The Russians Did It

This New York Times piece is as puzzling as it is bizarre. Since the President has ordered an investigation, which has barely had time to begin, and no one has actually offered any evidence as proof that the Russians (known to mean "the Russian Government") hacked the DNC, why is the Times publishing this?

It was the cryptic first sign of a cyberespionage and information-warfare campaign devised to disrupt the 2016 presidential election, the first such attempt by a foreign power in American history. What started as an information-gathering operation, intelligence officials believe, ultimately morphed into an effort to harm one candidate, Hillary Clinton, and tip the election to her opponent, Donald J. Trump.

Like another famous American election scandal, it started with a break-in at the D.N.C.

  NYT

Has everyone just accepted this was the Russians?

Look at this:

Yared Tamene, the tech-support contractor at the D.N.C. who fielded the call, was no expert in cyberattacks. His first moves were to check Google for “the Dukes” and conduct a cursory search of the D.N.C. computer system logs to look for hints of such a cyberintrusion. By his own account, he did not look too hard even after Special Agent Hawkins called back repeatedly over the next several weeks — in part because he wasn’t certain the caller was a real F.B.I. agent and not an impostor.

Does the FBI just make phone calls without presenting themselves in person with at least a badge?

The D.N.C.’s fumbling encounter with the F.B.I. meant the best chance to halt the Russian intrusion was lost.

How can that be blamed on the DNC? Shouldn't the FBI have gone to see someone personally?  According to the story, eventually it was established that the phone calls did come from the FBI.

What started as an information-gathering operation, intelligence officials believe, ultimately morphed into an effort to harm one candidate, Hillary Clinton, and tip the election to her opponent, Donald J. Trump.

"Officials believe." Is that all the "evidence" we're going to get?

The Times article talks about a group that was identified as hacking the DNC, and says, "may or may not be associated with the F.S.B., the main successor to the Soviet-era K.G.B., but it is widely believed to be a Russian government operation.."  Is "widely believed" supposed to be evidence?

Or, regarding the only other group they identified, the damning evidence is that they were found "first penetrating the computers of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and then jumping to the D.N.C., investigators believe."  Does "investigators believe" carry more or less weight than "widely believed?"

And here's the clincher:

It is often impossible to name an attacker with absolute certainty. But over time, by accumulating a reference library of hacking techniques and targets, it is possible to spot repeat offenders. Fancy Bear, for instance, has gone after military and political targets in Ukraine and Georgia, and at NATO installations.

That largely rules out cybercriminals and most countries, Mr. Alperovitch said. “There’s no plausible actor that has an interest in all those victims other than Russia,” he said. Another clue: The Russian hacking groups tended to be active during working hours in the Moscow time zone.

That's the craziest basis for attribution I ever saw: Nobody else could possibly be interested, and the time zone is right. Are you kidding me?

At least they've given these two sources cute names: Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear.

But wait, there's more.

To their astonishment, Mr. Alperovitch said, CrowdStrike experts found signs that the two Russian hacking groups had not coordinated their attacks. Fancy Bear, apparently not knowing that Cozy Bear had been rummaging in D.N.C. files for months, took many of the same documents.

So, the simplest reason for that might be something that's not astonishing at all: they aren't who you think they are, and they don't have anything to do with each other - or even with the Russian government. Or, if you want to play the propaganda game: one of them is from the Chinese embassy in Moscow.

This whole thing just gets nutser and nutser. I'm more inclined to believe the government is using the Times (again, as it did in the run up to the Iraq invasion - and who knows what all else) to foist an untrue story on the public.

But then, the Times  actually blames the White House for not responding sooner. So, is it government propaganda? Perhaps CIA behind the president's back? Or is it really the Russians? Read the story yourself and see what you think.  It makes a big deal out of the history of Russian hacking.  I'd be willing to believe they have been, just as any - or should I say, every - country with spies and computers has been doing since computers were invented.  But did they hack the DNC to try to mess with the election?  (Gee, we would never do something like that.)

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE