing to simply take the CIA's conclusions on the assumption that they have some secret evidence I haven't seen.
The other "theory" is the idea that the Clintons had Seth Rich killed or that it was another "insider" "mad about Bernie" even though he lost by several million votes.
I don't find the insider risk idea hard to believe. The primary stuff is still an open wound, and you could also easily imagine someone disgruntled for more prosaic reasons (e.g., passed over for a promotion). The fact is we have very little evidence for any of these ideas, and I, for one, don't find it reasonable to conclude that it is therefore obviously the fault of the Russians, especially given how unhinged and paranoid rhetoric about Russia has gotten.
Yes, because the CIA would never lie to us, right?
They would never poison a Russian ex-spy to make Putin look bad?
I don't think this attack was orchestrated by a US entity. Or Russian for that matter. But when an entity that's hell-bent on controlling the worlds information gives a blanket statement about something without proof, I can only assume it's a lie.
It's easy to find information on bad things the CIA did [1], "minor" things of note including classic hits like "imposing a dictatorship in Iran, leading to an Islamic fundamentalist revolution and thus creating a powerful enemy against the US where there wasn't one before" and "trafficking drugs into the US and greatly amplifying America's drug problems", but looking for times where they actually did good for the country leaves me with little if anything.
The CIA's actions aren't done in national defense. They're a subversive organization. The fact the CIA suddenly shifted from being a shadowy government organization that people pretty much only knew about through action movies to being "open" about their ongoing activities within these past few years raises some red flags. Looking at the CIA's history, it's incredible that anyone would sit there and think they're trustworthy. I encounter people trying to say "well that's in the past" pretty often, which is a silly position to take, because why would they have any reason to stop?
I just read Shah of Shahs and I think it was a great little introduction to modern Iran and where the deep-seated resentment of the United States in Iran comes from.
You are ignoring a massive, expensive IRA operation in attempt to mislead for which multiple Russians were indicted because of what appears to be personal political bias.
Or is your belief a lifelong Republican is indicting people for lulz?
By you? :P Given the lack of real info all the rest is in my opinion belief. Or, at most, a semi-educated guess. So whether I believe you on this topic or any other opinion, I'd be fooled no matter what. Just saying 'I don't know' seems the easy and most correct way out here, for now.
I bet they're no fools either. But like all media, they are happy to report a narrative that generates views (if private), or fits their goals (if state owned).
But that is precisely the problem. Because their businesses is failing, they report things that are false but generate page-views and the outraged and less informed eat it up.
I don’t think anyone would actually believe a US-affiliated organization would do this. It’s not their style. (unless you count some pro-US hacker/group doing it for the lulz)
But maybe that’s what they want us to think, and it’s actually counter-counterintelligence to make it look like an independent hacker/group...
National attacks are not ok on Hacker News, regardless of which interpretation of current events you subscribe to. Please don't post like this again.
Edit: I want to say more about this. The overwhelming majority of HN users are legit community members, from lots of countries. Imagine being a legit community member from Russia and seeing people posting like you guys did here. It's frankly disgraceful.
Would you please stop posting uncivil and/or unsubstantive comments to HN? You've been doing the political flamebait thing repeatedly. It's destructive of this site and not ok.
In particular, comments smearing an entire country are bannable offences here regardless of which country it is.
Pretty misleading headline.