Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government Security Businesses Democrats Privacy Republicans Software News IT Politics Technology

Guccifer 2.0 Calls DNC Hack His "Personal Project," Mocks Security Firms (computerworld.com) 114

Posted by BeauHD from the love-of-the-game dept.
An anonymous reader writes: The notorious hacker most recently in the news for releasing Clinton Foundation documents has said on Thursday in a blog post that the stolen confidential files from the DNC was his "personal project." Guccifer 2.0, as he identifies himself as, added that security firms and the DNC may be trying to blame the attack on Russia, but "they can prove nothing! All I hear is blah-blah-blah, unfounded theories, and somebody's estimates," he wrote. He claims to be Romanian and says he acted alone, pouring water on the theory that he may be a "smokescreen" to divert attention away from the real culprits, that may have been expert hacking teams based in Russia. "I'd like to reveal a secret to all those cool IT-specialists: All the hackers in the world use almost the same tools," he said. "You can buy them or simply find them on the web." He broke into the network using a little-known vulnerability found in the DNC's software, he added. "The DNC used Windows on their server, so it made my work much easier," he said. "I installed my trojan-like virus on their PCs. I just modified the platform that I bought on the hacking forums for about $1.5k." Guccifer 2.0 also disputed the idea that the DNC breach was an intelligence gathering operation for Russia, saying it was hacktivism.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Guccifer 2.0 Calls DNC Hack His "Personal Project," Mocks Security Firms More

Guccifer 2.0 Calls DNC Hack His "Personal Project," Mocks Security Firms

Comments Filter:

  • Why does Slashdot celebrate Guccifer 2.0? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Why does Slashdot celebrate criminals like Guccifer 2.0?

    • Re: Why does Slashdot celebrate Guccifer 2.0? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 01, 2016 @02:17AM (#52424785)

      One mans criminal is another mans freedom fighter

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Because Hillary Clinton must be stopped, and it looks like the DOJ is simply never going to take legal action against her. (Especially given recent reveals that the AG had a secret meeting with Bill Clinton.) Which isn't surprising.

      Too many people will say Trump "must be stopped" but they're wrong. Trump might destroy the US. Hillary Clinton WILL send the world into unending war.

      Anything done to stop her is justified.

      • For example, if the Russian government finds Trump far more preferable, and runs a campaign to discredit his only competitor to get him elected.

        But really, did anybody expect that sockpuppet to come out and admit that he is the front for the Russian intelligence services? Like, really?

      • Re:Why does Slashdot celebrate Guccifer 2.0? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by fustakrakich ( 1673220 ) on Friday July 01, 2016 @09:12AM (#52426359) Journal

        Because Hillary Clinton must be stopped...

        I'm doing my part in November... It's a simple matter of voting for somebody else. There is no need for investigations and prosecution. There are more than two candidates on the ballot, so there is no need to vote for Trump if you don't lie him either. If they both lose, it means we are on our way to solving the problem.

        As far as unending war goes. When has the war ever ended? The US has been at war steadily since the very beginning, against the natives, commies, drug dealers, terrorists(!), a myriad of targets to pick out. And now it's simply another business. Plenty of blood for everyone. Hillary is just carrying on a time honored tradition.

        If we don't break the circle, don't expect anything different. Republicans/democrats can only give you more of the same old shit. Your choice.

        • Re:Why does Slashdot celebrate Guccifer 2.0? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by sudon't ( 580652 ) on Friday July 01, 2016 @03:04PM (#52429165)

          Republicans/Democrats can only give you more of the same old shit.

          So true. I mean, they're in the business of maintaining the status quo. People worry about "throwing away their vote", but your vote is already wasted if you're voting for the slightly less worse candidate instead of the best candidate, whoever you might think that is. It's almost never a Democrat/Republican, am I right? As Eugene Debs once said, "It's better to vote for something you want, and not get it, than to vote for something you don't want, and get it", (apologies if the quote isn't verbatim).

          Also, not entirely unrelated but, isn't "Gluecifer" the coolest band name, ever? "Guccifer" isn't bad, either.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      They don't, it's just another opportunity to blame Russia for something, in this case suggesting that Guccifer 2.0 is really the Russian government doing bad things to the innocent United States.

      • In this case evidence is rife that the DNC was hacked by the russian intelligence services via a proxy - known as APT28, Sofacy Group, Pawn Storm, etc.

        But in order to legalize the stolen documents it uses another front - a sockpuppet called "Guccifer 2.0".

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Bullshit. If Russia was hacking left and right they wouldn't have used known proxies, they would've used randomly picked, compromised machines, just like your righteous NSA does. When anything like this can be clearly pin-pointed to China and Russia, then you can bet it was staged as such.

          • Re:And innocent Russian govt never hacked anyone (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Lakitu ( 136170 ) on Friday July 01, 2016 @08:13AM (#52425875)

            When anything like this can be clearly pin-pointed to China and Russia, then you can bet it was staged as such.

            "If there's ever evidence of Russian hacking, it must have been fabricated"

            Whatever, guy. Anyone who looked at his blog can tell that whoever wrote it is a native Russian speaker. Not only that, but he stole someone else's nickname?

            The only thing clearly fabricated here is the idea that he's Romanian, which he almost certainly is not. It's about as clear as you either having language difficulties of your own or clearly lacking any technical knowledge. The post you're replying to was not speaking of internet proxies or compromised machines, but of people or groups of people. The people are not known at all, they've just used the same style and techniques.

            I suggest you read to CrowdStrike blog post about it because it explains pretty thoroughly why they believe it to be a nation-state actor. Considering the likelihood of a nation-state actor acting for the benefit of the Russian Federation without any ties to Russia itself are basically zero, it's idiotic to suggest anything else.

            As far as I can tell the only thing even suggesting that this might be a singular hacker is how jealous he was about CrowdStrike calling him or them out on having inferior skill to the other already established DNC hack which he ended up exposing when his was caught, but that would be true of a group as well.

        • It could make sense. The Russian government would love to have Trump win the presidency. Putin can play that halfwit manchild like a cheap fiddle. Trump doesn't have any "negotiating skills" at all as many believe, he's simply had overwhelming economic power against small/medium businesses which he's always used as a crude weapon in business deals, and he has conflated this with "negotiating skills." The US doesn't have the kind of massive economic advantage over Russia or especially China that Trump has had over the construction contractors he's screwed.

          Now you can say a lot of bad things about Hillary, but she's a shrewd political veteran who wouldn't make things easy for Putin, so from Russia's perspective she's a much less desirable option.

          • Putin can play that halfwit manchild like a cheap fiddle. Trump doesn't have any "negotiating skills" at all as many believe, [...] Now you can say a lot of bad things about Hillary, but she's a shrewd political veteran who wouldn't make things easy for Putin, so from Russia's perspective she's a much less desirable option.

            The president can do two things with Russia: negotiate treaties or prepare for hostilities. Now, what matters of interest to the American people do you imagine Hillary "negotiating" over

            • Hillary is a warmonger but she's not an idiot, she knows to keep things cordial with Russia - wasn't she involved in the attempted "relationship reset" between the US and Russia a few years back? That's far from bear-poking.

              • I disagree. In the past, Hillary was constrained by not being president, but the presidency would give her delusions free reign, and she wouldn't give a damn about either Congress or the courts.

                • So your argument is that "access to the presidency will cause Hillary to demonstrate unforeseen dangerous behaviors."

                  So if you're worried that a fairly boring politician like Hillary will do this, what do you think Trump would do? I'd be more worried about the person who's openly expressed interest in committing war crimes.

                  • So your argument is that "access to the presidency will cause Hillary to demonstrate unforeseen dangerous behaviors." So if you're worried that a fairly boring politician like Hillary will do this

                    You said it yourself: Hillary is "a shrewd political veteran who wouldn't make things easy for Putin". That is, according to you, she is going to get tough on Putin and antagonize him. That is what makes her dangerous. (Furthermore, there is nothing "unforeseen" about Hillary's dangerous behaviors; she has a long t

                    • You said it yourself: Hillary is "a shrewd political veteran who wouldn't make things easy for Putin". That is, according to you, she is going to get tough on Putin and antagonize him. That is what makes her dangerous. (Furthermore, there is nothing "unforeseen" about Hillary's dangerous behaviors; she has a long track record.) If "Putin can play that halfwit manchild like a cheap fiddle", great: that means less opportunity for conflict. I don't want the US president, whoever it is, to mess with Russia over the next several years, so if your primary complaint about Trump is that he is a "halfwit manchild", that's just fine with me.

                      "Not make things easy for" does not mean "antagonize." There is middle ground between being played like a fiddle and antagonism. Unless you think it's best that the next president just rolls over for Putin to minimize the chance of conflict at any cost to the US. I'd like to see Hillary's track record of dangerous antagonism.

                      You mean the same kind of "war crimes" that Bush and Obama have engaged in, and that Hillary would certainly continue: drone killings of civilians and various "enhanced interrogation" techniques?

                      No, I mean worse - such as killing terrorists' families, and new and (unspecified but) more brutal forms of torture. [theguardian.com] Torture which Obama ended [politifact.com] and Trump would restart.

                      Furthermore, this isn't a two person race anyway, there are other candidates besides Trump and Hillary.

                      Jill Stein? Good l

                    • Unless you think it's best that the next president just rolls over for Putin to minimize the chance of conflict at any cost to the US

                      Yes, that is exactly what I'm thinking: there is no pressing issue that the next president should get tough on with Russia.

                      I'd like to see Hillary's track record of dangerous antagonism.

                      Look at her record as Secretary of State: aggressive, antagonistic, interventionist, and a failure.

                      No, I mean worse - such as killing terrorists' families, and new and (unspecified but) more br

          • Maybe Hillary can stand on the next red line and push the reset button with Russia? Shrewd indeed.

            If you think Russia prefers one over the other you are naive. They simply do not care because they can walk around both with ease. With the unpredictability of trump, you have the possibility of retaliation for their aggression but he has already said we won't be the world's police so still little to fear.

            You democrats never get it until it is too late anyways. You made fun of Palin for her comments about Russi

      • Re:Why does Slashdot celebrate Guccifer 2.0? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by LichtSpektren ( 4201985 ) on Friday July 01, 2016 @07:31AM (#52425637)

        They don't, it's just another opportunity to blame Russia for something, in this case suggesting that Guccifer 2.0 is really the Russian government doing bad things to the innocent United States.

        Exactly this.

        There's a stratagem that a lot of politicians follow, "never let a crisis go to waste." If the hacker was just some random knob, then the DNC looks incompetent. If the hacker was working for the Russian state, then Hillary Clinton's hawkish foreign policy looks a little less aggressive and more defensive.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      What Snowden did was outright illegal, or even treasonous as the government officials like to say. It was still the right thing to do, a moral decision that disregarded the actions' legality.

      Whatever Guccifer 2.0 represents or does not represent is irrelevant. What's relevant is the information we got to see and whether it's authentic. If it is indeed authentic, it gives the general public insight into the internal workings of the DNC. The most important thing we noticed was that the party had already decid

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rakarra ( 112805 )

        The most important thing we noticed was that the party had already decided to throw its weight behind Clinton before the primaries had even begun! You might say that the party is a private organization and can do whatever the fuck it wants, but even if this was the case, they were still caught in a lie.

        I'm not sure why this would be considered surprising, or even that it would be unethical.
        When Elizabeth Warren announced she was not running, the Democratic Party had no credible candidates to challenge Hillary. At the start of the primaries, of course they'd throw their weight behind Clinton -- if a candidate is going to win, then the Party wants the primaries over with as soon as possible.

    • Why does the news celebrate criminals like Clinton, Bush, and Obama? If I get to choose, I like this guy better.

      Shit, he hasn't even bombed anybody, or used my own money to lie to me. He is already way ahead of them in reputation with me.

  • A Romanian with 1.5k to spare on hacking for lulz? (Score:5, Funny)

    by eggstasy ( 458692 ) on Friday July 01, 2016 @02:22AM (#52424799) Journal

    For a lot of people in Romania that is otherwise known as 3 months pay.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      What is his hacktivist philosophy, exactly? It's not like a President Trump would be a boon to the Romanian people or anything.

      • What is his hacktivist philosophy, exactly? It's not like a President Trump would be a boon to the Romanian people or anything.

        Maybe he thinks that in the ensuing global chaos Romania will rise to the top.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Z80a ( 971949 )

          If we go by this theory, it might be just a question to avoid getting Romania hit by some variant of the TPP and similars.

      • Re:A Romanian with 1.5k to spare on hacking for lu (Score:5, Informative)

        by Curunir_wolf ( 588405 ) on Friday July 01, 2016 @05:49AM (#52425289) Homepage Journal

        From Guccifer's Blog:

        I don’t want to disappoint anyone, but none of the candidates has my sympathies. Each of them has skeletons in the closet and I think people have a right to know the truth about the politicians.

        As for me, I see great differences between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Hillary seems so much false to me, she got all her money from political activities and lobbying, she is a slave of moguls, she is bought and sold. She never had to work hard and never risked everything she had. Her words don’t meet her actions. And her collision with the DNC turned the primaries into farce.

        Opposite to her, Donald Trump has earned his money himself. And at least he is sincere in what he says. His position is straight and clear.

        Anyway that doesn’t mean that I support him. I’m totally against his ideas about closing borders and deportation policy. It’s a nonsense, absolute bullshit.

        I have nothing to say about Bernie Sanders. It seems he never had a chance to win the nomination as the Democratic Party itself stood against him!

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by GameboyRMH ( 1153867 )

          As for me, I see great differences between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Hillary seems so much false to me, she got all her money from political activities and lobbying, she is a slave of moguls, she is bought and sold. She never had to work hard and never risked everything she had. Her words don’t meet her actions. And her collision with the DNC turned the primaries into farce.

          Opposite to her, Donald Trump has earned his money himself. And at least he is sincere in what he says. His position is s

          • If you can take a few million and leverage it into billions, I'm sure you could find backers to give you the seed money, too.

            You don't know what you're talking about. Please stop throwing whatever shit you can think up about Trump at the wall and hoping some of it will stick.

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by Anonymous Coward

              Trump received a $1M loan from his Daddy, access to his network of contacts, and then INHERITED his Daddy's BILLIONS after he died.

              Trump's father was by far a better businessman than Trump. If Trump had put his INHERITANCE into the S&P500 index fund, he would be by far richer than he is today. Also, it's not clear what Trump's actual revenue/assets are ... Trump has not released his tax returns, he refuses to release his tax returns, and he is the ONLY presidential candidate since the 1960s that has re

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Rakarra ( 112805 )

              If you can take a few million and leverage it into billions, I'm sure you could find backers to give you the seed money, too.

              Of course, but you have to be able to prove it. Your average person isn't going to be able to. Donald's silver spoon let him skip that high barrier to entry.

        • Well, I agreed only on the money part.

          However, I totally disagree on "he is sincere in what he says" part. If you prioritize money as your most concern, then you would agree to what he said. However, if you use logic and think about what "he" is doing, you would not use the word "sincere" at all because "he" is actually a classic case politician who promises everything while running for a position. I bet he won't be able to keep most (if not all) of his promises. If he could keep even 5% of his promises, it

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by doug141 ( 863552 )

          Donald Trump has earned his money himself.

          Inheriting is not earning.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          So he's a Russian.

          They've been pretty busy around the globe, propping up alt-right media narratives with the hopes of causing distraction in and political discord in western nations.

          Brexit is their baby. So is Trump.

          Pretty smart. Doesn't cost a lot of money and the economic damage is immense.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by khallow ( 566160 )

            and the economic damage is immense

            I wonder whose talking point that is? For example, any economic damage at this point of Brexit is self-inflicted (and I don't refer to the voters here). And I'm not completely sold on the idea that Trump will be more harmful economically than Clinton. Sure, if Clinton follows in the footsteps of her husband's compromise positions (including budget balancing and trade liberalization), then sure, she'll probably be better.

    • But first of all, did anyone really expect "him" to come out and admit that this is merely a front for the Russian intelligence services running an active measures operation against a presidential candidate they don't like to aid the one they do? That's like expecting from Snowden come out and explain his relations to the FSB prior to boarding a plane to Moscow and especially afterwards.

      The man claimed to have easily discovered a 0-day in a proprietary and not public piece of software very likely written

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Curunir_wolf ( 588405 )

        All looks like conjecture to me. The motivation primarily seems to be fame-seeking. And NGP VAN probably has plenty of vulnerabilities and attack vectors, considering the nature of the software and its history of failed security.

        • Besides, while focusing on this front, let's not forget that the SecureWorks, the DNC staff, and some other companies did detect penetration of the DNC networks by two russian advanced persistent threat groups known as APT29 and APT28.

          Should we dismiss it now?

          Or, more specifically, how should americans perceive foreign governments running intelligence operations to influence the outcome of the elections and therefore determine who will become the next POTUS?

          • Or, more specifically, how should americans perceive foreign governments running intelligence operations to influence the outcome of the elections and therefore determine who will become the next POTUS?

            Wonder why it took them so long, since the US has been doing that to other countries (including in-country psyops) for at least 60 years...

            • Wonder why it took them so long, since the US has been doing that to other countries (including in-country psyops) for at least 60 years...
              Google "Operation Clark County Guardian" to find out that they have been doing it just not very well.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Lakitu ( 136170 )

          The motivation primarily seems to be fame-seeking.

          You might think so, except for how he doesn't even present any kind of nom de hacker to the world. If you seek attention, do you really name yourself as someone else 2.0?

          While it may be conjecture, his original blog post is pretty clearly written by a native Russian speaker to anyone capable of making conjectures based off of it. The chances of him actually being Romanian are very, very small.

  • I believe him. (Score:4, Funny)

    by davmoo ( 63521 ) on Friday July 01, 2016 @02:38AM (#52424841)

    I believe he's telling the truth. It couldn't have been hackers gathering intelligence. The DNC, and the RNC as well, are the last places on Earth anyone could find intelligence.

  • Where have I heard this before... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    These aren't Russian tanks. You can buy tanks like those in any tank shop.
    These aren't Russian anti-aircraft missles. You can buy missles like those in any missle shop.
    These aren't Russian soldiers. You can buy soldiers like those in any soldier shop.

  • Microsoft Commercial (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 01, 2016 @04:59AM (#52425153)

    The DNC used Windows on their server, so it made my work much easier,

    Microsoft products can make your work much easier!

  • Hack? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Hack? When did buying a piece of software become hacking?

  • This comes accross as a monty python bit akin to "I spit in your general direction".

  • He bought it? Damn. That's fucking sad.

  • Why wouldn't I believe the voice yelling, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"!

  • The guy is from Milan...

Slashdot Top Deals

To stay youthful, stay useful.

Close