Great worked example of the prove it trap in action. 1) what info does this report give away? 2) what ops might be burned by this? Should we care? 3) who is persuaded by this who wasn't persuaded last week? 4) what do we learn?https://twitter.com/ReutersWorld/status/956654692452438016?ref_src=twcamp%5Ecopy%7Ctwsrc%5Eandroid%7Ctwgr%5Ecopy%7Ctwcon%5E7090%7Ctwterm%5E0 …
-
It was widely publicized the DNC hack used APT28 infrastructure for control. This report adds nothing other than burning sources and capabilities which are now presumably gone forever.
Yes. To you it adds nothing. But others who don't have your institutional, um, faith don't find all that conclusive (& I bet a few details will still surprise you), but this is actually still better evidence (tho against 29, not 28).
-
-
If by institutional faith you mean overwhelming consensus of the infosec community, sure. You don't need to trust the IC for the attribution. And losing coverage of hard targets is a high price to pay to persuade folks who haven't paid attention to the already public data.
-
Matt. You're banging the table again. You didn't need to convince me. And you banging the table is not going to help me convince others, to the extent I see the need to.
-
I'm not trying to convince you.
-
If you're trying to convince *anyone* banging the table is not going to work. This is a different kind of evidence and I'm seeing plenty of people respond to it. Maybe just sit back and listen and figure out why that is for future reference?
-
seems important to me that this story was broken by dutch media, not by US media seeking to win over dug-in Russia hack skeptics. This isn't US media burning an intel partner to win over MAGA heads.
-
It may be Dutch media signaling to USIC that if they don't protect Dutch equities (cough) in the Nunes memo, intel sharing will go dark.
-
Or it might be one of the 200 people Nunes showed the memo to speak to the press, and this is the "foreign government secrets" DOJ was saying Nunes would destroy if he disclosed his stupid memo too widely. Who knows?
- 7 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
this is just more confusing because everyone said APT28 = GRU, APT29 = FSB. Now they said APT29 = SVR.
-
Yes. You saw me harping on Sanger about that? IMO one of the most interesting developments in the last week.
-
GRU in the sanction list, not SVR.
-
FSB is, sort of. But yes, SVR is not mentioned in ICA at all. One of the reasons I was hammering Sanger. Won't be the only thing in ICA that doesn't bear out, I suspect. Suspect we'll also learn US IC kept this review too compartmented.
-
Oops. That "bear out" was in no way intended to be punny.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Most importantly, you need to understand that what will persuade you is 97% different than what is needed to persuade good faith skeptics. You can't change that just by banging the table harder.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The next question I have is what the hell was the Obama administration doing?
-
Don't forget McConnell's role in quashing the warning Obama's team finally decided they wanted to make.
-
Eh, as I've written, the record on that is unconvincing.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This. I do not trust the Intel community or any consensus reached and am not knowledgeable in regards to info security. This dutch Intel was very convincing to me.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.