Assange interview: "Our source is not the Russian government"

[Brian4Liberty]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6qlc3lStM4

Assange: "Our source is not the Russian government."

Hannity: "Let me be clear, Russia did not give you the Podesta documents or anything from the DNC?"

Assange: "That's correct."

 

[Schifference]

Obama says it is.

 

[jllundqu]

None of these morons ever heard of a proxy server? lol

 

[FSP-Rebel]

If anyone would've told me 8 yrs ago that Sean would eventually hold a cordial yet epic interview w/ Julian Assange about government corruption, I would've told them to gtfo. I'm not one for lengthy interviews but this one sucked me right in.

 

[pcosmar]

If anyone would've told me 8 yrs ago that Sean would eventually hold a cordial yet epic interview w/ Julian Assange about government corruption, I would've told them to gtfo. I'm not one for lengthy interviews but this one sucked me right in.

Yup,,, Hypocrisy on arrogant display.

Loved the interview though.

 

[dannno]

Assange already told us who the leak came from.

Hints:

1) He worked for the DNC

2) He was murdered (official story is he was "mugged", but nothing was stolen)

 

[Mordan]

Assange already told us who the leak came from.

Hints:

1) He worked for the DNC

2) He was murdered (official story is he was "mugged", but nothing was stolen)

shhh.. that's a fake possibility. Listen to Obama

 

[eleganz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6qlc3lStM4

Damn that was a great interview, a lot revealed. Cannot get over how Hannity kept trying to get Assange to admit that he wouldn't do anything to harm covert operatives and Assange just shut him down, lmao. Hannity is such a little F.

 

[pcosmar]

Listen to Obama

Listen to Wikileaks.



as for SHanity,, I agree with the snowball

 

[AZJoe]

That was a good interview.
Still find Hannity annoying, but very informative.

 

[pcosmar]

That was a good interview.
Still find Hannity annoying, but very informative.

It was. despite Hannity.. Julian took control of that.. as only a genius talking to a moron can.

 

[charrob]

Intelligence services in all countries (including our own) hack each other's government computers to find information; isn't that their job?

So just because they can trace hacking back to an IP address does not necessarily mean the person (or organization if it's a proxy) at that IP address actually did anything with the information that they read.

It just sounds like two separate things happened:

1. Intelligence services in other countries, including Russia, hacked into the DNC/Podesta emails and simply read the information.
2. A U.S. citizen in this country with legitimate access to the DNC/Podesta emails leaked internal documents to WikiLeaks.

Couldn't these be two separate things? If Russia hacked and read files, why does that necessarily mean that they also are the source of the WikiLeaks?

 

[CPUd]

Intelligence services in all countries (including our own) hack each other's government computers to find information; isn't that their job?

So just because they can trace hacking back to an IP address does not necessarily mean the person (or organization if it's a proxy) at that IP address actually did anything with the information that they read.

It just sounds like two separate things happened:

1. Intelligence services in other countries, including Russia, hacked into the DNC/Podesta emails and simply read the information.
2. A U.S. citizen in this country with legitimate access to the DNC/Podesta emails leaked internal documents to WikiLeaks.

Couldn't these be two separate things? If Russia hacked and read files, why does that necessarily mean that they also are the source of the WikiLeaks?

Yes, there are multiple issues/events being conflated into one.

Govt intel services in general will use more than just an IP to identify an attacker, usually involves more than just passive analysis.

 

[charrob]

Govt intel services in general will use more than just an IP to identify an attacker, usually involves more than just passive analysis.

I can't help but be curious what other ways they would use?

 

[pcosmar]

I can't help but be curious what other ways they would use?

I can't help wonder why the US Govt would use less security than me?

 

[charrob]

I can't help wonder why the US Govt would use less security than me?

Good point!

 

[PatriotOne]

Was this what Assange was alluding to re: Graham?

 

[specsaregood]

Yes, there are multiple issues/events being conflated into one.

Govt intel services in general will use more than just an IP to identify an attacker, usually involves more than just passive analysis.

yes of course, this knowledge is obviously based on your years of experience in the govt intel sector.

 

[CPUd]

I can't help but be curious what other ways they would use?

It depends on the nature of the attack. They could probe the host to see if it is a known proxy/vpn. If so, they might try to get the server logs by sending suits to their door, or break into their service. If they are able to sit on one of the routers, they have access to the link layer, which gives them visibility into a whole group of protocols that carry information including the hardware being used, partial routing and where/how the attacker's machine got its IP address. The method of attack is also a valuable clue; there's only so many ways someone can change up without leaving footprints. They run honeypots to study stuff like this.

 

[pcosmar]

yes of course, this knowledge is obviously based on your years of experience in the govt intel sector.

Specs,, (a soft spot I know) but govt contracts and uses (except for any real security) windows.
I know this because the Air Force switched to Firefox because of IE failings. And CERT documented it.
several Cert warnings actually.. Horribly insecure.. got the nickname internet exploder for good reason.

and a windo$e fanboy is going to talk about Govt experience.

I like you specs,, but seriously?