Russian GRU launching sofisticated cyber attacks

[saidsimplesimon]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/how-russia’s-military-intelligence-agency-became-the-covert-muscle-in-putin’s-duels-with-the-west/ar-BBRwGaB

The Washington Post

How Russia’s military intelligence agency became the covert muscle in Putin’s duels with the West
Anton Troianovski, Ellen Nakashima 1 day ago
…snip
GRU units also are suspected of deploying a highly disruptive computer virus dubbed NotPetya, analysts said. Launched on June 28, 2017 — Ukraine’s Constitution Day — the virus wiped data from the computers of banks, energy firms, senior government officials and an airport in Ukraine.

It also affected computers in Denmark, India and the United States. The White House called it “the most destructive and costly cyberattack in history.”

In response to the NotPetya virus and other suspected hackings, the United States in March placed sanctions on six GRU officials.
“Ukraine is to 21st-century hybrid warfare what Spain was in the 1930s for battlefield blitzkrieg techniques — the place where the bad guys try out what they may use against us later on,” said Daniel Fried, a former senior State Department official who helped lead the West’s response to Moscow’s aggression against Ukraine.

Russia has denied that the GRU engages in malign activity around the world. After Mueller’s indictment of 12 officers accused of interfering in the U.S. election, Russia’s Foreign Ministry said that “it has become the norm in Washington to promote fake news and initiate criminal proceedings for obvious political purposes.”

[duforsure]

1. Why aren't reporters for the White House asking what have they done to protect us.

They should be repeatedly asking them what has been done to stop a cyber attack on the power grid, and if he refuses to answer , repeat it over and over again why he hasn't said anything about it? They should hound him and Sarah with this question.

[Igel]

2. They have.

I wouldn't expect Trump to be able to answer that. I wouldn't actually have expected Obama to be able to answer that except in vague generalities unless he'd just been briefed and knew he'd be expected to remember the information. It's like asking if you know your 2nd child's 3rd favorite toy's lead content--have you seen the test reports. If you say "yes," that, itself, is a problem.

The companies themselves have done at lot.

The US government has set standards and tests against them.

The energy industry has gone on record saying that the government should do more. Since that means "the government should do more to protect our company's infrastructure," I don't ever see that bit going away. "No, please, don't give us stuff and money to make our infrastructure more robust, no strings attached" is not something I expect anybody to say ever unless they're true die-hard ideologues.

Of course, since there isn't just one set of software and equipment in use, there's not likely going to be a one-size-fits-all solution. But one of the things they hit on a few years ago was taking much of the equipment off line; or, rather, making it part of a separate network, possibly with dedicated connections, that can only be hacked by means of physically digging up the wire and patching into it or by putting a transmitter/receiver in the path of the narrow-beam microwave data transmission.

Which, of course, brings to mind an article I read about two years ago now when a Russian consulate in the NW was shut down: The article predated the shutdown by months and asked why, exactly, it was known that so many Russians with connections to that consulate (the one in SF?) had been observed standing or frequently visiting certain locations throughout the west--locations which, when checked, turned out to be where secure data transmission lines were, the location of data junctions, places where there were high-tension cables or pipelines carrying essential materials. In the desert, at the beach where data cables came onshore, wherever the infrastructure sites were. Were they there just to say, "See? We know where they are?" To say, "Gotta wonder why we're here so much--worried yet?" Or were they actually engaged in something beyond that surface level of spy craft. I mean, if the press knew and had pictures, you'd assume that the US government had some clue. Or maybe the US government didn't have a clue and that was the point--checking to see if the Cracker-Jacks decoder ring had finally arrived in the NSA or FBI's mailbox to help them improve on playing Junior Birdman. (Okay, too many 1930s references in that. Back on topic, Igel!)

Various people on government committees that look after these things say that more needs to be done--but frame that as, "They're always evolving new strategies, we're always changing our interfaces and technologies, so you can never be done." Which is true, but it's sort of a mindless criticism when talking about an open-ended task. Like asking the Superbowl teams on game day if they think they trained enough. Idiots answer "yes," which doesn't actually mean "enough" but subs for "we trained all we could or were about to, so stop trying to make us doubt ourselves."

Some of those people who spoke to reporters are on committees that are interfaced with organizations much of whose work is classified. At that point, you don't want them or Trump to be saying what's being done--if the GRU knows about it, meh. If they don't, why tell them? And if you say the wrong thing, you may point them to where work isn't being done, sort of a big red flashing arrow saying, "Hack here!" That was true in 2015 as in 2017.

[saidsimplesimon]

3. I appreciate spy craft and disinformation.

My warning is that we have a criminal president who is putty in the hands of a foreign handler, Vlad The Impaler, Tsar of Russia.