PDA

View Full Version : CIA Hacking Tools Revealed by Wikileaks - Rivals much NSA can do!



Peter Lemkin
03-07-2017, 06:34 PM
Vault7: CIA Hacking Tools Revealed

Wikileaks Press Release

Today, Tuesday 7 March 2017, WikiLeaks begins its new series ofleaks on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Code-named "Vault7" by WikiLeaks, it is the largest ever publication ofconfidential documents on the agency.
The first full part of the series, "Year Zero",comprises 8,761 documents and files from an isolated, high-securitynetwork situated inside the CIA's Centerfor Cyber Intelligence (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/files/org-chart.png) in Langley, Virgina. It follows anintroductory disclosure last month of CIAtargeting French political parties and candidates in the lead up tothe 2012 presidential election (https://wikileaks.org/cia-france-elections-2012).
Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hackingarsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized "zeroday" exploits, malware remote control systems and associateddocumentation. This extraordinary collection, which amounts to morethan several hundred million lines of code, gives itspossessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA. The archive appearsto have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers andcontractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has providedWikiLeaks with portions of the archive.
"Year Zero" introduces the scope and direction of theCIA's global covert hacking program, its malware arsenal and dozensof "zero day" weaponized exploits against a widerange of U.S. and European company products, include Apple's iPhone,Google's Android and Microsoft's Windows and even Samsung TVs, whichare turned into covert microphones.
Since 2001 the CIA has gained political and budgetary preeminenceover the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). The CIA found itselfbuilding not just its now infamous drone fleet, but a very differenttype of covert, globe-spanning force — its own substantial fleet ofhackers. The agency's hacking division freed it from having todisclose its often controversial operations to the NSA (its primarybureaucratic rival) in order to draw on the NSA's hacking capacities.
By the end of 2016, the CIA's hacking division, which formallyfalls under the agency's Centerfor Cyber Intelligence (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/files/org-chart.png) (CCI), had over 5000 registered users andhad produced more than a thousand hacking systems, trojans,viruses, and other "weaponized" malware. Such isthe scale of the CIA's undertaking that by 2016, its hackers hadutilized more code than that used to run Facebook. The CIA hadcreated, in effect, its "own NSA" with even lessaccountability and without publicly answering the question as towhether such a massive budgetary spend on duplicating the capacitiesof a rival agency could be justified.
In a statement to WikiLeaks the source details policy questionsthat they say urgently need to be debated in public, includingwhether the CIA's hacking capabilities exceed its mandated powers andthe problem of public oversight of the agency. The source wishes toinitiate a public debate about the security, creation, use,proliferation and democratic control of cyberweapons.
Once a single cyber 'weapon' is 'loose' it can spread around theworld in seconds, to be used by rival states, cyber mafia and teenagehackers alike.
Julian Assange, WikiLeaks editor stated that "There is anextreme proliferation risk in the development of cyber 'weapons'.Comparisons can be drawn between the uncontrolled proliferation ofsuch 'weapons', which results from the inability to contain themcombined with their high market value, and the global arms trade. Butthe significance of "Year Zero" goes well beyond the choicebetween cyberwar and cyberpeace. The disclosure is also exceptionalfrom a political, legal and forensic perspective."
Wikileaks has carefully reviewed the "Year Zero"disclosure and published substantive CIA documentation whileavoiding the distribution of 'armed' cyberweapons until a consensusemerges on the technical and political nature of the CIA's programand how such 'weapons' should analyzed, disarmed and published.
Wikileaks has also decided to redact (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/index.html#REDACT)and anonymise some identifying information in "Year Zero"for in depth analysis. These redactions include ten ofthousands of CIA targets and attack machines throughout LatinAmerica, Europe and the United States. While we are aware of theimperfect results of any approach chosen, we remain committed to ourpublishing model and note that the quantity of published pages in"Vault 7" part one (“Year Zero”) already eclipsesthe total number of pages published over the first three years of theEdward Snowden NSA leaks.
Analysis


CIA malware targets iPhone, Android, smart TVs

CIA malware and hacking tools are built by EDG (EngineeringDevelopment Group), a software development group within CCI (Centerfor Cyber Intelligence), a department belonging to the CIA's DDI(Directorate for Digital Innovation). The DDI is one of the fivemajor directorates of the CIA (see this organizationalchart (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/files/org-chart.png) of the CIA for more details).
The EDG is responsible for the development, testing andoperational support of all backdoors, exploits, malicious payloads,trojans, viruses and any other kind of malware used by the CIA in itscovert operations world-wide.
The increasing sophistication of surveillance techniques has drawncomparisons with George Orwell's 1984, but "Weeping Angel",developed by the CIA's EmbeddedDevices Branch (EDB) (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/space_753667.html), which infests smart TVs, transformingthem into covert microphones, is surely its most emblematicrealization.
The attack against Samsungsmart TVs (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/page_12353643.html) was developed in cooperation with the United Kingdom'sMI5/BTSS. After infestation, Weeping Angel places the target TVin a 'Fake-Off' mode, so that the owner falsely believes the TV isoff when it is on. In 'Fake-Off' mode the TV operates as a bug,recording conversations in the room and sending them over theInternet to a covert CIA server.
As of October 2014 the CIA was also looking at infectingthe vehicle control systems used by modern cars and trucks (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/page_13763790.html). Thepurpose of such control is not specified, but it would permit the CIAto engage in nearly undetectable assassinations.
The CIA's Mobile Devices Branch (MDB) developed numerousattacks to remotely hack and control popular smart phones (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/space_3276804.html).Infected phones can be instructed to send the CIA the user'sgeolocation, audio and text communications as well as covertlyactivate the phone's camera and microphone.
Despite iPhone's minority share (14.5%) of the global smart phonemarket in 2016, a specialized unit in the CIA's Mobile DevelopmentBranch produces malware to infest, control and exfiltrate data fromiPhonesand other Apple products running iOS, such as iPads (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/space_2359301.html). CIA'sarsenal includes numerouslocal and remote "zero days" (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/page_13205587.html) developed by CIA orobtained from GCHQ, NSA, FBI or purchased from cyber arms contractorssuch as Baitshop. The disproportionate focus on iOS may be explainedby the popularity of the iPhone among social, political, diplomaticand business elites.
A similarunit targets Google's Android which is used to run the majority ofthe world's smart phones (~85%) including Samsung, HTC and Sony (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/space_11763721.html).1.15 billion Android powered phones were sold last year. "YearZero" shows that as of 2016 theCIA had 24 "weaponized" Android "zero days" (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/page_11629096.html)which it has developed itself and obtained from GCHQ, NSA and cyberarms contractors.
These techniques permit the CIA to bypass the encryption ofWhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Wiebo, Confide and Cloackman by hackingthe "smart" phones that they run on and collecting audioand message traffic before encryption is applied.

CIA malware targets Windows, OSx, Linux, routers

The CIA also runs a very substantial effort to infect andcontrol MicrosoftWindows users (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/page_11628612.html) with its malware. This includes multiple local andremote weaponized "zero days", air gap jumping virusessuch as "HammerDrill" (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/page_17072172.html) which infects software distributed on CD/DVDs,infectorsfor removable media such as USBs (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/page_13762636.html), systems to hidedata in images (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/page_13763247.html) or in covert disk areas ("Brutal Kangaroo" (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/page_13763236.html)) and to keepits malware infestations going (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/page_13763650.html).
Many of these infection efforts are pulled together by the CIA'sAutomatedImplant Branch (AIB) (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/space_3276805.html), which has developed several attack systemsfor automated infestation and control of CIA malware, such as"Assassin" and "Medusa".
Attacks against Internet infrastructure and webservers aredeveloped by the CIA's NetworkDevices Branch (NDB) (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/space_15204355.html).
The CIA has developed automated multi-platform malwareattack and control systems covering Windows, Mac OS X, Solaris, Linuxand more, such as EDB's "HIVE" and the related "Cutthroat"and "Swindle" tools, which are describedin the examples section below (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/index.html#HIVE).

CIA 'hoarded' vulnerabilities ("zero days")

In the wake of Edward Snowden's leaks about the NSA, the U.S.technology industry secured a commitment from the Obamaadministration that the executive would disclose on an ongoing basis— rather than hoard — serious vulnerabilities, exploits, bugs or"zero days" to Apple, Google, Microsoft, and other US-basedmanufacturers.
Serious vulnerabilities not disclosed to the manufacturers placeshuge swathes of the population and critical infrastructure at risk toforeign intelligence or cyber criminals who independently discover orhear rumors of the vulnerability. If the CIA can discover suchvulnerabilities so can others.
The U.S. government's commitment to the VulnerabilitiesEquities Process (https://is.gd/vepvep) came after significant lobbying by US technologycompanies, who risk losing their share of the global market over realand perceived hidden vulnerabilities. The government stated that itwould disclose all pervasive vulnerabilities discovered after 2010 onan ongoing basis.
"Year Zero" documents show that the CIA breached theObama administration's commitments. Many of the vulnerabilities usedin the CIA's cyber arsenal are pervasive and some may already havebeen found by rival intelligence agencies or cyber criminals.
As an example, specific CIA malware revealed in "YearZero" is able to penetrate, infest and control both the Androidphone and iPhone software that runs or has run presidential Twitteraccounts. The CIA attacks this software by using undisclosedsecurity vulnerabilities ("zero days") possessed by the CIAbut if the CIA can hack these phones then so can everyone else whohas obtained or discovered the vulnerability. As long as the CIAkeeps these vulnerabilities concealed from Apple and Google (who makethe phones) they will not be fixed, and the phones will remainhackable.
The same vulnerabilities exist for the population at large,including the U.S. Cabinet, Congress, top CEOs, systemadministrators, security officers and engineers. By hiding thesesecurity flaws from manufacturers like Apple and Google the CIAensures that it can hack everyone; at the expense of leaving everyonehackable.

'Cyberwar' programs are a serious proliferationrisk

Cyber 'weapons' are not possible to keep under effective control.
While nuclear proliferation has been restrained by the enormouscosts and visible infrastructure involved in assembling enoughfissile material to produce a critical nuclear mass, cyber 'weapons',once developed, are very hard to retain.
Cyber 'weapons' are in fact just computer programs which can bepirated like any other. Since they are entirely comprised ofinformation they can be copied quickly with no marginal cost.
Securing such 'weapons' is particularly difficult since the samepeople who develop and use them have the skills to exfiltrate copieswithout leaving traces — sometimes by using the very same 'weapons'against the organizations that contain them. There aresubstantial price incentives for government hackers and consultantsto obtain copies since there is a global "vulnerability market"that will pay hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars for copiesof such 'weapons'. Similarly, contractors and companies who obtainsuch 'weapons' sometimes use them for their own purposes, obtainingadvantage over their competitors in selling 'hacking' services.
Over the last three years the United States intelligence sector,which consists of government agencies such as the CIA and NSA andtheir contractors, such as Booze Allan Hamilton, has been subject tounprecedented series of data exfiltrations by its own workers.
A number of intelligence community members not yet publicly namedhave been arrested or subject to federal criminal investigations inseparate incidents.
Most visibly, on February 8, 2017 a U.S. federal grand juryindicted Harold T. Martin III with 20 counts of mishandlingclassified information. The Department of Justice alleged that itseized some 50,000 gigabytes ofinformation from Harold T. Martin III that he had obtained fromclassified programs at NSA and CIA, including the source code fornumerous hacking tools.
Once a single cyber 'weapon' is 'loose' it can spread aroundthe world in seconds, to be used by peer states, cyber mafia andteenage hackers alike.

U.S. Consulate in Frankfurt is a covert CIAhacker base

In addition to its operations in Langley, Virginia the CIAalso uses the U.S. consulate in Frankfurt as a covert base for itshackers covering Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
CIA hackers operating out of the Frankfurt consulate ("Center for Cyber Intelligence Europe" (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/page_20251151.html) or CCIE) aregiven diplomatic ("black") passports and State Departmentcover. Theinstructions for incoming CIA hackers (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/page_26607630.html) make Germany'scounter-intelligence efforts appear inconsequential: "Breezethrough German Customs because you have your cover-for-action storydown pat, and all they did was stamp your passport"
Your Cover Story (for this trip)
Q: Why are youhere?
A: Supporting technical consultations at theConsulate.
Two earlier WikiLeaks publications give further detail on CIAapproaches to customs (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/index.html)and secondaryscreening procedures (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/index.html).
Once in Frankfurt CIA hackers can travel without further borderchecks to the 25 European countries that are part of the Shengen openborder area — including France, Italy and Switzerland.
A number of the CIA's electronic attack methods are designed forphysical proximity. These attack methods are able to penetrate highsecurity networks that are disconnected from the internet, such aspolice record database. In these cases, a CIA officer, agent orallied intelligence officer acting under instructions, physicallyinfiltrates the targeted workplace. The attacker is providedwith a USB containing malware developed for the CIA for this purpose,which is inserted into the targeted computer. The attacker theninfects and exfiltrates data to removable media. For example, the CIAattack system FineDining (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/page_20251107.html), provides 24 decoy applications for CIA spies to use. Towitnesses, the spy appears to be running a program showing videos(e.g VLC), presenting slides (Prezi), playing a computer game(Breakout2, 2048) or even running a fake virus scanner (Kaspersky,McAfee, Sophos). But while the decoy application is on the screen,the underlaying system is automatically infected and ransacked.

How the CIA dramatically increased proliferationrisks

In what is surely one of the most astounding intelligence owngoals in living memory, the CIA structured its classification regimesuch that for the most market valuable part of "Vault 7" —the CIA's weaponized malware (implants + zero days), Listening Posts(LP), and Command and Control (C2) systems — the agency has littlelegal recourse.
The CIA made these systems unclassified.
Why the CIA chose to make its cyberarsenal unclassified revealshow concepts developed for military use do not easily crossover tothe 'battlefield' of cyber 'war'.
To attack its targets, the CIA usually requires that its implantscommunicate with their control programs over the internet. IfCIA implants, Command & Control and Listening Post software wereclassified, then CIA officers could be prosecuted or dismissed forviolating rules that prohibit placing classified information onto theInternet. Consequently the CIA has secretly made most of its cyberspying/war code unclassified. The U.S. government is not ableto assert copyright either, due to restrictions in the U.S.Constitution. This means that cyber 'arms' manufactures and computerhackers can freely "pirate" these 'weapons' if they areobtained. The CIA has primarily had to rely on obfuscation to protectits malware secrets.
Conventional weapons such as missiles may be fired at the enemy(i.e into an unsecured area). Proximity to or impact with the targetdetonates the ordnance including its classified parts. Hence militarypersonnel do not violate classification rules by firing ordnance withclassified parts. Ordnance will likely explode. If it does not, thatis not the operator's intent.
Over the last decade U.S. hacking operations have beenincreasingly dressed up in military jargon to tap into Department ofDefense funding streams. For instance, attempted "malwareinjections" (commercial jargon) or "implant drops"(NSA jargon) are being called "fires" as if a weapon wasbeing fired. However the analogy is questionable.
Unlike bullets, bombs or missiles, most CIA malware isdesigned to live for days or even years after it has reached its'target'. CIA malware does not "explode on impact"but rather permanently infests its target. In order to infecttarget's device, copies of the malware must be placed on the target'sdevices, giving physical possession of the malware to the target. Toexfiltrate data back to the CIA or to await further instructions themalware must communicate with CIA Command & Control (C2) systemsplaced on internet connected servers. But such servers are typicallynot approved to hold classified information, so CIA command andcontrol systems are also made unclassified.
A successful 'attack' on a target's computer system is more like aseries of complex stock maneuvers in a hostile take-over bid or thecareful planting of rumors in order to gain control over anorganization's leadership rather than the firing of a weapons system.If there is a military analogy to be made, the infestation of atarget is perhaps akin to the execution of a whole series of militarymaneuvers against the target's territory including observation,infiltration, occupation and exploitation.
Evading forensics and anti-virus

A series of standards lay out CIA malware infestation patternswhich are likely to assist forensic crime scene investigators as wellas Apple, Microsoft, Google, Samsung, Nokia, Blackberry, Siemens andanti-virus companies attribute and defend against attacks.
"TradecraftDO's and DON'Ts" (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/page_14587109.html) contains CIA rules on how its malwareshould be written to avoid fingerprints implicating the "CIA, USgovernment, or its witting partner companies" in "forensicreview". Similar secret standards cover the useof encryption to hide CIA hacker and malware communication (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/files/NOD%20Cryptographic%20Requirements%20v1.1%20TOP%20 SECRET.pdf) (pdf),describingtargets & exfiltrated data (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/files/Codex-Spec-v1-SECRET.pdf) (pdf) as well as executingpayloads (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/files/ICE-Spec-v3-final-SECRET.pdf) (pdf) and persisting (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/files/Persisted-DLL-Spec-v2-SECRET.pdf)(pdf) in the target's machines over time.
CIA hackers developed successful attacks against most well knownanti-virus programs. These are documented in AVdefeats (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/page_2064514.html), PersonalSecurity Products (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/page_13762910.html), Detectingand defeating PSPs (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/page_7995642.html) and PSP/Debugger/REAvoidance (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/page_2621845.html). For example, Comodo was defeated by CIAmalware placing itself in the Window's "Recycle Bin" (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/page_5341269.html).While Comodo 6.x has a "GapingHole of DOOM" (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/page_5341272.html).
CIA hackers discussed what the NSA's "Equation Group"hackers did wrong and howthe CIA's malware makers could avoid similar exposure (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/page_14588809.html).

Examples


The CIA's Engineering Development Group (EDG) management systemcontains around 500 different projects (only some of which aredocumented by "Year Zero") each with their ownsub-projects, malware and hacker tools.
The majority of these projects relate to tools that are used forpenetration, infestation ("implanting"), control, andexfiltration.
Another branch of development focuses on the development andoperation of Listening Posts (LP) and Command and Control (C2)systems used to communicate with and control CIA implants; specialprojects are used to target specific hardware from routers to smartTVs.
Some example projects are described below, but see thetable of contents (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/index.html) for the full list of projects described byWikiLeaks' "Year Zero".
UMBRAGE

The CIA's hand crafted hacking techniques pose a problem for theagency. Each technique it has created forms a "fingerprint"that can be used by forensic investigators to attribute multipledifferent attacks to the same entity.
This is analogous to finding the same distinctive knife wound onmultiple separate murder victims. The unique wounding style createssuspicion that a single murderer is responsible. As soon one murderin the set is solved then the other murders also find likelyattribution.
The CIA's RemoteDevices Branch (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/space_753668.html)'s UMBRAGEgroup (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/page_2621751.html) collects and maintains asubstantial library (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/page_2621753.html) of attack techniques 'stolen' from malwareproduced in other states including the Russian Federation.
With UMBRAGE and related projects the CIA cannot only increase itstotal number of attack types but also misdirect attribution byleaving behind the "fingerprints" of the groups that theattack techniques were stolen from.
UMBRAGE components cover keyloggers, password collection,webcam capture, data destruction, persistence, privilege escalation,stealth, anti-virus (PSP) avoidance and survey techniques.
Fine Dining

Fine Dining comes with a standardized questionnaire i.e menu thatCIA case officers fill out. The questionnaire is used by the agency'sOSB (OperationalSupport Branch (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/space_1736706.html)) to transform the requests of case officers intotechnical requirements for hacking attacks (typically "exfiltrating"information from computer systems) for specific operations. Thequestionnaire allows the OSB to identify how to adapt existing toolsfor the operation, and communicate this to CIA malware configurationstaff. The OSB functions as the interface between CIA operationalstaff and the relevant technical support staff.
Among the list of possible targets of the collection are 'Asset','Liason Asset', 'System Administrator', 'Foreign InformationOperations', 'Foreign Intelligence Agencies' and 'Foreign GovernmentEntities'. Notably absent is any reference to extremists ortransnational criminals. The 'Case Officer' is also asked tospecify the environment of the target like the type of computer,operating system used, Internet connectivity and installed anti-virusutilities (PSPs) as well as a list of file types to be exfiltratedlike Office documents, audio, video, images or custom file types. The'menu' also asks for information if recurring access to the target ispossible and how long unobserved access to the computer can bemaintained. This information is used by the CIA's 'JQJIMPROVISE'software (see below) to configure a set of CIA malware suited to thespecific needs of an operation.
Improvise (JQJIMPROVISE)

'Improvise' is a toolset for configuration, post-processing,payload setup and execution vector selection for survey/exfiltrationtools supporting all major operating systems like Windows(Bartender), MacOS (JukeBox) and Linux (DanceFloor). Itsconfiguration utilities like Margarita allows the NOC (NetworkOperation Center) to customize tools based on requirements from 'FineDining' questionairies.
HIVE

HIVE is a multi-platform CIA malware suite and itsassociated control software. The project provides customizableimplants for Windows, Solaris, MikroTik (used in internet routers)and Linux platforms and a Listening Post (LP)/Command and Control(C2) infrastructure to communicate with these implants.
The implants are configured to communicate via HTTPS with thewebserver of a cover domain; each operation utilizing these implantshas a separate cover domain and the infrastructure can handle anynumber of cover domains.
Each cover domain resolves to an IP address that is located at acommercial VPS (Virtual Private Server) provider. The public-facingserver forwards all incoming traffic via a VPN to a 'Blot' serverthat handles actual connection requests from clients. It issetup for optional SSL client authentication: if a client sends avalid client certificate (only implants can do that), the connectionis forwarded to the 'Honeycomb' toolserver that communicates with theimplant; if a valid certificate is missing (which is the case ifsomeone tries to open the cover domain website by accident), thetraffic is forwarded to a cover server that delivers an unsuspiciouslooking website.
The Honeycomb toolserver receives exfiltrated information from theimplant; an operator can also task the implant to execute jobs on thetarget computer, so the toolserver acts as a C2 (command and control)server for the implant.
Similar functionality (though limited to Windows) is provided bythe RickBobby project.
See the classified user (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/files/UsersGuide.pdf)and developer (file:///home/peter-and-crazybear/Desktop/Newest%20of%20New/year0/vault7/cms/files/DevelopersGuide.pdf)guides for HIVE.

Peter Lemkin
03-07-2017, 06:45 PM
A CIA spokesperson has just refused to comment on the release by Wikileaks, also noting that the CIA neither claims nor denies that anything in the release is true as it might pertain to CIA. ::ninja::

I'd be interested to hear Snowden's take on this release!

One thing is for sure, if the Snowden/NSA leak was not enough to convince all, all should now assume that NO MATTER what your device or operating system, even some 'air gaped' devices are now vulnerable to multiple malware 'implants' funded by US and other tax dollars to spy on everything you do, record, say, spend, see, watch, go to, meet with, and more. There are implants that can sit on your device/computer for its lifetime and send all to NSA or CIA or others - or delete everything in memory - even selectively change things in memory.

Right out of James Bond is the proof [already known to some; e.g. Michael Hastings death by out-of-control car] that hacking into smart car computer systems [in many cars post 2000-2010 or so] can be used to make the car crash when desired and thus produce a 'deniable' assassination of all in the car! Now you have another reason to drive an older car!...and maybe not be addicted to your smartphone and giant home entertainment system.

Apparently, Wikileaks has lots [several hundred million lines of code] of the actual code of some of these CIA exploits. They are not releasing them at this time to not allow them to proliferate and be used by others for negative purposes. They did indicate that at some time soon, as appropriate, they may release some so that white-hat hackers can build defeats for them. One thing is for sure, the governments are at war with the citizens of the World.....but nothing new in that. ::read::

1984!!!!! Have a nice day ::blink::

Magda Hassan
03-07-2017, 11:26 PM
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=9008&stc=1

Peter Lemkin
03-08-2017, 06:53 AM
Edward Snowden, the world’s most famous whistleblower, thinks of the information held inside. Posting on Twitter Tuesday morning, Snowden said that the leak “looks authentic” and is “generally a big deal.” He went on to elaborate why he believed the information – which centred around allegations that the CIA’s covert program allowed it to crack into iPhones, Androids and even Samsung TVs – was credible. Still working through the publication, but what @Wikileaks has here is genuinely a big deal. Looks authentic. — Edward Snowden (@Snowden) March 7, 2017 What makes this look real? Program & office names, such as the JQJ (IOC) crypt series, are real. Only a cleared insider could know them. Edward Snowden (@Snowden) March 7, 2017 Snowden also addressed how the government might be making software vulnerable on purpose, by “developing vulnerabilities in US products then intentionally keeping the holes open.” He slammed that alleged practise as “reckless beyond words.” The CIA reports show the USG developing vulnerabilities in US products, then intentionally keeping the holes open.

Albert Doyle
03-08-2017, 04:52 PM
This was on CNN yesterday. This post is incredibly important Deep Politics wise. People have become dulled to Intel intrigue because of the sheer volume of it but this Wikileak shows the true extent of CIA invasion of privacy and hostile subterfuge.




The report had Anderson Cooper (CIA trained) and two CIA agents on CNN discussing this. The only thing discussed was how the Wikileak threatened National Security by alerting America's enemies to its methods. The question that this article begs is how does this effect regular citizens, their freedom and rights? That question was never asked on the all-CIA panel on CNN.



The reason the question about American's rights was never asked is obviously because this new norm assumes those rights no longer exist and are therefore no longer an issue worth addressing. CIA is sitting right where it wants to be and the media doesn't even ask the question any more.

Peter Lemkin
03-08-2017, 06:19 PM
Samsung has just announced that their IT specialists are frantically 'looking into' the 'reports' that their TVs are susceptible to hacking by the CIA. I guess they sort of had too, as sales of them will surely plummet to all but those who's mantra is 'I have nothing to hide'. However, this is not new or news really. I've posted articles here on toasters and refrigerators that can act as microphones and feed back everything said to whomever is in control of them [and that won't be you, Mr./Ms. owner of said product]. We had long known that computers and smart phones could seem to be 'off', yet be 'on' enough to send back voice and even sometimes video. Snowden made that clear, but it was out of the bag before he proved it. Now, we have an equally revolting revelation that the CIA [not to be outdone by the NSA or Russian Intelligence] have created their own set of programs/implants/trojans/worms/infections/hacks that can be placed in a smartphone, computer with any operating system and even your car [to kill you more likely than listen to what you say in the car]. What I'd like to know is what are People going to DO about these endless intrusions into our lives!!!! [and done with our tax money to boot!]

In fact any of these exploits can quite easily and quickly be defeated if the code is known or the means of attack is generally known; however, the NSA/CIA/others can just as quickly and easily adapt their dirty tricks to the newly modified code in the device. I'm not a programmer nor security expert, but to me it seems obvious that the only reasonably safe device would be one that regularly changed its basic parameters, both hardware and software - the first being horribly expensive and the second being a hell of a lot of trouble for the manufacturer and the user - both. Encryption may be the answer, but not the kind being used now. We are almost to the point as in 1984 where everything Winston did was seen and heard by associates of Big Brother. The capacity to do this is now available, they only haven't yet bothered to put it in every room and every device - just in many rooms and outdoor places and many devices. The NSA boasts to recording all conversations and internet actions of everyone in the developed World and much of the developing World. And, oh, by the way the 'not-yet-finished' Utah MEGA-STORAGE facility of the NSA has long been finished and in operation. The 'not finished' line was another of the Big Lies. So, they never had to get a FISA Court to approve bugging of Trump [all FISA requests are granted anyway], as the NSA only had to go to Utah and pull the calls/internet interactions of Trump or ANYONE else [even YOU!] they want when they want...it is all stored there and kept in storage, to be used at the discretion of unknown persons against all of us!

David Guyatt
03-09-2017, 07:31 AM
We know that governments are always in peril from the intelligence community and have been for a long time. The use of blackmail garnered from the Five Eyes technology along with willing servants in the media who are able to float a ruinous story as required, means accountability remains a very long way off. I suppose the first step is to neuter the mainstream media.

Meanwhile, on a personal level you take what steps you can. You can blind the camera on your laptop/computer and turn the internal microphone to zero - all recommended actions to hopefully defeat intrusions - and in my case I have an iPhone version3, a very old one that is less easy to manipulate and I don't plan to upgrade it at all. I remember that John McAfee uses an old flip top cell phone because it can't be hacked and recommends everyone uses similar technology. Maybe people should revert to that sort of thing, but they won't, will they. But all these are just temporary patches. The entire electrical circuit in your house can be used as a remote microphone.

Technology isn't going to go backwards, so it's going to take a real battle to put the spooks back in their box, and I don;t see anyone with the will to do that that. Sadly.

Peter Lemkin
03-09-2017, 11:35 AM
We know that governments are always in peril from the intelligence community and have been for a long time. The use of blackmail garnered from the Five Eyes technology along with willing servants in the media who are able to float a ruinous story as required, means accountability remains a very long way off. I suppose the first step is to neuter the mainstream media.

Meanwhile, on a personal level you take what steps you can. You can blind the camera on your laptop/computer and turn the internal microphone to zero - all recommended actions to hopefully defeat intrusions - and in my case I have an iPhone version3, a very old one that is less easy to manipulate and I don't plan to upgrade it at all. I remember that John McAfee uses an old flip top cell phone because it can't be hacked and recommends everyone uses similar technology. Maybe people should revert to that sort of thing, but they won't, will they. But all these are just temporary patches. The entire electrical circuit in your house can be used as a remote microphone.

Technology isn't going to go backwards, so it's going to take a real battle to put the spooks back in their box, and I don;t see anyone with the will to do that that. Sadly.

The electronics most now have make it all too easy for the BEAST [whatever/whoever they are]. Even if you had NO phone at all, all they have to do is record the vibration of the glass on your windows to hear what is being said in the apartment or house. This is done now with a laser [invisible wavelength]...but it is a lot of trouble to set up and is only done on high-value targets. With everyone with a smartphone [but NOT me!] they know where you are, who your with, what you said, your every email and internet search and action, etc.

Yes, there are steps each can take to minimize the possible encroachment on privacy - but truthfully they amount to little compared to what the other side has at hand. Even most bank cards now have RFID chips in them and when you are near [about 10m] a special device it can read who you are, your bank account number, your pin code, and where you are walking in a shop, how long you stop before item X and then item Y, what you buy, etc. It can even be used sometimes to track you walking or driving in a city. And there are other techniques. Someone would make a small [and honest] fortune if the set up a high-tech company to build devices that can't be hacked...but they'd be infiltrated and the higher ups perhaps 'whacked' if successful. It is sad that no one is even trying. Google is part of CIA; the phone companies are either complicit or don't care enough. Ditto software developers. I use Linux and am shocked that Linux has yet to comment on the Vault7 info that even Linux is vulnerable now....it was long thought it was not without very special precision attacks....not so any more.

Its a Brave New 1984 and I don't like it one flying ****!::prison::

Peter Lemkin
03-09-2017, 11:42 AM
It is a bit odd, come to think of it, that Trumpf has yet to tweet or peep about the Wikileaks/CIA bit.... perhaps because it would cause even the most neutral of press to mention about how he praised Wikileaks for releasing the DNC emails. His press sec. made a statement against Assange and Wikileaks, but Trumpf is staying very quiet indeed......

Peter Lemkin
03-10-2017, 08:25 AM
Use an aniti-virus or anti-malware program? Well listed in the Wikileaked CIA Vault7 document are successful hacking of [or more usually around] the following: Comodo, Avast, F-Secure, Zemana Antilogger, Zone Alarm, Trend Micro, Symantec, Rising, Panda Security, Norton, Malwarebytes Anti-Malware, EMET (Enhanced Mitigation Experience Toolkit), Microsoft Security Essentials, McAfee, Kaspersky, GDATA, ESET, ClamAV, Bitdefenderm Avira and AVG. That covers about 96+% of the market on them....so even though they will try to 'fix' things, even with the knowledge that CIA can bypass or render them harmless for CIA purposes, they can not win - the whole concept of such programs is all but useless. Yes, it will stop the annoying 'amateur' threats, but not the BIG BOYS....even know that the proof of their hacking is known. I really don't know how to even begin to suggest making a computer safe and private anymore. I suggest going back to a typewriter or pen and paper with calculator and slide-rule. ::depressed::


Avast Vice President Sinan Eren asked the makers of the Android and iOS platfroms, Google and Apple respectively, to give internet security firms better access to the systems so they can respond faster, according to news agency Reuters.

“We can prevent attacks in real time if we are given the hooks into the mobile operating system. If we can drive a paradigm shift where mobile platforms don't shut off access, we'll be better able to detect when hackers are hiding in a mobile (phone),” he told Reuters from his office in Avast's branch in California. [wishful thinking - the CIA will always be a step ahead or at least a few days behind any new fix]

Apple told Reuters that many of the issues had already been patched, while Google declined to comment. The CIA also declined comment.

David Guyatt
03-10-2017, 01:00 PM
Edward Snowden recently Tweeted suggesting that only a "cleared insider" could've leaked the Vault 7 dump HERE (https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/839159736977227777). This is important because the Russian meme is already being directed against Wikileaks publication also.

David Guyatt
03-10-2017, 01:10 PM
AUTHOR: ANDY GREENBERG.ANDY GREENBERG (https://www.wired.com/author/andygreenberg/) SECURITY (https://www.wired.com/category/security/)
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 03.08.17.03.08.17
TIME OF PUBLICATION: 9:59 AM.9:59 AM

HOW THE CIA’S HACKING HOARD MAKES EVERYONE LESS SECURE





https://assets.wired.com/photos/w_1720/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/wikileaks-e1488924447538.jpgWIREDWHEN WIKILEAKS YESTERDAY released a trove of documents (https://www.wired.com/2017/03/wikileaks-cia-hacks-dump/)purporting to show how the CIA hacks everything (https://www.wired.com/2017/03/cia-can-hack-phone-pc-tv-says-wikileaks/) from smartphones to PCs to smart televisions, the agency’s already shadowy reputation gained a new dimension. But if you’re an average American, rather than Edward Snowden or an ISIS jihadi, the real danger clarified by that leak wasn’t that someone in Langley is watching you through your hotel room’s TV (https://www.wired.com/2017/03/cia-can-hack-phone-pc-tv-says-wikileaks/). It’s the rest of the hacker world that the CIA has inadvertently empowered.
As security researchers and policy analysts dig through the latest WikiLeaks documents, the sheer number of hacking tools the CIA has apparently hoarded for exploiting zero-day vulnerabilities—secret inroads that tech firms haven’t patched—stands out most. If the US intelligence community knows about them, that leaves open the possibility that criminal and foreign state hackers do as well.
Its broad zero-day stash, then, strongly suggests that the CIA—along with other intelligence agencies—has long allowed Americans to remain vulnerable to those same attacks. Now that those hacking secrets are public, potentially along with enough details to replicate them, the danger of the feds leaving major security flaws unfixed only escalates.
“If the CIA can use it, so can the Russians, or the Chinese or organized crime,” says Kevin Bankston, the director of the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute. “The lesson here, first off, is that stockpiling a bunch of vulnerabilities is bad for cybersecurity. And two, it means they’re likely going to get leaked by someone.”
A World of HacksIt’s no surprise, of course, that one of America’s most well-resourced spy agencies can hack its foreign adversaries. The shock, says Johns Hopkins cryptographer Matt Green, comes instead from the sudden spill of those hacking tools onto the web. “In the same way the military would probably have one technique for killing every single tank in an enemy’s arsenal, you would expect the CIA to collect the same thing,” says Green. “What’s different is that we’re seeing them out in public.”
In fact, WikiLeaks wrote in a note accompanying its Tuesday release (https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/) that “the archive appears to have been circulated among former US government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner.” That raises the possibility the full document set, along with actual exploit details or code, may have fallen into the hands of hackers long before it was published in part by WikiLeaks.
INSIDE VAULT 7

https://assets.wired.com/photos/w_200,h_200/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/CIA_RTX1TGQJ_TA-200x200.jpgLILY HAY NEWMANWikiLeaks Just Dumped a Mega-Trove of CIA Hacking Secrets
(https://www.wired.com/2017/03/wikileaks-cia-hacks-dump/)
https://assets.wired.com/photos/w_200,h_200/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/wikileaks-200x200.jpgANDY GREENBERGHow the CIA Can Hack Your Phone, PC, and TV (Says WikiLeaks)
(https://www.wired.com/2017/03/cia-can-hack-phone-pc-tv-says-wikileaks/)
https://assets.wired.com/photos/w_200,h_200/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/wikileaks-200x200.jpgISSIE LAPOWSKY AND LILY HAY NEWMANWikiLeaks CIA Dump Gives Russian Hacking Deniers the Perfect Ammo
(https://www.wired.com/2017/03/wikileaks-cia-dump-gives-russian-hacking-deniers-perfect-ammo/)
https://assets.wired.com/photos/w_200,h_200/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/wikileaks-200x200.jpgBRIAN BARRETTDon’t Let WikiLeaks Scare You Off of Signal and Other Encrypted Chat Apps
(https://www.wired.com/2017/03/wikileaks-cia-hack-signal-encrypted-chat-apps/)


The WikiLeaks CIA cache, which the group calls Vault 7, most explicitly details the agency’s hacking capabilities for smartphones. It lists more than a dozen exploits that affect iOS, and two dozen that threaten Android phones with varying degrees of penetration. The CIA appears to have gleaned some of those exploits from public research, and most are likely no longer zero days, given that the documents date back to as early as 2013 and only as late as the beginning of 2016. “Our initial analysis indicates that many of the issues leaked today were already patched in the latest iOS,” an Apple spokesperson writes. Google has yet to respond to WIRED’s request for comment.
But during those years, at least, the CIA appears to have kept the security flaws those techniques exploited secret. And the sheer number of those exploits suggests violations of the Vulnerabilities Equities Process, which the Obama administration created in 2010 to compel law enforcement and intelligence agencies to help fix those flaws, rather than exploit them whenever possible.
“Did CIA submit these exploits to the Vulnerabilities Equities Process?” asks Jason Healey, a director at the Atlantic Council who’s tracked the VEP closely. “If not, you can say that either the process is out of control or they’re subverting the president’s priorities.”
Selective DisclosureThe man most closely responsible for that vulnerability disclosure policy argues that the second of those two possibilities, at least, isn’t the case. Former White House cybersecurity coordinator Michael Daniel, who led cybersecurity policy for the Obama presidency and oversaw a revamp of the VEP in 2014, says that “all of the agencies that were participating in the VEP were doing so in good faith.” Daniels declined to comment specifically on the WikiLeaks release or the CIA’s exploit collection, but said that even now he doesn’t believe anyone was hiding hacking capabilities from the White House. “I felt like everyone was engaged in the process in the right way,” he says.
But that hardly means the CIA reported their exploits to Apple and Google to help secure their software, Daniel admits. While he argues that in some cases the CIA’s exploits may have targeted users who simply didn’t update their software with available patches, he says that other times the White House may have prioritized the CIA’s hacking capability over securing software used by millions.





“The default position is that the government will disclose, but that doesn’t mean that will happen on every occasion,” says Daniel. “The point of having a process is that there are times when the benefit to intelligence and law enforcement to exploit that flaw outweighs the risk of retaining that flaw inside the government. We were clear there were times when we did choose not to disclose a vulnerability to a vendor.”
Balancing the needs of a critical intelligence agency with the digital security of the rest of the world isn’t easy. But the US intelligence community’s hacking techniques leaking—not once, but at least twice now after hackers known as the Shadow Brokers breached an NSA server and published reams of NSA code last August (https://www.wired.com/2016/08/shadow-brokers-mess-happens-nsa-hoards-zero-days/)—means that the balance needs to be reconsidered, says New American Foundation’s Bankston. “All of these vulnerabilities were in iPhones and Android phones that hundreds of millions of people used if not billions,” he says. “That has serious cybersecurity implications.”
It’s still unclear whether the Trump administration will continue the previous White House’s Vulnerabilities Equities Process, or how it will address the question of government hacking versus civilian security. But the Atlantic Council’s Healey argues that the CIA leak shows that the question needs a harder look than ever.
“The deal we make in a democracy is that we understand we need military and intelligence services. But we want want oversight in the executive branch and across the three branches of government,” he says. “If the CIA says ‘we’re suppose to do this, but we’re just not going to,’ or ‘we’re going to do it just enough that the White House thinks we are,’ that starts to eat away at the fundamental oversight for which we have elected officials.”

Source (https://www.wired.com/2017/03/cias-hacking-hoard-makes-everyone-less-secure/)

Peter Lemkin
03-10-2017, 03:03 PM
While WikiLeaks promised (https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/839475557721116672) the "Vault 7" release is less than one percent of its 'Year Zero' disclosure, and there's more to come on the CIA leak.

The Wikileaks CIA dump also includes information about the malware that can be used by the agency to hack, remotely spy on and control PCs running Windows, macOS, and Linux operating systems.

This apparently means that the CIA can bypass PGP email encryption and even Virtual Private Network (VPN) on your computer in a similar way. The agency can also see everything you are doing online, even if you are hiding it behind Tor Browser.

Again, this also does not mean that using PGP, VPNs, or Tor Browser is not safe or that the CIA can hack into these services.

But the agency's ability to hack into any OS to gain full control of any device — whether it’s a smartphone, a laptop, or a TV with a microphone — makes the CIA capable of bypassing any service spy on everything that happens on that device.

CIA's Center for Cyber Intelligence, Fine Dining includes modules that can be used to weaponize following applications:


VLC Player Portable
Irfanview
Chrome Portable
Opera Portable
Firefox Portable
ClamWin Portable
Kaspersky TDSS Killer Portable
McAfee Stinger Portable
Sophos Virus Removal
Thunderbird Portable
Opera Mail
Foxit Reader
LibreOffice Portable
Prezi
Babel Pad
Notepad++
Skype
Iperius Backup
Sandisk Secure Access
U3 Software
2048
LBreakout2
7-Zip Portable
Portable Linux CMD Prompt
many unnamed other programs.....

David Guyatt
03-11-2017, 08:25 AM
That the Vault 7 release is only 1% so far boggles the mind given the content thus far. It seems that Assange and Wikileaks weren't joking when they chose the JFK phrase for their password Splinter Into A Thousand Pieces And Scatter Into The Winds.

Also based on what Wikileaks said about why the individual leaked this material it now seems reasonably clear that there are a number of serving and former Intelligence Community officials who have decided to combat the the US security state, which they consider is now operating against the interests of the US Constitution and are illegal.

In a recent interview on Fox Hannity show (below) two former IC types (William Binney and Col. Tony Schaffer) both indicated that "former members of the NSA, retired intelligence guys", using the "malware" that had "Russian fingerprints" on it hacked the DNC and gave it to Wikileaks (thus confirming what former UK former Ambassador Craig Murray has said). Shaffer also added that the DNC and the democrats knew this but pushed the Russian did it story. He added that he has no proof but this is what he's heard and the reason for this was that "concerned Americans were fed up with Clinton doing things... got in there and gave it to Wikileaks". Binney agrees.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ij0ShwRx5bc

Now we have this second release from a "cleared insider" that is designed to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces, and I don't suppose it's pushing the envelope to say that there is continuing warfare between "concerned Americans" in the CIA and the IC who are intent on bringing the the CIA and other IC entities to heel over their excesses -- presumably in the domestic political arena. William Binney also adds an important observation. The CIA hacking tools are no longer secure, other hackers have accessed them, and yet the CIA did nothing about fixing this leaving everyone everywhere openly vulnerable. And the kicker is that the CIA then asks for more money for cyber security. Binney is suggesting this is an outright scam.

David Guyatt
03-11-2017, 09:04 AM
John Kiriakou and James Bamford talk about the CIA's Vault 7


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbzi_4M7wLk

David Guyatt
03-11-2017, 09:06 AM
The below discussion with John Kiriakou and James Bamford is well worth listening - but whatever else you do don't miss the summary/rant by Chris Hedges at 14:13 in the above video - absolutely fantastic:

I've extracted it below, but well worth listening to his delivery anyway.

“Our culture is awash in lies dominated by a never ending stream of hallucinations that merge fact and fiction until they are indistinguishable. We have become the most illusion society on earth. Politics is a species of endless and meaningless political theatre. Politicians have morphed into celebrities. Our two ruling parties are in reality one party - the corporate party. And those who attempt to puncture this vast, breathless universe of fake news designed to push through the cruelty and exploitation of the neoliberal order, are pushed so far to the margins of society, including by a public broadcasting system that has sold its soul for corporate money that we might as well be mice squeaking against an avalanche. But squeak we must.”


Chris Hedges.

Peter Lemkin
03-11-2017, 10:56 AM
That the Vault 7 release is only 1% so far boggles the mind given the content thus far. It seems that Assange and Wikileaks weren't joking when they chose the JFK phrase for their password Splinter Into A Thousand Pieces And Scatter Into The Winds.

Also based on what Wikileaks said about why the individual leaked this material it now seems reasonably clear that there are a number of serving and former Intelligence Community officials who have decided to combat the the US security state, which they consider is now operating against the interests of the US Constitution and are illegal.

In a recent interview on Fox Hannity show (below) two former IC types (William Binney and Col. Tony Schaffer) both indicated that "former members of the NSA, retired intelligence guys", using the "malware" that had "Russian fingerprints" on it hacked the DNC and gave it to Wikileaks (thus confirming what former UK former Ambassador Craig Murray has said). Shaffer also added that the DNC and the democrats knew this but pushed the Russian did it story. He added that he has no proof but this is what he's heard and the reason for this was that "concerned Americans were fed up with Clinton doing things... got in there and gave it to Wikileaks". Binney agrees.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ij0ShwRx5bc

Now we have this second release from a "cleared insider" that is designed to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces, and I don't suppose it's pushing the envelope to say that there is continuing warfare between "concerned Americans" in the CIA and the IC who are intent on bringing the the CIA and other IC entities to heel over their excesses -- presumably in the domestic political arena. William Binney also adds an important observation. The CIA hacking tools are no longer secure, other hackers have accessed them, and yet the CIA did nothing about fixing this leaving everyone everywhere openly vulnerable. And the kicker is that the CIA then asks for more money for cyber security. Binney is suggesting this is an outright scam.

There is a lot we don't know [here on the 'outside']. I think it is reasonable to assume that the Russians have a program similar to, if slightly less all-pervasive than what the NSA has in vacuuming up as much data as possible. They are known to have some of the best hackers in the World and certainly can target who they want as well [or better] than anyone else. That said, I still find it not likely, but possible - and have not yet seen proofs - that Russia got the DNC emails and turned them over to Wikileaks. A DNC insider I named in a thread on this forum died suddenly and unexpectedly after some few accusing him of being the leaker. Also, might Russia not have thought of this on their own, but have been asked by people close to Trumpf in exchange for favors or favoritism...we simply do not know. The more likely scenario is as mentioned in the brief interview you posted the CIA did it and attributed it to Russia for political reasons. This story will obviously play and play based on very little, if any, hard information - and one's political 'persuasion' seems to temper what you want to believe and thus do more than any rational evaluation of the facts or likely facts. Lastly, even if someone - whoever - leaked them, no one has claimed they weren't true and real and the information in them is more important IMHO than who leaked them. It may well have been someone of a 'Snowden-like' consciousness who leaked the Vault7 information. As to the remaining 99%, I would assume [only an assumption] that it is part top-secret and above top-secret stuff [all released was secret and below], Wikileaks is thinking carefully about before releasing - plus the code - which it seems they will not release publicly but will release to the corporations concerned and to a limited number of white-hat hackers to enable them to build new code to make these exploits null and void [for a short time]. How much of one vs. the other only Wikileaks knows. If Assange's life was in danger before, can you imagine it now!?!?!

David Guyatt
03-11-2017, 03:02 PM
According to Snowden, the Vault 7 leak came from a "cleared insider".

I also don't think responsibility for the DNC hack/leak comes down to personal political bias, but rather historical credibility.

Ray McGovern, William Binney, Craig Murray, Julian Assange, John Kiriakou, Coleen Rowley and several other whistleblowers I trust have all frequently and publicly stated that it wasn't the result of a Russian hack --- and if we trace back the origin of the "Russians did it" story is wholly circumstantial and very significantly first originated from the DNC following the report of the firm they hired, CrowdStrike. Who seriously can doubt this was a politically inspired contrivance?

Also not insignificantly, former UK Ambassador, Craig Murray, went on the record to say that he personally took delivery of the DNC material. Ray McGovern has confirmed this.

All the individual names I have listed above are members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

Where the political aspect you speaks of does arise is who does one believe? The choice is the DNC, Podesta, Hilary and their supporters inside the IC and Deep State. Is anyone seriously saying any of these these are credible? Really? Given their respective histories this is a nonsense and should have been a non-starter - and except for the captured mainstream media would've died at birth.

Alternatively there are those who have a long and credible history for having done the right thing and paid the price for their integrity for blowing the whistle on prior illegal excesses of the US intelligence community and security state who state that Hilary's email, the Vault 7 and DNC material derived from leaks gleaned by former members of the US Intelligence Community.

I personally find anyone who believes politicians - the DNC and Hilary clearly had a hat in the ring anyway - to be in serious need of an injection of reality. Who believes politicians anyway? Other than for a handful of ones who are distinguished by honesty and integrity, they're a lying bunch of self serving £%$*@?"& who most of us know serve money and corporate masters, many of whom I am quite sure are also under the control of a faction inside the IC.

Please also let us not forget that there is not a shred of evidence backing up the Democratic Party/Neocon IC faction - it is entirely circumstantial, and following Vault 7 the alleged Guccifer 2 Russian connection to the DNC material is shredded and is now Polly gone... a dead parrot. Moreover, James Clapper and James Comey are now on the record stating that there is no, repeat no, evidence of Russian hacking of the DNC nor influencing the election (HERE (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/10/james-clapper-we-dont-have-good-insight-potential-/), HERE (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/comey-fbi-russia-trump/2016/12/14/id/764008/#%20)).

For the record VIPS published the below on 12th December 2016. The argument they present is implacable; the DNC was a leak not a hack. If it were a hack (for example the Russians) clear traces would be left and the NSA would know and could prove it without any, repeat, any, degradation or danger of compromising Sources and method - which is the usual IC concern in withholding the provision of evidence. William Binney is the authority on these matters and has spoken eloquently about this on several occasions.

Lastly my guess is that VIPS have a pretty damn good idea of the identity of the leaker/s of the HRC emails, the DNC emails and the Vault 7 leak. But they'll never, ever consent to identify them and nor will Julian Assange or Wikileaks. Quite rightly so too. And it is this admirable level of integrity that allows the gap for the snakes who largely hide in the shadows to work their black magic of doubt. Most of us on this forum are experienced and knowledgeable enough to read between the lines in this regard.



US Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims
December 12, 2016

As the hysteria about Russia’s alleged interference in the U.S. election grows, a key mystery is why U.S. intelligence would rely on “circumstantial evidence” when it has the capability for hard evidence, say U.S. intelligence veterans.




Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity


MEMORANDUM


Allegations of Hacking Election Are Baseless


A New York Times report on Monday alluding to “overwhelming circumstantial evidence” leading the CIA to believe that Russian President Vladimir Putin “deployed computer hackers with the goal of tipping the election to Donald J. Trump” is, sadly, evidence-free. This is no surprise, because harder evidence of a technical nature points to an inside leak, not hacking – by Russians or anyone else.


Seal of the National Security Agency
Seal of the National Security Agency
Monday’s Washington Post reports that Sen. James Lankford, R-Oklahoma, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has joined other senators in calling for a bipartisan investigation of suspected cyber-intrusion by Russia. Reading our short memo could save the Senate from endemic partisanship, expense and unnecessary delay.


In what follows, we draw on decades of senior-level experience – with emphasis on cyber-intelligence and security – to cut through uninformed, largely partisan fog. Far from hiding behind anonymity, we are proud to speak out with the hope of gaining an audience appropriate to what we merit – given our long labors in government and other areas of technology. And corny though it may sound these days, our ethos as intelligence professionals remains, simply, to tell it like it is – without fear or favor.


We have gone through the various claims about hacking. For us, it is child’s play to dismiss them. The email disclosures in question are the result of a leak, not a hack. Here’s the difference between leaking and hacking:


Leak: When someone physically takes data out of an organization and gives it to some other person or organization, as Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning did.


Hack: When someone in a remote location electronically penetrates operating systems, firewalls or any other cyber-protection system and then extracts data.


All signs point to leaking, not hacking. If hacking were involved, the National Security Agency would know it – and know both sender and recipient.


In short, since leaking requires physically removing data – on a thumb drive, for example – the only way such data can be copied and removed, with no electronic trace of what has left the server, is via a physical storage device.


Awesome Technical Capabilities


Again, NSA is able to identify both the sender and recipient when hacking is involved. Thanks largely to the material released by Edward Snowden, we can provide a full picture of NSA’s extensive domestic data-collection network including Upstream programs like Fairview, Stormbrew and Blarney. These include at least 30 companies in the U.S. operating the fiber networks that carry the Public Switched Telephone Network as well as the World Wide Web. This gives NSA unparalleled access to data flowing within the U.S. and data going out to the rest of the world, as well as data transiting the U.S.


Former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden. (Photo credit: The Guardian)
Former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden. (Photo credit: The Guardian)
In other words, any data that is passed from the servers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) or of Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) – or any other server in the U.S. – is collected by the NSA. These data transfers carry destination addresses in what are called packets, which enable the transfer to be traced and followed through the network.


Packets: Emails being passed across the World Wide Web are broken down into smaller segments called packets. These packets are passed into the network to be delivered to a recipient. This means the packets need to be reassembled at the receiving end.


To accomplish this, all the packets that form a message are assigned an identifying number that enables the receiving end to collect them for reassembly. Moreover, each packet carries the originator and ultimate receiver Internet protocol number (either IPV4 or IPV6) that enables the network to route data.


When email packets leave the U.S., the other “Five Eyes” countries (the U.K., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) and the seven or eight additional countries participating with the U.S. in bulk-collection of everything on the planet would also have a record of where those email packets went after leaving the U.S.


These collection resources are extensive [see attached NSA slides 1, 2, 3, 4, 5]; they include hundreds of trace route programs that trace the path of packets going across the network and tens of thousands of hardware and software implants in switches and servers that manage the network. Any emails being extracted from one server going to another would be, at least in part, recognizable and traceable by all these resources.


The bottom line is that the NSA would know where and how any “hacked” emails from the DNC, HRC or any other servers were routed through the network. This process can sometimes require a closer look into the routing to sort out intermediate clients, but in the end sender and recipient can be traced across the network.


The various ways in which usually anonymous spokespeople for U.S. intelligence agencies are equivocating – saying things like “our best guess” or “our opinion” or “our estimate” etc. – shows that the emails alleged to have been “hacked” cannot be traced across the network. Given NSA’s extensive trace capability, we conclude that DNC and HRC servers alleged to have been hacked were, in fact, not hacked.


The evidence that should be there is absent; otherwise, it would surely be brought forward, since this could be done without any danger to sources and methods. Thus, we conclude that the emails were leaked by an insider – as was the case with Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning. Such an insider could be anyone in a government department or agency with access to NSA databases, or perhaps someone within the DNC.


As for the comments to the media as to what the CIA believes, the reality is that CIA is almost totally dependent on NSA for ground truth in the communications arena. Thus, it remains something of a mystery why the media is being fed strange stories about hacking that have no basis in fact. In sum, given what we know of NSA’s existing capabilities, it beggars belief that NSA would be unable to identify anyone – Russian or not – attempting to interfere in a U.S. election by hacking.


For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)


William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)


Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator


Larry Johnson, former CIA Intelligence Officer & former State Department Counter-Terrorism Official


Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)


Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA (ret.)


Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA (ret.)

Source (https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/12/us-intel-vets-dispute-russia-hacking-claims/)

David Guyatt
03-11-2017, 03:20 PM
Ray McGovern has posted the below video on his Facebook page with the following introduction:

"Larry has several reliable sources with excellent access. He was correct on the false-flag sarin gas attack outside Damascus on August 21, 2013 (aimed at mousetrapping Obama into doing “shock and awe” against Syria). He is correct here, as well. Small wonder the Fawning Corporate Media avoid him, and others of us VIPS, like the bubonic plague."

What Larry Johnson says is that Britain's GCHQ had access to Trump's electronic output and shared this with certain officials in the US IC. THis is nothing new. There has been an arrangement going back decades where the UK taps (although that is the incorrect technical method) US citizens phones etc., and the US NSA reciprocates by tapping (sic) UK citizens. This forms part of the Five Eyes intelligence sharing agreement.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9M5HlzCulc

Cliff Varnell
03-11-2017, 04:00 PM
Ray McGovern has posted the below video on his Facebook page with the following introduction:

"Larry has several reliable sources with excellent access. He was correct on the false-flag sarin gas attack outside Damascus on August 21, 2013 (aimed at mousetrapping Obama into doing “shock and awe” against Syria). He is correct here, as well. Small wonder the Fawning Corporate Media avoid him, and others of us VIPS, like the bubonic plague."

What Larry Johnson says is that Britain's GCHQ had access to Trump's electronic output and shared this with certain officials in the US IC. THis is nothing new. There has been an arrangement going back decades where the UK taps (although that is the incorrect technical method) US citizens phones etc., and the US NSA reciprocates by tapping (sic) UK citizens. This forms part of the Five Eyes intelligence sharing agreement.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9M5HlzCulc

Lemme get this straight. Top intel guys Clapper and Brennan conspired to frame Trump with baseless Russian ties.

What happened to the Mighty Wurlitzer, the mass media so traditionally played by heads of intel?

The last 11 days of the 2016 election the mass media was dominated with Hillary Clinton and Anthony Weiner's emails, depriving Clinton of the opportunity to make a positive closing argument.

How come we didn't hear about Russkie Don the last 11 days?

Peter Lemkin
03-11-2017, 05:49 PM
Ray McGovern has posted the below video on his Facebook page with the following introduction:

"Larry has several reliable sources with excellent access. He was correct on the false-flag sarin gas attack outside Damascus on August 21, 2013 (aimed at mousetrapping Obama into doing “shock and awe” against Syria). He is correct here, as well. Small wonder the Fawning Corporate Media avoid him, and others of us VIPS, like the bubonic plague."

What Larry Johnson says is that Britain's GCHQ had access to Trump's electronic output and shared this with certain officials in the US IC. THis is nothing new. There has been an arrangement going back decades where the UK taps (although that is the incorrect technical method) US citizens phones etc., and the US NSA reciprocates by tapping (sic) UK citizens. This forms part of the Five Eyes intelligence sharing agreement.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9M5HlzCulc

That GCHQ 'gift' to NSA and then to whoever always goes on.....and may have been a special target [Trump and his pals]. This makes sense, as does making it look like it was done by the Ruskies. The level of upheaval in US governmental and elite structures [even perhaps Deep Political structures] seems quite unprecedented and doesn't bode well for the future no matter how this and other plans no doubt in the works by both sides come out in the 'wash'...... Democracy, truth and stability are all being lost. I could even see a strange kind of re-run of new Civil War in the US...not with guns [at least not that much], but with propaganda and cyber warfare, covert ops, black ops, some 'suicides' and such....some 'accidents' and such. We're in somewhat uncharted waters...not that anything happening is new, but the intensity of what is going on is very strong and the different camps are not the 'usual' order of battle.

David Guyatt
03-12-2017, 08:49 AM
Fresh Doubts about Russian ‘Hacking’
March 8, 2017

Exclusive: The gauzy allegations of Russia “hacking” the Democrats to elect Donald Trump just got hazier with WikiLeaks’ new revelations about CIA cyber-spying and the capability to pin the blame on others, reports Robert Parry.




By Robert Parry


WikiLeaks’ disclosure of documents revealing CIA cyber-spying capabilities underscores why much more skepticism should have been applied to the U.S. intelligence community’s allegations about Russia “hacking” last year’s American presidential election. It turns out that the CIA maintains a library of foreign malware that could be used to pin the blame for a “hack” on another intelligence service.




WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at a media conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. (Photo credit: New Media Days / Peter Erichsen)
That revelation emerged from documents that WikiLeaks published on Tuesday from a CIA archive that WikiLeaks said had apparently been passed around within a community of former U.S. government hackers and contractors before one of them gave WikiLeaks some of the material.


The documents revealed that the CIA can capture the content of encrypted Internet and cell-phone messages by grabbing the material in the fraction of a second before the words are put through encryption.


Another program called “Weeping Angel” can hack Samsung “smart” TVs with built-in Internet connections, allowing the CIA and British intelligence to covertly use the TVs as listening devices even when they appear to be turned off.


Besides the 1984-ish aspects of these reported capabilities – Orwell’s dystopia also envisioned TVs being used to spy on people in their homes – the WikiLeaks’ disclosures add a new layer of mystery to whether the Russians were behind the “hacks” of the Democratic Party or whether Moscow was framed.


For instance, the widely cited Russian fingerprints on the “hacking” attacks – such as malware associated with the suspected Russian cyber-attackers APT 28 (also known as “Fancy Bear”); some Cyrillic letters: and the phrase “Felix Edmundovich,” a reference to Dzerzhinsky, the founder of a Bolsheviks’ secret police – look less like proof of Russian guilt than they did earlier.


Or put differently — based on the newly available CIA material — the possibility that these telltale signs were planted to incriminate Moscow doesn’t sound as farfetched as it might have earlier.


A former U.S. intelligence officer, cited by The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, acknowledged that the CIA’s “Umbrage” library of foreign hacking tools could “be used to mask a U.S. operation and make it appear that it was carried out by another country…. That could be accomplished by inserting malware components from, say, a known Chinese, Russian or Iranian hacking operation into a U.S. one.”


While that possibility in no way clears Moscow in the case of the Democratic “hack,” it does inject new uncertainty into the “high confidence” that President Obama’s intelligence community expressed in its assessment of Russian culpability. If the CIA had this capability to plant false leads in the data, so too would other actors, both government and private, to cover their own tracks.


Dubious Forensics


Another problem with the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment is that the forensics were left to private contractors working for the Democrats, not conducted independently by U.S. government experts.




Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
That gap in the evidentiary trail widens when one notes that CrowdStrike, the Democratic Party’s consultant, offered contradictory commentary about the skills of the hackers.


CrowdStrike praised the hackers’ tradecraft as “superb, operational security second to none” and added: “we identified advanced methods consistent with nation-state level capabilities including deliberate targeting and ‘access management’ tradecraft — both groups were constantly going back into the environment to change out their implants, modify persistent methods, move to new Command & Control channels and perform other tasks to try to stay ahead of being detected.”


In other words, CrowdStrike cited the sophistication of the tradecraft as proof of a state-sponsored cyber-attack, yet it was the sloppiness of the tradecraft that supposedly revealed the Russian links, i.e. the old malware connections, the Cyrillic letters and the Dzerzhinsky reference.


As Sam Biddle wrote for The Intercept, “Would a group whose ‘tradecraft is superb’ with ‘operational security second to none’ really leave behind the name of a Soviet spy chief imprinted on a document it sent to American journalists? Would these groups really be dumb enough to leave cyrillic comments on these documents? Would these groups that ‘constantly [go] back into the environment to change out their implants, modify persistent methods, move to new Command & Control channels’ get caught because they precisely didn’t make sure not to use IP addresses they’d been associated [with] before?


“It’s very hard to buy the argument that the Democrats were hacked by one of the most sophisticated, diabolical foreign intelligence services in history, and that we know this because they screwed up over and over again.”


Sources and Methods


The WikiLeaks’ disclosures on Tuesday also demonstrate that the pro-transparency Web site has a well-placed source with access to sensitive U.S. intelligence data.




WikiLeaks logo
That reinforces the suggestion from WikiLeaks’ associate, former British Ambassador Craig Murray, that the emails purloined from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta originated from U.S. intelligence intercepts and were then leaked by an American insider to WikiLeaks, not obtained via a “hack” directed by the Russian government.


Podesta’s association with the international lobbying firm, the Podesta Group, could justify U.S. intelligence monitoring his communications as a way to glean information about the strategies of Saudi Arabia and other foreign clients.


Murray suggested that the earlier WikiLeaks’ release of Democratic National Committee emails came from a Democratic insider, not from Russia. In addition, WikiLeaks’ founder Julian Assange has denied that Russia was the source of either batch of Democratic emails, although he refused to say who was.


Of course, it would be possible that Russia used American cutouts to launder the emails without WikiLeaks knowing where the material originated. And some cyber-experts, who were cited in press reports about the new WikiLeaks’ disclosures on Tuesday, speculated, without evidence, that perhaps Russia was the source of them, too.


Still, there are now fresh reasons to doubt the Official Narrative that Russia “hacked” into Democratic emails in a covert operation intended to throw the U.S. election to Donald Trump.


Those doubts already existed – or should have – because the U.S. intelligence community refused to release any hard proof that the Russians were responsible for the purloined Democratic emails.


On Jan. 6, just one day after Director of National Intelligence James Clapper vowed to go to the greatest possible lengths to supply the public with the evidence behind the accusations, his office released a 25-page report that contained no direct evidence that Russia delivered hacked emails from the DNC and Podesta to WikiLeaks.


The DNI report amounted to a compendium of reasons to suspect that Russia was the source of the information – built largely on the argument that Russia had a motive for doing so because of its disdain for Democratic nominee Clinton and the potential for friendlier relations with Republican nominee Trump.


A Big Risk


But the DNI’s case, as presented, was one-sided, ignoring other reasons why the Russians would not have taken the risk.




Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)
For instance, while it is true that many Russian officials, including President Putin, considered Clinton to be a threat to worsen the already frayed relationship between the two nuclear superpowers, the report ignores the downside for Russia trying to interfere with the U.S. election campaign and then failing to stop Clinton, which looked like the most likely outcome until Election Night.


If Russia had accessed the DNC and Podesta emails and slipped them to WikiLeaks for publication, Putin would have to think that the National Security Agency, with its exceptional ability to track electronic communications around the world, might well have detected the maneuver and would have informed Clinton.


So, on top of Clinton’s well-known hawkishness, Putin would have risked handing the expected incoming president a personal reason to take revenge on him and his country. Historically, Russia has been very careful in such situations, holding its intelligence collections for internal purposes only and not sharing them with the public.


While it is conceivable that Putin decided to take this extraordinary risk in this case – despite the widely held view that Clinton was a shoo-in to defeat Trump – an objective report would have examined this counter argument for him not doing so.


But the DNI report was not driven by a desire to be evenhanded; it was, in effect, a prosecutor’s brief, albeit one that lacked any real evidence that the accused is guilty.


Though it’s impossible for an average U.S. citizen to know precisely what the U.S. intelligence community may have in its secret files, some former NSA officials who are familiar with the agency’s eavesdropping capabilities say Washington’s lack of certainty suggests that the NSA does not possess such evidence.


That’s the view of William Binney, who retired as NSA’s technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and who created many of the collection systems still used by NSA.


Binney, in an article co-written with former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, said, “With respect to the alleged interference by Russia and WikiLeaks in the U.S. election, it is a major mystery why U.S. intelligence feels it must rely on ‘circumstantial evidence,’ when it has NSA’s vacuum cleaner sucking up hard evidence galore. What we know of NSA’s capabilities shows that the email disclosures were from leaking, not hacking.”


Released last summer — around the time of the Democratic National Convention — the DNC emails revealed senior party officials showing a preference for former Secretary of State Clinton over Sen. Bernie Sanders although the DNC was supposed to remain neutral.


Later in the campaign, the Podesta leak exposed the contents of speeches that Clinton gave to Wall Street banks, which she wanted to keep secret from the American voters, and the existence of pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation.


News articles based on the WikiLeaks’ material embarrassed the DNC and the Clinton campaign, but the rupture of secrets was not considered a very important factor in Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump. Clinton herself blamed that surprising outcome on FBI Director James Comey’s last-minute decision to briefly reopen the investigation into her improper use of a private server for her emails as Secretary of State.


After Comey’s move, Clinton’s poll numbers cratered and she seemed incapable of reversing the trend. More generally, Clinton faced criticism for running an inept campaign that included her insulting many Trump supporters by calling them “deplorables” and failing to articulate a clear, hopeful vision for the future.


However, after the shock of Trump’s stunning victory began to wear off, the outgoing Obama administration and angry Democrats began singling out Putin as a chief culprit in Clinton’s defeat.


Despite the appearance that they were scapegoating America’s old adversary – the Russkies – liberals and Democrats have used the allegations to energize their base and put the young Trump administration on the defensive, even though hard evidence to support the accusations is still lacking.


The liberals and Democrats also don’t seem to care that they are using these dubious allegations to ratchet up tensions between the world’s two nuclear superpowers, thus putting the future of the world at risk.

Source (https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/08/fresh-doubts-about-russian-hacking/)

David Guyatt
03-12-2017, 08:51 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ztX97npqg4

Peter Lemkin
03-12-2017, 11:15 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ztX97npqg4


Pretty good set of summary opinions and reports and some mad-dog conservative foaming at the mouth against the 'hidden hordes' waiting to poison our private bodily fluids..... McAfee was right on the mark....there is little to be done to 'fix' all this without a whole new paradigm...all other 'fixes' will work for weeks or months at best. A usually insane World has gotten insane to the third power in just the last few months.

David Guyatt
03-13-2017, 06:31 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ztX97npqg4


Pretty good set of summary opinions and reports and some mad-dog conservative foaming at the mouth against the 'hidden hordes' waiting to poison our private bodily fluids..... McAfee was right on the mark....there is little to be done to 'fix' all this without a whole new paradigm...all other 'fixes' will work for weeks or months at best. A usually insane World has gotten insane to the third power in just the last few months.

I can't think of another time in my life when competing elite factions quite so openly revealed just how repulsive they -- especially as it comes down, I think, to controlling power in the US in order that they can suck the blood of the nation and get their grubby hands on the national purse.

Peter Lemkin
03-14-2017, 07:15 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aha8bicPN88

David Guyatt
03-15-2017, 09:49 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qXUuACP970&feature=youtu.be