The Russian myth: why the hacking claims are unjustified

The story that the Russians, at the behest of the evil Trump, hacked the DNC to destroy the angelic Hillary Clinton, is nothing more than a ‘The dog ate Hillary’s homework!’ type of excuse.

In particular, I became aware today of some data from six months ago that pretty much destroys the entire foundation of the Russian myth, which the MSM and Democrat elites have been pushing on the American people. I’m going to talk about this first, then discuss a bit about why the elites are trying so damn hard to cram this story down our throats.

I’d like to credit Andre Roberge for his excellent article on the hack, which brought the independent analysis of CrowdStrike’s data to my attention. The article by Daniel Lazare was also very helpful to me.

1 The CrowdStrike Data: a big ‘nothingburger.’

This information is an independent analysis of the hacking evidence, done by WordFence. These guys deal with PHP security of WordPress websites, so they are specialists in the field, not some random IT guys. Their report, US Govt Data Shows Russia Used Outdated Ukrainian PHP Malware, is somewhat misleading in its title, inasmuch as their conclusion is that it is highly unlikely that the Russians were behind the hack. Here is their analysis of the PHP malware used:

The PHP malware sample they have provided appears to be P.A.S. version 3.1.0 which is commonly available and the website that claims to have authored it says they are Ukrainian. It is also several versions behind the most current version of P.A.S which is 4.1.1b. One might reasonably expect Russian intelligence operatives to develop their own tools or at least use current malicious tools from outside sources.

Furthermore, the IP addresses involved in the hack were globally distributed. The majority are of an unknown location, but of the known IP locations, the most came from the US, followed by Russia. However, this is not surprising. Hackers commonly hack computers all over the world, which they then use to hack their real target, in order to obfusticate their identity. The overall conclusion which the report presents:

The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like Russia. But they don’t appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes.

The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website.

The report itself is very readable, even for someone who is not a specialist in PHP security and hacking. However, if you want a TL;DR version, they’ve made a nice FAQ. Here is the main point:

hack faq

But wait! CrowdStrike claimed that it could identify the attackers as Russians because they made some elementary mistakes, right? As Daniel Lazare reports, one of these mistakes was having the name ‘Felix Edmundovich’ in the hack, which is a reference to the founder of the Russian political police. Lazare notes that this would be like an FBI agent putting the name ‘J. Edgar’ in the hacking materials. In other words, it’s a little like breaking into someone’s house, then spray-painting ‘The Russians did it!’ on the wall. It’s not conclusive evidence of anything. Putting false leads into a hack is very easy. To quote Lazare:

Since scattering such false leads is child’s play for even a novice hacker, it was left to John McAfee, founder of McAfee Associates and developer of the first commercial anti-virus software, to draw the ultimate conclusion. “If it looks like the Russians did it,” he told TV interviewer Larry King, “then I can guarantee you: it was not the Russians.”

Now here’s the problem: the CrowdStrike data, which has been shown to be completely inconclusive, is the only thing linking the hacks to Russia. The FBI has asked to analyze the servers themselves, but the DNC has refused. As numerous people have pointed out, for our IC to conclude from a private corporation that the Russians were behind the hacks is a little like a police detective solving a murder by relying on the word of a private eye, instead of doing an actual investigation. It makes no sense. And the matter gets even worse when we start looking at CrowdStrike themselves. For example, their chief technical officer, Dmitri Alperovich, is from Russia and is intensely anti-Putin. He is also an associate of ‘Atlantic Council, a Washington think tank funded by the Saudis, the United Arab Emirates, the Ukrainian World Congress, the U.S. State Department and a variety of other individuals and groups that have an interest in isolating or discrediting Russia,’ (Lazare). Atlantic Council is also pro-Clinton. Roberge details more problems with the credibility of CrowdStrike in his article, linked above.

In short, CrowdStrike’s conclusions, which have been unquestioningly accepted by the US IC and fed to the American public via our corporate propaganda machine, are completely unjustified, according to independent analysis by experts, and CrowdStrike themselves are an untrustworthy source. And this is literally the only concrete evidence for Russian interference.

2 The elephant in the room

Of course, the problem with the Russian myth is that it conveniently ignores the fact that none of the information from wikileaks was untrue. For the Clinton camp to complain about the source, rather than the content, strikes me as like a man who is confronted by his wife with photographs of him having an affair, whose response is to get mad that she hired a private eye.

3 But why?

So, if the evidence for the Russian myth is so thin, why is it being pushed so hard?

We can only speculate, but this seems pretty likely: because the US oil elites, as well as the middle Eastern petro-nations who are allied with the US, make money off a conflict with Russia. The US IC benefits from Russian tension in the same way they benefit from the terrorist threat – it ‘justifies’ their existence and their eroding of our privacy and freedoms. And everyone in Washington was on board with this anti-Russia stuff, until Trump came along. The elites cannot stand for Trump telling the American people the truth: that we don’t benefit from tensions with Russia. So they need to discredit Trump, pressure him to avoid looking like he might be cooperating with Russia, and come up with a sinister reason for why he might be advocating better Russian relations. The Russia story is the perfect solution to all of these issues, while also solving the ‘problem’ that the Clinton campaign was shown to be an unmitigated disaster by suggesting that Trump’s win was tainted.

While it is somewhat understandable that the political elites would be pushing this story, it is an egregious commentary on the state of journalism in the United States that journalists did not have the integrity and commitment to truth to find out the realities behind the Russian accusations. Instead, they were all too eager to push whatever narrative the US IC decided was appropriate, and to discredit the populist in the White House. How hard would it have been for journalists to discover WordFence’s analysis? How hard would it have been for them to get their own security analysts to do a similar review of the data? How hard was it to simply quote the creator of McAfee? Apparently, all these actions, demanded by basic journalistic integrity, were deemed unnecessary by the propaganda puppets who were eager to please their Deep State masters.

The truth is, we have no reason to think Trump colluded with the Russians even the Russians were involved in a hack. But we have no reason to think the hack was done by the Russians, either! It’s time to smash the propaganda machine. And in the end, it’s easy to do: just don’t listen to them, and question everything they tell you unless it’s backed up by hard evidence.


3 thoughts on “The Russian myth: why the hacking claims are unjustified

  1. I don’t recall where I saw it, but, on the items with Felix Edmundovich on the metadata, the metadata also shows that someone who was a Clinton advisor/campaign worker first created the document, and set it to Russian language, THEN the “Russian” opened and modified the document


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s