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.

Comments
White House Announces Retaliatory Measures For Russian Election-Related Hacking
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
garrytroomen
50%
50%
garrytroomen,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/4/2017 | 11:02:02 AM
good story
Very inretesting article, thank you!
RetiredUser
50%
50%
RetiredUser,
User Rank: Ninja
1/3/2017 | 6:01:53 PM
Re: Can we get real for a moment?
Joe, I meant also to note that as long as the intent of the hackers was to affect election results, we can call it an election hack.  No, the actions causing an affect on the election alone don't qualify - the intent needs to be there, too.  Why is the distinction important to me?  Because as cyberlaw matures and the criminalization of acts of hackers evolves, I think it is important to - as clearly as is possible - "properly" label acts of cybercrime.  The prupose for this is to better serve hacktivists whose crimes are based upon good-intent rather than malicious-intent (how we get the government to acknowledge hactivism as borne from "good-intent" is an entirely different conversation).  In time we want to be sure that the "time fits the crime".  Electoral manipulation by hacking needs to be more closely examined, defined and committed to the law books.  IMHO.
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
1/3/2017 | 3:21:32 PM
Re: Can we get real for a moment?
So, by that logic, the person(s) who hacked Mitt Romney's tax returns and released them in 2012 and the person(s) who hacked Donald Trump's tax returns last year were likewise hacking the election.

And nary an eyebrow was batted then.

Also, by this same logic, any email hack related to any political figure, potential political figure, or political entity (e.g., a PAC, Super PAC, political party, etc.) is necessarily an election hack -- regardless of when it takes place.  (After all, voters do have memories.)

Incidentally, I question if the ultimate end result on Election Day would have been different even without the John Podesta/HRC email leaks.
RetiredUser
50%
50%
RetiredUser,
User Rank: Ninja
1/1/2017 | 7:58:32 PM
Re: Can we get real for a moment?
I'm usually on the same page as you, Joe, but in this case I think one could argue for this being election system hacking simply from the perspective of the effect on popular opinion, the use of the incident as leverage in political arguments, etc.  However, to what extent this incident produced negative impact upon the US election process has yet to be properly measured.  But I also think that because this was not a hack upon actual voting software that could directly impact vote numbers, the event registers at the same level as any other politically-motivated spin we are used to seeing from either candidate; if and only if the hackers responsible were not hired by any US players, and no US players were resposible for motivating the hackers to do what they did (in other words, if the hack wasn't on the table before someone from the US in a significant political role "inspired" it).
michaelfillin
100%
0%
michaelfillin,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/1/2017 | 4:46:27 PM
Re: White House Announces Retaliatory Measures
"The administration, fellow lawmakers and general public must understand the potentially catastrophic consequences of a digital cyber conflict escalating into a kinetic, conventional shooting-war"

> Do you think they didn't ? Not being sarcastic, just asking.
Joe Stanganelli
50%
50%
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
12/31/2016 | 12:31:25 PM
Can we get real for a moment?
> That attack was against one entertainment company, however, and not a nation's election system

Hacking emails and giving them to Wikileaks is malicious hacking indeed -- but it is NOT hacking a nation's election system.
Lefty_John
50%
50%
Lefty_John,
User Rank: Apprentice
12/30/2016 | 10:19:36 AM
Donald Trump
What did Trump know and when did he know it?


News
Inside the Ransomware Campaigns Targeting Exchange Servers
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  4/2/2021
Commentary
Beyond MITRE ATT&CK: The Case for a New Cyber Kill Chain
Rik Turner, Principal Analyst, Infrastructure Solutions, Omdia,  3/30/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-28797
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-14
A stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability has been reported to affect QNAP NAS devices running Surveillance Station. If exploited, this vulnerability allows attackers to execute arbitrary code. QNAP have already fixed this vulnerability in the following versions: Surveillance Station 5.1.5.4.3 (an...
CVE-2020-36323
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-14
In the standard library in Rust before 1.50.3, there is an optimization for joining strings that can cause uninitialized bytes to be exposed (or the program to crash) if the borrowed string changes after its length is checked.
CVE-2021-31162
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-14
In the standard library in Rust before 1.53.0, a double free can occur in the Vec::from_iter function if freeing the element panics.
CVE-2017-20004
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-14
In the standard library in Rust before 1.19.0, there is a synchronization problem in the MutexGuard object. MutexGuards can be used across threads with any types, allowing for memory safety issues through race conditions.
CVE-2018-25008
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-14
In the standard library in Rust before 1.29.0, there is weak synchronization in the Arc::get_mut method. This synchronization issue can be lead to memory safety issues through race conditions.