www.nettime.org
Nettime mailing list archives

<nettime> Release the Dutch Evidence of the DNC Hack | Leonid Bershidsky
Harsh Kapoor on Tue, 30 Jan 2018 11:29:50 +0100 (CET)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

<nettime> Release the Dutch Evidence of the DNC Hack | Leonid Bershidsky


https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-01-26/release-the-dutch-evidence-of-the-dnc-hack

Release the Dutch Evidence of the DNC Hack

If the Dutch intelligence service watched the Russians breach the
Democratic National Committee, there's no more reason to hide the
evidence.
by
Leonid Bershidsky

26 January 2018, 15:09 GMT+4

Dutch intelligence hacked the hackers.

Photographer: MLADEN ANTONOV/AFP/Getty Images

For the first time in a year, significant new information has emerged
linking the 2016 U.S. Democratic National Committee security breach to
Russia. A newspaper in the Netherlands reports that U.S. authorities
received evidence of the hack from the Dutch intelligence service,
which had penetrated the Russian hackers. The report partly explains
the U.S. intelligence community's certainty about what happened to the
DNC and its reluctance to tell the public more. But it also raises new
questions.

The story in the daily De Volkskrant is based on anonymous sources, as
are almost all other substantial reports about Russian interference in
the U.S. presidential election. But it provides enough exciting detail
to be a major addition to what's publicly available. According to the
paper, hackers from AIVD, the Dutch General Intelligence and Security
Service, penetrated the network of the Russian hacker group known as
Cozy Bear in the summer of 2014.

According to the Dutch story, Cozy Bear, or, to use its generic
designation in the cybersecurity community, Advanced Persistent Threat
29, worked  from "a space in a university building near the Red
Square." That would fit the description of Moscow State University's
historic campus across from Red Square, occupied today by some of its
humanities departments and the Institute of Asian and African
Countries, which has traditionally sent large numbers of its graduates
to the SVR, the Russian foreign intelligence service.

The Dutch hackers, reportedly, didn't just watch everything Cozy Bear
-- a fluid group in which about 10 people were active at any given
time -- was doing on its computers. They also took over the security
camera that recorded all the comings and goings at the group's space.
Dutch intelligence matched the faces of visitors against a database of
known Russian agents and linked the group to the SVR. Crowdstrike, the
cybersecurity firm retained by the DNC, hinted in its analysis of the
breach that Cozy Bear could have been run by either SVR or the FSB,
Russia's domestic intelligence service, so the Dutch report clarifies
the attribution.

In November 2014, the Dutch reportedly alerted the U.S. intelligence
community that Cozy Bear was attacking the State Department, and
helped the National Security Agency thwart the sustained attack. The
Volkskrant story also claims that, a year after it first penetrated
APT Cozy Bear in the summer of 2015, the Dutch intelligence service
witnessed how the Russian hackers launched "an attack on the
Democratic Party in the United States."

U.S. colleagues sent cake and flowers to AIVD headquarters in
Zoetermeer in appreciation. But after leaks in U.S. media that a
"Western ally" had helped uncover Russian interference in the
election, the Dutch became worried that their methods would be
disclosed, and they've since scaled down their cooperation with U.S.
intelligence services, fearing further leaks. The AIVD hackers are no
longer in the Cozy Bear network, and the story says their ability to
track the Russian group lasted between a year and 2.5 years.

If the story is correct, it explains why the U.S. intelligence
community's assessment of Russian interference provided scant
evidence. If the information came from AIVD, the secrets weren't the
Americans' to disclose. It also explains why the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, by its own admission, never examined the DNC servers
that had been penetrated, seemingly relying on data from Crowdstrike.
If it had all the technical evidence from the Dutch, it may not have
needed to look at the servers.

But the questions raised by the Dutch scoop are as significant as the
gaps it helps to close. If the Dutch witnessed the DNC intrusion in
2015 and reported it to U.S. colleagues, it's difficult to understand
why the Russian hackers were left to forage in the DNC network for
months without being ejected. After all, Cozy Bear's attacks on the
State Department and the White House were actively fought as soon as
they became apparent. Allowed to root around the DNC unopposed, Cozy
Bear could have harvested much of the material released during the
2016 campaign to embarrass Hillary Clinton and her key supporters
within the party. One would expect U.S. intelligence to try to prevent
that kind of thing.

One possible answer to that question has to do with timing. If the
Dutch hackers only managed a year as flies on Cozy Bear's wall, they
were out soon after discovering the DNC breach. That would suggest
Crowdstrike and U.S. intelligence agencies were powerless to kick Cozy
Bear off the DNC network without the Dutch help. On the other hand, if
the Dutch held on for 2.5 years, that explanation doesn't work.

It also appears that the Dutch hackers didn't detect a second Russian
intrusion into the DNC, by APT 28, or Fancy Bear, a group Crowdstrike
links to GRU military intelligence: They didn't have access to this
group's network.

The other important question that arises from the Dutch story is, if
the U.S. had specific evidence of the breach and earlier APT 29
efforts, as well as pictures from the security camera at the group's
"office," why aren't there any indictments of Russian officials and
hackers. The evidence goes back more than three years, and the Dutch
intelligence service has long since lost its access, meaning that Cozy
Bear figured out it was being watched and, presumably, by what means.
There's no longer any reason to protect those sources.

Last November, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing anonymous
sources, that the Justice Department had identified "more than six
members of the Russian government" involved in the DNC hack but that
discussions about the case were "in the early stages." That's
difficult to understand if the evidence has been there since 2015.

My Bloomberg View colleague Eli Lake recently made a strong case for
the release of all the classified memos that allegedly shed light on
the Russian interference investigations. The secrecy around it is,
indeed, excessive. The public deserves to know exactly how Russia
meddled in the 2016 presidential election.

Specific evidence linking Russian intelligence to the DNC hack would
dramatically change the current picture of limited attempts at
interference via Facebook and the state-owned network Russia Today,
especially if it could also be shown that material obtained in that
Russian hack surfaced on Wikileaks. It serves no purpose to keep that
kind of information from the public.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial
board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story:
Leonid Bershidsky at lbershidsky {AT} bloomberg.net
#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org
#   {AT} nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: