Team Macron praised for feeding phishing spies duff info Emmanuel Macron's campaign team reportedly used fake logins and docs to waste hacker resources and frustrate phishing attempts. Although the newly elected French president's campaign was still hacked before the release of emails and other information last Friday, Team Macron's interference tactics have been heralded by at …
"Post-mortems of the US Democratic Party breach provide evidence that Clinton campaign supremo John Podesta got hacked because of a lack of 2FA"
Fuck sake El Reg.
Podesta's email was a personal Gmail account. The Democrats had feck all control over it.
Podesta's email was hacked because he received a dodgy email, forwarded it to his tech guy, and he replied "it's legitimate" as a typo - he meant to write "illegitimate".
Report the facts properly if you're going to report them at all.
"Also doesn't change the bit where if the DNC used 2FA, then anything phished from Podesta still would have been useless."
Are you high or just stupid?
The DNC weren't hacked by someone getting the password of Podesta's emails. Clinton's "hack" was down to her own separate private server. Any leaks coming from the DNC were concerning Seth Rich after he found some fairly daming anti-Sanders material.
But a Gmail 2FA would've stopped that wouldn't it.
Who is high or stupid? Clinton's private email server was not hacked. The DNC's email server was, as was Podesta's personal email (where "hacked" here means "someone got his password")
You're right that 2FA would not have prevented the DNC hack, since they hacked the server and got access to all emails it contained. The problem there is that even if you patched everything perfectly you can't stop a state level actor from hacking you if you they want to, because they have a private stash of 0 days they can deploy if you make yourself a hard target.
My dear boy, the regulations allowing the fair folk of El REg to publish specifically disallow the staff availing themselves of such usage. Sufficient to say they therefore allow such profanity to emanate from the common commentards, such as your good self.
Nevertheless please partake of an upvote for your good wife and children.
Good day sir.
Sufficient to say they therefore allow such profanity to emanate from the common commentards, such as your good self.
Apologies for the kerfuffle good sir. I shall endeavour not to make a habit of using such words
I was however trying to be a charitable as possible in my description of the young basement-dwelling Putin-ites over at 4chan.
Would this 2FA you write of be the same 2FA that last week was reported in these vary pages as horribly, fatally compromised by a crummy SMS protocol implementation, so bad it was an open invitation for hackers to come right in and make themselves at home?
I own to being confused by these mixed messages.
While it came up, I would be QUITE happy to see an article on El Reg about an overview and pros/cons of currently functional 2FA options for Gmail/Google and/or other major sites. Yes, I can certainly look it up myself, it's just an idea that would likely be widely useful without requiring a Watergate-level effort...
Now you have to ask yourself a question.
I highlighted a potential fake story.
Who put that fake story out there and who would suffer damage from it?
Clearly you can check images and pdf's to ensure they are genuine if you know how, so who would benefit from the proof that an accusation was faked? trivially and embarrassingly are the words you use so I'll leave you to work it out for yourself.
In regards to Mr former banker, I leave it to your own imagination as to whether he really does avoid tax and have a shed load of money hidden away from the taxman.
This sort of argument is why I thought the French reaction to the leaked emails was good.
A complete press blackout until after the election was finished. Macron couldn't say anything publicly, Le Pen either and the Press couldn't report on it, because it was leaked too close to the ballot.
That seems to be a bit of a buzzword these days.
At the same time, on this article (and not just) we are quite casually told the Russians are to blame¹, but no actual evidence is shown. Not here, not in any other article I have come across so far. Following the link trail from this article onto "The Daily Beast" website and on from there, the most conclusive one can find is an article titled "U.S. Spy Report Blames Putin for Hacks, But Doesn’t Back It Up".
Surely if it is expected that the audience be discerning and apply a critical eye, one will be told the full story and sources will be provided?
I apologise if I misunderstood and the "War on Fake News" is all about blindly trusting one's regular news sources, because of course they are infallible.
¹ On a marginal note, it is interesting to contrast the prominence given to the subject (of alleged Russian meddling in third-country political processes via mass-media misinformation) in British and US media compared to non-English language sources. Are really the old Imperial enmities still going so strong?
Umm.
"Are the old Imperial enmities still going so strong".
Urrr Yes. The imperials still want to keep the proletariat enslaved. Thus the left/right disparity and the events designed to ensure that the proletariat are continuously at *each others* throats instead of marshalling torches and pitchforks.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
