
Russian hackers targeted U.S. conservative think-tanks, says Microsoft - rbanffy
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-hackers/russian-hacking-of-conservative-groups-sites-thwarted-microsoft-idUSKCN1L60I0
======
christophilus
I remember when Romney was running for president, he kept saying that Russia
was a big threat, and that we were underestimating them. At the time, I
thought he was paranoid. Now, he almost seems prophetic.

~~~
nostrademons
Sort of. Russia is a threat in that they're an expansionist power whose
interests are not always aligned with ours, and that their culture is one
where you take any advantage you can and use it to leverage your power.

Many Americans don't realize just how _small_ Russia is in terms of the real
numbers that matter. Their GDP is less than half of California's. (You can see
why they've been funding Californian secessionist efforts - an independent
California is a bigger threat to America than Russia is - but so far these
have pitifully low traction amongst actual Californians.) Their population is
less than half of the U.S, and is shrinking. Their military is a pale shadow
of its Cold War size. Many people have this image of them as the second world
superpower, which was always a bit of a mirage, but is doubly false after the
breakup of the Soviet Union, which took away half their population and 25% of
their land area.

There's a certain irony where most Americans think the biggest threat to
American hegemony is either Russia, North Korea, or Islamic fundamentalism
(the former two of which are bit players with outsize threats, and the latter
of which has the organizational & technological sophistication of 200 years
ago), while the real threats are either an ascendant China (4x the U.S.
population, 60% the GDP and projected to overtake the U.S. by 2029, already
the world's largest trading partner) or domestic disturbances that lead to the
breakup of the U.S, much the same way the USSR broke up.

~~~
smallnamespace
> they're an expansionist power

That's somewhat debatable, if you mean 'expansionist' like Russia would like
to rebuild the USSR or a new Russian Empire.

What Russia is trying to do is ensure it has a strategic buffer zone between
it and the West and friendly rulers and states on its borders, much like _any_
state with Russia's military history would be interested in doing. Combined
Russian/Soviet casualties in WW1 and WW2 were on the order of ~60mm people out
~160mm total.

Both NATO and the EU have progressively expanded towards the former Soviet
bloc since the fall of the USSR. From the West's perspective, this is bringing
liberal multiparty democracy and stability to an unstable Eastern Europe. But
from Russia's perspective, why should it fully trust the West that was so
recently its enemy, and when the attempted adoption of liberal democracy and
capitalism in the 90s failed so spectacularly (Russia's GDP fell by a full 50%
and life expectancy dropped by years [2]).

Not trying to shill or defend Russia's invasion of Crimea or Ukraine here, but
if you just look at the map of a formerly hostile alliance moving steadily
eastward and you were Russia, would you really just throw up your hands and
say 'yes, that is how the world should be' and tacitly accept it? [1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Vilnius_Gr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#Vilnius_Group)

[2]
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1116380/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1116380/)

~~~
sequence7
> But from Russia's perspective, why should it fully trust the West that was
> so recently its enemy, and when the attempted adoption of liberal democracy
> and capitalism in the 90s failed so spectacularly (Russia's GDP fell by a
> full 50% and life expectancy dropped by years

You say this is because of the failure of liberal democracy and capitalism but
your citation says it was most likely caused by:

"rising poverty rates, unemployment, financial insecurity, and corruption"

Perhaps the Russian state should focus on addressing those issues instead of
invading and trying to destabilise other countries.

> Not trying to shill or defend Russia's invasion of Crimea or Ukraine here,
> but if you just look at the map of a formerly hostile alliance moving
> steadily eastward and you were Russia, would you really just throw up your
> hands and say 'yes, that is how the world should be' and tacitly accept it?

Here you describe NATO as a hostile force but it's clear that the countries
joining NATO were wise to do so as a defense against a hostile Russia.

~~~
konart
>Here you describe NATO as a hostile force but it's clear that the countries
joining NATO were wise to do so as a defense against a hostile Russia.

The cause and the effect. 'hostile Russia' is a result of NATO expansion
(among other things), not vice versa. From Russia's perspective it was not
wise from NATO to accept those wise countries, expecially considering NATO had
an aggrement with Russia on this part.

>Perhaps the Russian state should focus on addressing those issues instead of
invading and trying to destabilise other countries.

Usually you have to deal with both internal and external issues at the same
time.

~~~
sequence7
>> Here you describe NATO as a hostile force but it's clear that the countries
joining NATO were wise to do so as a defense against a hostile Russia.

> The cause and the effect. 'hostile Russia' is a result of NATO expansion
> (among other things), not vice versa. From Russia's perspective it was not
> wise from NATO to accept those wise countries, expecially considering NATO
> had an aggrement with Russia on this part.

The argument that Russia is just defending itself against hostile expansion
rather falls down when you count the number of countries that are members of
NATO who have been the victim of Russian expansion (0) compared to the number
that are not a member of NATO who have been the victim of aggression (more
than 0). That rather implies that being a NATO member protects you from
Russian invasion and explains the desire, for every country that can, to join
NATO.

>> Perhaps the Russian state should focus on addressing those issues instead
of invading and trying to destabilise other countries.

>Usually you have to deal with both internal and external issues at the same
time.

Perhaps but Russia does not appear to be dealing with the internal issues
which is my point.

~~~
konart
>The argument that Russia is just defending itself against hostile expansion
rather falls down when you count the number of countries that are members of
NATO who have been the victim of Russian expansion (0) compared to the number
that are not a member of NATO who have been the victim of aggression (more
than 0). That rather implies that being a NATO member protects you from
Russian invasion and explains the desire, for every country that can, to join
NATO.

I see no contradiction here. Yes, Russia won't attack a NATO member and yes
Russia will attack non-NATO member if Russia thinks this is an appropriate
action. What countries did Russia attacked before NATO decided to go back on
their word and started their expasion?

Offence is the best defence.

>Perhaps but Russia does not appear to be dealing with the internal issues
which is my point.

Corruption is high, yes, unemployment is pretty low. Some issues are being
addressed better than the others surely. Things like corruption which is
almost part of culture and inactivity of locals will take a long time to
change.

------
roenxi
The ongoing "Russia is up to something" narrative is an unpleasant death by a
thousand cuts.

China is doing 'interesting' expansionary work encroaching on territory in the
South China Sea. America has no doubt spawned a generation of enemies in the
Middle East from the last 15 odd years of warmongering.

The Russians have no demonstrated ability to do anything dangerous
politically, or any particular motive not shared by the ~20% of the world
population living in China. To even influence the conversations in American
politics they will have to wait in line behind a maelstrom of corporate
interests that have the political scene quite neatly locked down.

It is heartbreaking to see the usually vibrant US political scene get so lost
in the bushes on foreign policy and threat assessment.

~~~
InTheArena
Russia can’t do anything, Unless you are Ukraine(invaded), Georgia or Europe
(remember that fuel crisis and pipelines) that is.

Or the United States in our case.

Or Syria (Russia is assad’s Primary backer)..

So yeah, remember when Democrats ridiculed Romney for his Russia statements
and Obama and HRC declared it was time for a “reset button” for the bad
relationship betweeen the Bush white goose and Russia?

Or how about their efforts to back certain black lives matter groups and pro
police group on the other hand to stroke racial tension does that not matter?

Or their current effort to discredit Republican Who have split from Trump.

We still live in that world, And the consequences for people both in the
United States and outside of the United States are immense.

At some point this stops looking like normal relationships and start looking
like an act of war

~~~
jimmy1
I am generally with you, the one exception being Syria. Time will tell if we
were on the wrong side in Syria. If you understand Russian geopolitics, just
taking Russian interests for account alone (not trying to wage some third
party war with the US), it absolutely makes sense for them to have supported
Assad. There were other ways to take him down, most of them were diplomatic.
Instead, the US decided to fund Islamic Extremist mercenaries which don't
necessarily have a great world wide reputation, either.

Generally, I am not a fan of the US's "regime change" strategies, at least in
the middle east. They were unmitigated disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan,
Libya is still struggling with warring factions, Syria would have descended
into chaos with 3 interested parties struggling for control (pretty safe to
say the Saudi-backed fighters would have won, after another bloody conflict,
of course), and of course, it will remain to be seen what happens in Yemen
which curiously has very sparse media coverage here in the US.

Warning - my own opinion - I think historically, American regime change
efforts were more likely to be accepted and succeed when the values of America
roughly aligned with the values of the nation in conflict. This is clearly not
the case anymore in the Middle East (maybe once was in the US, but not
anymore) One thing Western Cultures just can't seem to be able to grasp is
just how large the resistance of a country that takes their faith seriously to
the liberal agendas that have taken root and are antithetical to Islam. It's
the one thing governments fail to understand time and time again.

~~~
sequence7
Russia supports the Syrian regime because it contains the only Russian
overseas naval base [1]. This is the same reason Russia anexed Crimea, which
is now conveniently a Russian naval base.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_naval_facility_in_Tart...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_naval_facility_in_Tartus)

~~~
jimmy1
Regardless of the reason, or reasons (there are many reasons Russia supported
Assad, strategic military reasons being one of them as you mentioned), that
was my point: That Russia had legitimate reasons to support Assad. The
interests of Russia simply did not align with the interests of The United
States. This happens sometime in the world, but taking that further and
claiming it was somehow to hoist malicious intent on the United States is
where the stretch was made and where you enter the dangerous rhetoric zone.

~~~
sequence7
My argument is that the only reason Russia supports the Assad regime is for
the benefit of its only foreign naval base. I don't claim that there is any
malicious intent on the United States as far as that action is concerned.

~~~
jimmy1
Read into the intent too much, apologies. I don't agree that is the only
reason, but certainly a reason among many.

------
maxxxxx
If US parties hasn't trained their followers for decades to believe any
nonsense as long as it helps the party Russian hacking wouldn't be a problem.
In my view it would be more important to get rid of the constant campaigning,
distortion of facts, undermining of democratic institutions and partisanship.
The Russian hacking seems just a sideshow that uncovers homemade problems.

~~~
lx3459683
Fake news only carries weight because people have been indoctrinated into
blindly accepting appeals from authority and failing to engage in the most
basic kinds of critical thinking.

~~~
bena
Fake news is nothing new. We used to call it yellow journalism. It actually
got us into a war.

~~~
jessaustin
_Many_ wars, that is. Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Syria...

~~~
jessaustin
'ataturk you appear to be hellbanned, so I can't respond directly. (to see
this yourself open this page in incognito mode) Your observation about NYT is
correct, although their actions in fomenting that war were hardly worse than
in the later wars I mentioned.

------
S_A_P
What is really sad here is that all of this “Russian hacking” has accomplished
a few goals. \- invalidate news organizations. People have mistrusted the news
for a while. Now there is more reason for skepticism. \- Taken a marginalized
nation and put their name front and center for about 5-6 years. They’ve got an
enhanced stature on the world stage as a former super power regaining its
former glory. The Streisand effect applies.

I don’t like what has happened to the internet, and I’m not sure there is a
way to fix it.

~~~
presscast
>invalidate news organizations

It should also be mentioned that this has been Putin's strategy since he's
been in power: blur the line between political/historical fact and fiction,
and exploit the ambiguities that arise.

Adam Curtis' film _Hypernormalization_ provides quite a bit of insight into
this strategy and its consequences.

~~~
mistermann
Glad to see this comment has risen from the [Dead]. As always, I would
encourage HNers to think critically and fight bad language/ideas with better
language/ideas, rather than downvoting or reporting anything that conflicts
with your personal opinions.

Say what you will about Adam Curtis, he's no Alex Jones, which I hope would be
obvious from his Wikipedia entry and filmography below.

I heard a lot about Hypernormalization online and finally gave in and watched
it. I almost gave up 20 minutes in or so as there's no doubt it has a
conspiracy theory feel to it, but am I glad I hung in there as it gets much,
much better as it progresses. I found the portions on the history of Syria and
the US Government's on again, off again, conveniently malleable relationship
with Muammar Gaddafi particularly interesting.

I should also note, this documentary isn't a one-sided hit piece by any means,
there's something for people of all political stripes.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Curtis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Curtis)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Curtis#Filmography](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Curtis#Filmography)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperNormalisation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperNormalisation)

~~~
presscast
>I almost gave up 20 minutes in or so as there's no doubt it has a conspiracy
theory feel to it

Agreed. Despite posting the parent comment, I'm not a huge fan of Adam Curtis
because I feel like his ideas are often a bit wishy-washy and lacking in
analytical rigor.

The point at which I almost gave up on _Hypernormalization_ was when the
narrator basically declares the Raegan administration retreated from the
Middle East because it was "too complicated". No explanation, no analysis of
_why_ it was too complicated... nothing.

That said, the film left a lasting impression. I've decided to take it as
something more holistic/descriptive than analytical/proscriptive, and even
though I find much of it unconvincing, I think he does describe a few
phenomena quite well.

------
rapnie
I am not saying Russia isn't involved in this, but when _in general_ reading
the media, it is always 'Russian hackers [this]' and 'Russian hackers [that]',
almost like _any_ hacker is a Russian hacker. Hackers are everywhere, and -
last I heard - the West is also quite good at it.

With regards to influencing elections (not only by hacking, but using any
other 'legal' \- yet not-so-ethical - means) I wonder, if after the supposed
effectiveness of the (still under investigation) previous election meddling
(and also with parties like Cambridge Analytica in mind), _anyone_ involved in
the mid-terms can afford to not go all-in with these same kind of tools (like
a digital arms race)?

And if they want to go further and create fake news, use botnets to spread it,
and hack opponents to get dirt, how easy it is to make it appear like Russia
is behind it (could even be a possible win-win if you are anti-Russia)?

~~~
drak0n1c
The file metadata and IP address geocoding that is used to identify "Russian
hackers" in these stories is trivially easy to spoof with scripts, VPNs, and
basic computer settings. The fact that it's being used as headline-worthy ID
of the nationality of supposedly scary, dedicated, election-influencing
government hackers is laughable.

At best a responsible journalist should mention the possibility, with some
technical skepticism, inside the article. Not the headline.

~~~
intern4tional
Microsoft is well aware that things can be spoofed, and has a very talented
threat intelligence organization that would not make this claim without
substantial proof.

This includes things like encryption keys and other non-public identifiers.
Should those items be made public, the adversary they are combatting would
then roll those indicators and leave Microsoft blind. This isn't unique to
Microsoft either, most security / threat intelligence companies have their own
swath of private signatures.

The sites reporting on this are aware of that issue (non-public signatures)
and as such do not need to offer a disclaimer. Microsoft is the one making the
claim and they have the reputation to back it up. Unless there are solid
reasons to question Microsoft's work there is no need to include your unlikely
scenario.

------
merricksb
Related discussion of Microsoft's official blog post:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17807637](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17807637)

------
ghobs91
The amount of people downplaying Russia in this thread is absurd.

------
dalbasal
A problem with reports like this is that we lack context. What are other
countries doing to influence politics in rival or friendly countries? Does the
US do similar in Russia?

Influencing political outcomes was what a lot of the cold war was. So, what
are the actual "norms" these days. Are the recent Russian actions in the US
new? Does it go both ways? Is it only the US?

It suspect that the main novelty here is how much publicity an otherwise
secret subject is getting. I definitely could be wrong though, I don't know
anything about spies.

~~~
samastur
Does it matter?

I'd think behaviour like this should be condemned every time and wherever it
is exposed even if it is not unique to one country (and it isn't). "Everyone
does it" is a piss poor excuse for pretty much anything.

But to also answer few of your questions...No, it is not new. It is not
limited only to US. Russia is not the only one doing it, but it seems to be
more aggressive than most. And not all of them do it the same way (I think
there's an ethical difference between pushing a favourable view of your
country or trying to destabilise one).

~~~
sDlEzAtyoNAz
>"Everyone does it" is a piss poor excuse for pretty much anything.

It's really not. If doing "it" gives you some advantage, and not doing "it"
means you're going to get outcompeted by someone else who is doing "it", then
it's in your interest to do "it", which is a perfectly fine reason for doing
things. If you can manage to get everyone not to do "it", or make doing "it"
disadvantageous, then by all means. But that is not always a viable option.

It's probably not a viable option in this case. You can try to make it less
advantageous by attempting to punish other countries that engage in it, while
downplaying it when you do it, but it's still going to be worth it for
countries to try.

~~~
samastur
Even if everyone did it (they don't; most countries have nowhere near the
necessary capabilities), it does not follow that all can or do do it to the
same extent.

And this is not a situation in which all sides doing it makes any less likely
to continue. It is more akin everyone polluting because everyone else does.

Not all polluters are equal, but they should all be condemned and if possible
stopped.

~~~
sDlEzAtyoNAz
>Even if everyone did it (they don't; most countries have nowhere near the
necessary capabilities), it does not follow that all can or do do it to the
same extent.

My comment does not assume that everyone does it or that everyone does it to
the same extent.

>And this is not a situation in which all sides doing it makes any less likely
to continue. It is more akin everyone polluting because everyone else does.

You've lost me completely. What did I say to suggest that everyone doing it
makes it less likely to continue?

>Not all polluters are equal, but they should all be condemned and if possible
stopped.

It's a bit easier to pin blame for pollution on someone than it is to pin
blame for meddling in another country's politics, which is almost necessarily
clandestine. That's why it's reasonable to expect that countries will be able
to make and keep agreements to limit pollution, even if they don't have a
great relationship, but not particularly reasonable to expect that they will
be able to make and keep agreements to not interfere in each others' internal
affairs.

------
safgasCVS
"The election was stolen from Hilary by Russian election hacking" the gripping
new fantasy novel by 'ppl who watch TED talks'.

I for one think this could be a cracker of a fantasy novel but if you
struggled to connect with LOTR because Orcs seemed just too unrealistic you
may struggle with this book's plotline.

~~~
slaymaker1907
You're right, it was stolen by James Comey's witch hunt.

~~~
prolikewh0a
It was probably stolen by Hillary being a garbage candidate since the 90's,
and everyone knew it including the left.

~~~
s73v3r_
The only reason people think that is because of a GOP smear campaign that's
been going on since she became involved in politics.

------
salimmadjd
I really wish this article would have mentioned the fake domain names used and
include some screenshots or at least have asked MS for that information. I'm
also curious if these sites were hosted on MS clouds, then there might be some
traffic data, etc. I wish they would also include that.

Lastly, I'm not sure how MS made the connection to Russia. Did they shared
some data, IP, etc. with US government to verify this? Does MS have the kind
of cybersecurity forensic to independently determine the source?

This reads more like fluff at this point.

~~~
thatfunkymunki
[https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/08/20/we-
are-...](https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2018/08/20/we-are-taking-
new-steps-against-broadening-threats-to-democracy/) has a list of some of the
domains in question

~~~
soundwave106
...and although this doesn't show the nitty gritty details, that certainly
explains why Microsoft is interested in this sort of thing. Four fake sites do
look like government or think tank domains. But the other two reference
OneDrive and SharePoint. Not exactly surprising that Microsoft would get
involved with tracking those!

------
0x8BADF00D
I’m really disappointed at the lack of critical thinking in the comments here.
People are just accepting at face value what Microsoft says. _Microsoft_. I
really must be living in some kind of parallel universe.

------
prolikewh0a
How did Microsoft confirm this was Russia? Are they just blanket blaming
Russia now?

------
antpls
Anyone on Earth can rent IPs from Russia to perform cyber attack on USA, and
then scapegoat Russia...

------
RickJWagner
Incredible. But I also have to think about the amount of blatant political
bias in mainstream (unhacked) media providers.

It's just plain hard to get unfiltered news these days. I rely on
'RealClearPolitics' to give me wildly biased headlines from both sides, then
try to extrapolate where the truth must lie.

~~~
phakding
When you say bias, are you talking about the news articles or the
editorials/opinion pieces. Can you give me some examples of political bias in
recent news articles?

~~~
salimmadjd
The Washington Post hit job against many independent entities was rather
biased [1]

But the issue is many readers do not disassociate Op-ed from news anymore.

[1] [https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-
features/the-...](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/the-
washington-post-blacklist-story-is-shameful-and-disgusting-115978/)

~~~
ams6110
One thing that has changed is that the Evening News on the big three American
broadcast networks used to be pretty much a straight reading of the news by an
anchorman. Now you have news "analysis" programs, especially on the cable
networks. These tend to be strongly opinionated right or left, and include a
lot of guest speakers who are not journalists, and who are also politically
opinionated.

Because of the viewership these shows attract, traditional media outlets are
now also less straight news and more opinion.

I generally feel it's pretty clear when I'm listening to an opinion show
versus a news show, but I'm not sure how many others do.

