witch hunt is now collapsing before our eyes.
on ACR Radio, the supposedly damning information submitted by the
FBI’s private ‘cyber security’ contractor Crowdstrike,
of which the entire ‘Russian Hack’ conspiracy theory hinges on
is a link to their primary invented piece of ‘evidence’
included in the US Intelligence Assessment.
means that we
were correct back on Nov 1st when we said the Russian Hack
story was a hoax designed distract from the explosive contents on the
DNC and Podesta email leaks, and also to bolster a failing Hillary
Clinton campaign by discrediting Donald Trump as being somehow in
league with the evil Russians.
they keep pressing this story, it will only hurt the credibility of
a Democratic Party that still refuses to admit the abject
failures and corruption within of their political organization.
the question remains: how more millions in US taxpayer money
will Hollywood’s Congressman Adam Schiff, and ringleaders Lindsey
Graham waste before they’re done trying to ‘look tough’ on
Russia and Trump? Will they be
held accountable by anyone?
the end, we discover that Schiff, Feinstein, Graham, McCain and so
many others in Washington have done extreme damage to American
interests, and in the long run – to national
Congressman and NeoMcCarthyite Adam Schiff has himself become a
ridiculous-looking caricature as
allegation – now accepted as incontrovertible fact by the
“mainstream” media – that the Russian intelligence services
hacked the Democratic National Committee (and John Podesta’s
emails) in an effort to help Donald Trump get elected recently
suffered a blow from which it may not recover.
is the cybersecurity company hired by the DNC to determine who hacked
their accounts: it took them a single day to determine the identity
of the culprits – it was, they
said, two groups of hackers which they named “Fancy Bear” and
“Cozy Bear,” affiliated respectively with
the GRU, which is Russian military intelligence, and the FSB, the
Russian security service.
did they know this?
alleged “hacker groups” are not associated with any known
individuals in any way connected to Russian intelligence: instead,
they are identified by the tools they use, the times they do their
dirty work, the nature of the targets, and other characteristics
based on the history of past intrusions.
as Jeffrey Carr and other
cyberwarfare experts have pointed out, this methodology is
fatally flawed. “It’s important to know that the process of
attributing an attack by a cybersecurity company has nothing to do
with the scientific method,” writes
of attribution aren’t testable or repeatable because the hypothesis
is never proven right or wrong. Neither are claims of attribution
admissible in any criminal case, so those who make the claim don’t
have to abide by any rules of evidence (i.e., hearsay, relevance,
attribution claims of hacking incidents by cybersecurity companies to
intelligence assessments, Carr notes that, unlike government agencies
such the CIA, these companies are never held to account for their
it comes to cybersecurity estimates of attribution, no one holds the
company that makes the claim accountable because there’s no way to
prove whether the assignment of attribution is true or false unless
(1) there is a criminal conviction, (2) the hacker is caught in
the act, or (3) a government employee leaked the
lack of accountability may be changing, however, because
Crowdstrike’s case for attributing the hacking of the DNC to the
Russians is falling apart at the seams like a cheap sweater.
begin with, Crowdstrike initially gauged its certainty as to the
identity of the hackers with “medium
confidence.” However, a later development, announced in late
December and touted by the Washington
boosted this to “high confidence.” The reason for this newfound
near-certainty was their discovery that “Fancy Bear” had also
infected an application used by the Ukrainian military to target
separatist artillery in the Ukrainian civil war. As
CrowdStrike, which was hired by the DNC to investigate the intrusions
and whose findings are described in a new report, had always
suspected that one of the two hacker groups that struck the DNC was
the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence agency, it had only medium
said CrowdStrike co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch, ‘we have high
confidence’ it was a unit of the GRU. CrowdStrike had dubbed that
unit ‘Fancy Bear.’”
Crowdstrike published an
analysis that claimed a malware program supposedly unique to Fancy
Bear, X-Agent, had infected a Ukrainian targeting application and,
using GPS to geo-locate Ukrainian positions, had turned the
application against the Ukrainians, resulting in huge losses:
July and August 2014, Russian-backed forces launched some of the
most-decisive attacks against Ukrainian forces, resulting in
significant loss of life, weaponry and territory.
artillery forces have lost over 50% of their weapons in the two years
of conflict and over 80% of D-30 howitzers, the highest percentage of
loss of any other artillery pieces in Ukraine’s arsenal.”
Alperovitch told the
PBS News Hour that “Ukraine’s artillery men were targeted by the
same hackers, that we call Fancy Bear, that targeted DNC, but this
time they were targeting cell phones to try to understand their
location so that the Russian artillery forces can actually target
them in the open battle. It was the same variant of the same
malicious code that we had seen at the DNC.”
He told NBC
News that this proved the DNC hacker “wasn’t a 400-pound guy in
his bed,” as
Trump had opined during the first presidential debate – it
was the Russians.
only problem with this analysis is that is wasn’t true. It turns
out that Crowdstrike’s estimate of Ukrainian losses was based on a
blog post by a pro-Russian
blogger eager to tout Ukrainian losses: the
Ukrainians denied it.
Furthermore, the hacking attribution was based on the hackers’ use
of a malware program called X-Agent, supposedly unique to Fancy Bear.
Since the target was the Ukrainian military, Crowdstrike extrapolated
from this that the hackers were working for the Russians.
somewhat plausible, except for two things: To begin with, as Jeffrey
out in December, and now others are beginning to realize,
X-Agent isn’t unique to Fancy Bear. Citing the findings of ESET,
another cybersecurity company, he wrote:
Crowdstrike, ESET doesn’t assign APT28/Fancy Bear/Sednit to a
Russian Intelligence Service or anyone else for a very simple reason.
Once malware is deployed, it is no longer under the control of the
hacker who deployed it or the developer who created it. It can be
reverse-engineered, copied, modified, shared and redeployed again and
again by anyone. In other words – malware deployed is malware
fact, the source code for X-Agent, which was used in the DNC,
Bundestag, and TV5Monde attacks, was obtained by ESET as
part of their investigation!
our investigations, we were able to retrieve the complete Xagent
source code for the Linux operating system….”
ESET could do it, so can others. It is both foolish and baseless to
claim, as Crowdstrike does, that X-Agent is used solely by the
Russian government when the source code is there for anyone to find
and use at will.”
the estimate Crowdstrike used to verify the Ukrainian losses was
supposedly based on data from the respected International Institute
for Strategic Studies (IISS). But now IISS is disavowing
Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) told [Voice of
America] that CrowdStrike erroneously used IISS data as proof of the
intrusion. IISS disavowed any connection to the CrowdStrike report.
Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense also has claimed combat losses and
hacking never happened….
CrowdStrike report uses our data, but the inferences and analysis
drawn from that data belong solely to the report’s authors,” the
IISS said. “The inference they make that reductions in Ukrainian
D-30 artillery holdings between 2013 and 2016 were primarily the
result of combat losses is not a conclusion that we have ever
suggested ourselves, nor one we believe to be accurate.’
of the IISS researchers who produced the data said that while the
think tank had dramatically lowered its estimates of Ukrainian
artillery assets and howitzers in 2013, it did so as part of a
‘reassessment” and reallocation of units to airborne forces.’
we have never attributed this reduction to combat losses,” the IISS
researcher said, explaining that most of the reallocation occurred
prior to the two-year period that CrowdStrike cites in its report.
vast majority of the reduction actually occurs … before
Crimea/Donbass,’ he added, referring to the 2014 Russian invasion
definitive “evidence” cited by Alperovitch is now effectively
debunked: indeed, it was debunked by Carr late last year, but that
was ignored in the media’s rush to “prove” the Russians hacked
the DNC in order to further Trump’s presidential ambitions. The
exposure by the Voice of America of
Crowdstrike’s falsification of
Ukrainian battlefield losses – the supposedly solid “proof” of
attributing the hack to the GRU – is the final nail in