Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Database Security
Authentication
Mobile
Privacy
Compliance
Identity & Access Management
Security Monitoring
Advanced Threats
Insider Threats
Vulnerability Management
Comments
FBI, DHS Report Implicates Cozy Bear, Fancy Bear In Election-Related Hacks
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
BruceR279
100%
0%
BruceR279,
 User Rank: Apprentice
12/30/2016 | 6:41:26 AM
FBI, DHS Report Implicates CozyBear - Vectors not discussed
I thoroughly reviewed the report cited in the article. The analysis appears to be incomplete because there was no analysis of the Anthony Weiner computer (the laptop) that was jointly shared with Huma Abedein. Given the propensity of Weiner to make frequent visits to high risk websites such as porn sites, without an analysis of those vectors as the initiation points of system and network encroachment, no definitive conclusion can really be drawn if incident response analysis in accordance with NIST and ISO standards best practices and recommendations were not followed.

The agency teams of the FBI and DHS as well as the initiating analysis of CrowdStrike under the direction of Dmitri Apelovitch would really do justice to their findings to ammend their report with an analysis section discussing this high probability attack vector.
dmba
50%
50%
dmba,
 User Rank: Apprentice
12/30/2016 | 10:16:58 AM
Re: FBI, DHS Report Implicates CozyBear - Vectors not discussed
@BruceR279 Your posts make no sense.
michaelfillin
100%
0%
michaelfillin,
 User Rank: Apprentice
1/1/2017 | 4:43:21 PM
Re: FBI, DHS Report Implicates CozyBear - Vectors not discussed
Agreed
Shantaram
0%
100%
Shantaram,
 User Rank: Ninja
1/2/2017 | 8:58:59 AM
Re: 192.168.l.l
Keep sharing such posts! Thank you
JHWMP01
50%
50%
JHWMP01,
 User Rank: Strategist
12/30/2016 | 12:25:01 PM
Not Election Hack
Although this article pans out the speculation that this exploitation of the DNC Server was "election-related" - it was not. An insider threat cuased the exposure of the emails that detail federal and international crimes being committed and the DNC, Hillary, and the current administration are crying over that exposure. Hillary lost the election due to the activitites her and her people committed and has nothign to do with the hack, if one want to even call it that. Those e-mails were delivered and the servers unsecurued to the the incompetence and lack of care by DNC officials whop actually think their behavior is above the law. The real story here are the crimes have been and are now being committed by the Democratic and elites of the political spectrum worldwide. As a cyber security professional and former law enforcement officer, I'm disgusted with the way the DNC and those that support that political ideology have acted and continue to act. Added to this, the way the world leaders have taken advanatage and allowed 3rd parties and other nations/cultures to take advanatage of decent people on a world side scale. Let's get back to the real issue, corruption and those responsible for it and stop knocking out this "hacking story" and finish this to the end of what was actually discovered.
gmadden
100%
0%
gmadden,
 User Rank: Strategist
12/30/2016 | 4:21:41 PM
Re: Not Election Hack
Yes it was hacked, regardless of your political stance, accept the facts. The servers were hacked from a phishing campaign. I agree it was Hillary's own fault for losing the election, but none the less, the DNC was hacked. To say otherwise is to make up your own fantasy story that just isn't true. The FBI and DHS have released the report and you can see what happened for yourself. I'm not defending the DNC at all because what was leaked to wikiLeaks showed the corruption and collusion within the DNC. But it was still hacked, and sure WikiLeaks says it wasn't a hack, but do you really think they would risk incriminating anyone? they are friends with the hackers and have no reason to throw the culprits under the bus.
BruceR279
100%
0%
BruceR279,
 User Rank: Apprentice
12/30/2016 | 5:14:29 PM
Re: Not Election Hack
@gmadden and @dbma. Not really sure how or why either of you are inferring from my posts that I am stating that their either was 1.) no encroachment into the systems and networks of the DNC, DCCC, and/or Podesta e-mail systems or 2.) that e-mail data-sets were not exfiltrated out of those systems. My point is that the definitive attribution to Russian actors is at best conjecture.

Frankly, CrowdStrike's observation that the operations were clear indicators of "signature" CozyBear / FancyBear operations highlights the logically overlooked fact that if CrowdStrike had knowledge of those operational signatures than other equally competent intelligence organizations such as the British, French, Estoninian, Chinese, North Korean, Iranian, Syrian, US, and even private organizations and networks such as Anonymous also had the same knowledge of those operational signatures. CrowdStrike and the US intelligence agencies preparing these reports for our key government decision makers need to spell out the entire operational and situational understanding of the situation if we are to develop the appropriate and needed counter-measures.

In all the work my team performs at one of the largest electric and gas utilities in the U.S. performs in terms of risk and security analysis - including complex incident response analysis - the analyses include identification of all the likely threat actors, enumeration of likely attack vectors, and the probabilities associated with both of these key factors.

What concerns me about the current status of these sanitized reports from the JAR done by the FBI and DHS team, which is actually prodominantly based on the work performed by CrowdStrike in the summer of 2016, is exactly the ommission of these probabilistic risk matrices. Our team conducts these kinds of analyses on an on-going basis for all of the major Customer Care, Digital Grid, Real-time Control system, and Work and Asset Managment IT and OT environments using precisely this approach. Additionally, work we have contracted out to qualified cyber security and risk management organizations such as ACS, NCC, IOActive, Deloitte, and Accenture require this kind of rigorous and thorough analysis of threat agent and attack vector probability analysis in any of the reports in these efforts.

I would also add that the observation that the DNC could also have been an insider threat is an important topic that would and should require much more rigorous investigation in terms of the highly suspicious nature surrounding the murder of Seth Rich, the former CEO of the DNC. There has been some unsubstantiated claims that Seth Rich might have been exfiltrating information about the internal dealings of the DNC in a sort of whiste-blower action.

Feel free at any point to reach out to me via my profile information or my LinkedIn account which is included in my profile if you need further assistance with understanding my concerns. Additionally, all DarkReading editors are also invited to reach out to me in this regard as well.
nosmo_king
50%
50%
nosmo_king,
 User Rank: Strategist
1/3/2017 | 2:21:41 PM
Re: Not Election Hack
"My point is that the definitive attribution to Russian actors is at best conjecture."

You assume you know all that is to be known on the topic and that is most likely incorrect.

If you do not have a Top Secret security clearance you will never get the whole picture of precisely what evidence is being held by the US intelligence agencies.

To protect collection methods and those conducting that collection, most evidence is never shared publicly and what is shared publicly is typically only a tiny fraction of what is actually there.

Having worked in that environment for years comfirming attribution in most cases is possible to neary 100% these days, whereas disclosure of how that attribution was obtained is less than 10%.

The upshot is that when Mr. Trump gets his Top Secret briefing on the issue sometime this week it will be interesting to see what words fall out of his mouth following that, as he will have seen the complete picture for the first time.
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
 User Rank: Ninja
1/3/2017 | 3:25:49 PM
Re: Not Election Hack
Without getting into the politics of this discussion, it's worth mentioning that Julian Assange has gone on record to note that neither the Russian government nor any other state actor was responsible for the DNC/HRC/Podesta email leaks that Wikileaks received and published.
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
 User Rank: Ninja
1/4/2017 | 12:42:47 AM
Re: Not Election Hack
Worth noting that, regardless of what happened and what evidence exists and/or comes out in the future, a substantial portion of cybersecurity experts do -- and will likely continue -- to doubt the Obama Administration's narrative on this, especially because they/we can never know what remains classified on this issue.

Brian Krebs just wrote a long brain dump on this very point in his most recent blog post: krebsonsecurity.com/2017/01/the-download-on-the-dnc-hack/
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
 User Rank: Ninja
1/4/2017 | 12:46:18 AM
Re: Not Election Hack
If I read JHWMP's comment correctly, I don't think JHWMP was saying that it wasn't a hack (the DNC was certainly hacked) -- but, rather, was taking the stance that it the hack is not properly characterized as an "election" hack.

Which, of course, is an entirely different debate.
ClarenceR927
50%
50%
ClarenceR927,
 User Rank: Strategist
1/3/2017 | 11:27:05 AM
Re: Not Election Hack
Instead of twisting the events through your very obvious political beliefs how about you look at the actual work actual security professionals with the skill and experience to investigate these matters actually did in an objective manner?  IF you could do that you would see both that the selective leaking of hacked data wsa done by a Russian resource and with the very obvious intent of disruption the US election.  You would also learn that ther was no insider doing the leaking. I am old enough to remember a time conservatives would have been a bit upset about that no matter who wsa running. in 2016 apparently it is OK if done to one party.
MikeH762
50%
50%
MikeH762,
 User Rank: Apprentice
2/13/2018 | 7:42:34 AM
Analysis

Nice post. 

MikeH762
50%
50%
MikeH762,
 User Rank: Apprentice
2/13/2018 | 7:42:42 AM
Analysis

Nice post.

MikeH762
50%
50%
MikeH762,
 User Rank: Apprentice
2/13/2018 | 7:42:44 AM
Analysis

Nice post. 



COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 5/28/2020
Stay-at-Home Orders Coincide With Massive DNS Surge
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  5/27/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Can you smell me now?
Current Issue
How Cybersecurity Incident Response Programs Work (and Why Some Don't)
This Tech Digest takes a look at the vital role cybersecurity incident response (IR) plays in managing cyber-risk within organizations. Download the Tech Digest today to find out how well-planned IR programs can detect intrusions, contain breaches, and help an organization restore normal operations.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-11844
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
There is an Incorrect Authorization vulnerability in Micro Focus Service Management Automation (SMA) product affecting version 2018.05 to 2020.02. The vulnerability could be exploited to provide unauthorized access to the Container Deployment Foundation.
CVE-2020-6937
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
A Denial of Service vulnerability in MuleSoft Mule CE/EE 3.8.x, 3.9.x, and 4.x released before April 7, 2020, could allow remote attackers to submit data which can lead to resource exhaustion.
CVE-2020-7648
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
All versions of snyk-broker before 4.72.2 are vulnerable to Arbitrary File Read. It allows arbitrary file reads for users who have access to Snyk's internal network by appending the URL with a fragment identifier and a whitelisted path e.g. `#package.json`
CVE-2020-7650
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
All versions of snyk-broker after 4.72.0 including and before 4.73.1 are vulnerable to Arbitrary File Read. It allows arbitrary file reads to users with access to Snyk's internal network of any files ending in the following extensions: yaml, yml or json.
CVE-2020-7654
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
All versions of snyk-broker before 4.73.1 are vulnerable to Information Exposure. It logs private keys if logging level is set to DEBUG.