Hacker News Reader

Comment by cryptoz | Hacker News Reader

From TFA: "Several cyber experts at the symposium became frustrated late into the first day with not being provided with packet captures."

I'm not sure they're experts if they were expecting Mike Lindell to actually deliver on something.

View on HN

I for one would love to get my hands on whatever they offer. If it's actual packet data, that's gravy, maybe I can find something interesting. If it's /dev/random, that's also hilarious.

You're missing the fact there was a $5 million bounty to disapprove the claims. Some cyber security experts were probably hoping for an easy pay day. They probably were foolish to think he'd actually pay though. Con artists never pay when they make these big "prove me wrong" bets.

I mean, CrowdStrike are supposedly experts and their "proof" of Russian involvement in the DNC hack was complete bullshit[1], except "trust us, guys, we promise." Their president even had to testify in Congress to that effect admitting so.

If they could get away with that, might as well anyone should try to.

[1]: Some spurious web request logs probing for PHP vulnerabilities leading back to Russian IPs that literally everyone also would have in their logs (as I do for every website I've operated ever).

Their evidence consisted of more than web server logs. I personally don't think their claims matched their evidence but they did provide details about the exploits found, corroborated by the FBI. The primary implant found on the DNC network had been linked by multiple other security companies to other hacks that were almost definitely carried out by Russia-affiliated hackers. These links have been well-documented and have supporting links in the Wikipedia article.

I'm much more in-the-know and connected to real world whitehats and blackhats than not just your average person but also your average infosec person. It's complete bullshit.

You blame CrowdStrike for saying "trust us, we're experts", and then when someone argues with you, you say "trust me, I'm an expert".

No not at all. Unlike CrowdStrike, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. You can believe me or not and I don't care.

I've got my bonafides and I have no intention of doxxing myself. There's a lot of very clued in people on this board in lots of areas and nobody really owes you anything or needs to explain themselves. You can listen or not, it's up to you.

This would be more credible if you hadn't tried to present a technical argument about Crowdstrike's analysis that was trivially refuted in a 2-line reply.

That is a tiny fraction of the stated evidence. Notably, there was specific known malware installed on DNC computers communicating with IP addresses in Russia.

I don't think the evidence released is overwhelming, but it's much more than you've suggested.

[1] https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...

Their evidence was completely inconclusive of anything and they stated so in front of Congress.

Calvinball. That wasn't your argument; it was that the evidence was "Some spurious web request logs probing for PHP vulnerabilities leading back to Russian IPs that literally everyone also would have in their logs". Turns out, no.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com