Coup and counter coup?

[Virginiá]

Reports that the malware used for the hack was not only publicly available but was also Ukrainian. Ukrainian false flag operation perhaps?

http://www.infowars.com/security-expert-us-govts-alleged-russian-hack-appears-to-trace-back-to-ukraine/

"the malware" --- do you even know what "the malware" this is referring to is? Based on what the JAR report says, this is very likely a small script package meant to give the perpetrators access to hacked online resources (servers, exploited websites, etc), which are meant to be used to host files the targets are emailed links to in hopes of tricking them into revealing their passwords and/or delivering exploit payloads to infect their device. If you want a RL analogy, think of this as a garage door opener for hackers, and the stuff they put in the garage as the actual tools/desktop malware that will be distributed & the server-side components that it will talk to.

This particular project (PAS) is not "the malware" that was crawling through the DNC's network(s). It's a third party tool provided for free on known malware-oriented forum(s) primarily for CIS-originating hackers/script kiddies/etc. Chinese and Russian espionage groups that have been caught pilfering data from corporate and other govt systems in unrelated cases have been seen using 3rd party tools as well. It's not that uncommon.

--

Also I wanted to add, I think it is silly that the US Govt released a report that included this little piece of code. That's like saying, "hey, we have proof they attacked us with a specialized nuclear bomb. To prove that, here is a sample of it: The screwdriver they used to attach the control panel to the nuclear device!"

The reality is we'll probably never get anything useful from them because intelligence agencies pretty much never reveal any information that could in any way compromise or reveal their operational capabilities, which gives them almost nothing to offer the public.

[Virginiá]

However I've spotted the edit you've made to your reply and I've noticed you've said that there's nothing wrong with the article. The program which the official report provided a sample of was indeed the publically available Ukrainian one.

The article was for the most part just a technical analysis of the freeware they used to manage their compromised servers (that were likely used as servers to host fake websites for phishing scams and the like)

Basically they were pointing out, correctly, that the code sample was freely available and wasn't even Russian-made (Ukrainian). That in itself is not proof it wasn't Russian state actors. All it proves is that publicly-available software was used. I'd say that would be strange for an organization like the NSA, but not really surprising for Russian/Chinese groups. Either way, I don't think 3rd party tool-usage is relevant to the overall debate.

You ask the question as to why the report would provide evidence that turned out to a whole lot of nothing and answered it by saying that they can't show the real evidence as its secret. Well that doesn't answer the question as to why the report provided some bullsh**t evidence instead of just saying that they can't provide details of the real evidence for security purposes. It does look like they're trying to bullsh**t people. Since disinformation is part of what they do and since the CIA leadership has been clearly leaning towards the Dems in this election it doesn't really add plausibility to their claims.

Who knows why they didn't, but I'm sure it was implied. Connection logs and other logs of network activity is exactly something the NSA would have on this based on the Snowden leaks of their various mass collection programs/search engines, such as XKeyscore. Considering the DNC/DCCC malware communicated with at least some known assets, and sent data from undoubtedly a high-priority network bloc, I'm sure they have logs of this, but it's never something they would release nor acknowledge. It is NSA policy to deny anything regarding those types of operations/programs. They won't discuss any of it even when the whole world knows it exists.

I'm simply saying that link you posted really amounts to a whole lot of nothing itself. I don't think it really adds or subtracts to this argument, hence my responses here.

Look, you can draw your own conclusions. But I do hope you remember this specific instance if in the future a situation comes up where Trump's administration attempts to convince you of something critically important and similarly controversial using their own classified information/methods and a "I'm saying it's true" approach.

I'll be honest too, I wholeheartedly assume the chances of shifting your opinion on this even a little is almost zero, so I don't wish to rehash the entire topic. With that being said, I think I've covered everything I intend to cover.