US believes Russian hackers are behind Democratic National Committee leak

Growing consensus within Obama administration is that Russians infiltrated DNC but there is less certainty that Vladimir Putins government is responsible

The emerging consensus within the Obama administration is that Russian hackers successfully infiltrated the data networks of the Democratic National Committee, the Guardian has learned, although there is less certainty that the Russian government is definitively responsible for the attack.

A senior administration official said indications in the code used to execute the data breach points to Russian culprits. That assessment matches the preliminary conclusions from a recent series of cybersecurity firms that have analyzed the hack.

The official, who was not cleared to discuss an attack that has roiled US politics and relations with Moscow, could not unequivocally attribute the attack to a Russian state actor.

But the operating theory and animating belief inside the administration is that the attack, which led to tens thousands of internal DNC emails spilling onto the internet ahead of the Democrats presidential nominating convention, enraging Bernie Sanders supporters by suggesting bias against him among party staff and leading to the resignation of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, was Russian in origin.

Neither the White House nor the office of the director of national intelligence would confirm a New York Times article late Tuesday reporting that US intelligence agencies consider Vladimir Putins government to be responsible for the attack on the DNC. Queries to the FBI, which Barack Obama has now placed in charge of responding to cyber threats, were not immediately returned.

The Daily Beast reported on Monday that the FBI believes the Russian government to be behind the DNC hack. The FBI has confirmed that it is investigating the breach.

The self-proclaimed source for scores of DNC emails published by WikiLeaks, known as Guccifer 2.0, is not a single operator but Russian cybercriminals designated Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear by investigators who have invaded the White House and the Bundestag between them, according to leading cybersecurity firms.

Security firm ThreatConnect issued a comprehensive report on Tuesday using their own data and data from previous reports by rivals CrowdStrike, Mandiant and Fidelis.

Crowdstrike associates Fancy Bear with other Russian intrusions, notably one into the German Bundestag in May and another into French television network TV5 Monde. Cozy Bear has dug into the state department the joint chiefs, and the White House, said CrowdStrike, which analyzed those hacks.

Weve had lots of experience with both of these actors attempting to target our customers in the past and know them well, wrote CrowdStrikes Dmitri Alperovitch. In fact, our team considers them some of the best adversaries out of all the numerous nation-state, criminal and hacktivist/terrorist groups we encounter on a daily basis.

Alperovitch told the Christian Science Monitor earlier in July he had high-level confidence that Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear represented Russian spy agencies. Alpertovitch said he believed with what he called medium level confidence that Fancy Bear represented Russias Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU), Russias largest intelligence agency. He had low level confidence that Cozy Bear was the work of the Federal Security Service (FSB).

The new ThreatConnect report suggests that the person who has been giving interviews under the name Guccifer 2.0 to the press isnt a hacker at all.

I find it interesting

In June, Guccifer contacted Vocativ writer Kevin Collier through Twitter to offer a story about the DNC leaks, insisting on encryption; Collier said the story he received by email was so offbeat he asked Guccifer what good it could possibly be. I find it interesting was the only reply.

Collier also said there was something else odd about the email: it had come from a French AOL service so insecure that it included the senders IP address in the email.

Its baffling, Collier said. Hes either an amateur, made a huge mistake, or this is part of an incredibly intricate disinformation campaign. Since the going theory of the DNC hack is that it was perpetrated by Russian government groups that then passed this information to propagandists or professional trolls to spread, my best guess is it was just a rookie mistake.

The sender had used a proxy, but the proxy masking Guccifers location was Russian.

Guccifer 2.0 had always claimed to be Romanian like the original Guccifer, imprisoned hacker Marcel Lazr Lehel, but the 2.0 version had regularly communicated with journalists in Russian. When Motherboard reporter Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai asked Guccifer 2.0 to speak Romanian, the few sentences that came back were filled with mistakes.

Then there was the way Guccifer claimed to have attacked the DNC with a zero-day hack into a software called Votebuilder used by the DNC. A zero-day hack finds a vulnerability in the software that was previously unknown to the target.

A backdoor into Votebuilder would only be valuable to someone attacking the DNC; most black-market activity focuses on exploitation of widely used software that can be used on multiple targets to make money until it is discovered and closed down.

Toni Gidwani, director of research operations for ThreatConnect, said: There are much easier ways to get in.

Another security company, Secureworks, found what may be the culprit: a fake Google login page targeting the Clinton campaign.

Gidwani said the various mistakes and inconsistencies indicate to ThreatConnect that a lot of the decisions around the hack appear to have been arrived at by committee with varying degrees of knowledge about hacking.

It would suggest to us that the operators of the Guccifer 2.0 persona were not the actors who breached the DNC, she said. Youre looking at the operations guys who dont have the same technical credibility as these very sophisticated actors who exploited these networks. Youve got a lot of cooks in this kitchen here, not just one actor.

About the Author

Leave a Comment:

Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy | Copyright Notice | Anti Spam Policy | Earnings Disclaimer | Health Disclaimers | Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy