WASHINGTON â American intelligence agencies have concluded with âhigh confidenceâ that Russia acted covertly in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clintonâs chances and promote Donald J. Trump, according to senior administration officials.
In May 2016âone month after being extradited to the U.S., and while jailed in Virginia awaiting trialâGuccifer claimed to have repeatedly hacked Hillary Clinton's email server. This claim occurred in the midst of an ongoing FBI probe of Clinton's use of a private email server while serving as United States Secretary of State. In computin, a hacker is ony heichly skilled computer expert that uises thair technical knawledge tae owercome a problem. While 'hacker' can refer tae ony computer programmer, the term haes acome associatit in popular cultur wi a 'security hacker', someane wha, wi thair technical knawledge, uises bugs or exploits tae break intae computer seestems.
They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding â which they say was also reached with high confidence â that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committeeâs computer systems in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information they gleaned from the Republican networks.
In the months before the election, it was largely documents from Democratic Party systems that were leaked to the public. Intelligence agencies have concluded that the Russians gave the Democratsâ documents to WikiLeaks.
Republicans have a different explanation for why no documents from their networks were ever released. Over the past several months, officials from the Republican committee have consistently said that their networks were not compromised, asserting that only the accounts of individual Republicans were attacked. On Friday, a senior committee official said he had no comment.
Mr. Trumpâs transition office issued a statement Friday evening reflecting the deep divisions that emerged between his campaign and the intelligence agencies over Russian meddling in the election. âThese are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,â the statement said. âThe election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. Itâs now time to move on and âMake America Great Again.ââ
One senior government official, who had been briefed on an F.B.I. investigation into the matter, said that while there were attempts to penetrate the Republican committeeâs systems, they were not successful.
But the intelligence agenciesâ conclusions that the hacking efforts were successful, which have been presented to President Obama and other senior officials, add a complex wrinkle to the question of what the Kremlinâs evolving objectives were in intervening in the American presidential election.
âWe now have high confidence that they hacked the D.N.C. and the R.N.C., and conspicuously released no documentsâ from the Republican organization, one senior administration official said, referring to the Russians.
It is unclear how many files were stolen from the Republican committee; in some cases, investigators never get a clear picture. It is also far from clear that Russiaâs original intent was to support Mr. Trump, and many intelligence officials â and former officials in Mrs. Clintonâs campaign â believe that the primary motive of the Russians was to simply disrupt the campaign and undercut confidence in the integrity of the vote.
The Russians were as surprised as everyone else at Mr. Trumpâs victory, intelligence officials said. Navisworks download free. Had Mrs. Clinton won, they believe, emails stolen from the Democratic committee and from senior members of her campaign could have been used to undercut her legitimacy. The intelligence agenciesâ conclusion that Russia tried to help Mr. Trump was first reported by The Washington Post.
In briefings to the White House and Congress, intelligence officials, including those from the C.I.A. and the National Security Agency, have identified individual Russian officials they believe were responsible. But none have been publicly penalized.
It is possible that in hacking into the Republican committee, Russian agents were simply hedging their bets. The attack took place in the spring, the senior officials said, about the same time that a group of hackers believed to be linked to the G.R.U., Russiaâs military intelligence agency, stole the emails of senior officials of the Democratic National Committee. Intelligence agencies believe that the Republican committee hack was carried out by the same Russians who penetrated the Democratic committee and other Democratic groups.
The finding about the Republican committee is expected to be included in a detailed report of âlessons learnedâ that Mr. Obama has ordered intelligence agencies to assemble before he leaves office on Jan. 20. That report is intended, in part, to create a comprehensive history of the Russian effort to influence the election, and to solidify the intelligence findings before Mr. Trump is sworn in.
Mr. Trump has repeatedly cast doubt about any intelligence suggesting a Russian effort to influence the election. âI donât believe they interfered,â he told Time magazine in an interview published this week. He suggested that hackers could come from China, or that âit could be some guy in his home in New Jersey.â
Intelligence officials and private cybersecurity companies believe that the Democratic National Committee was hacked by two different Russian cyberunits. One, called âCozy Bearâ or âA.P.T. 29â by some Western security experts, is believed to have spent months inside the D.N.C. computer network, as well as other government and political institutions, but never made public any of the documents it took. (A.P.T. stands for âAdvanced Persistent Threat,â which usually describes a sophisticated state-sponsored cyberintruder.)
The other, the G.R.U.-controlled unit known as âFancy Bear,â or âA.P.T. 28,â is believed to have created two outlets on the internet, Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks, to make Democratic documents public. Many of the documents were also provided to WikiLeaks, which released them over many weeks before the Nov. 8 election.
Representative Michael McCaul, the Texas Republican who is the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said on CNN in September that the R.N.C. had been hacked by Russia, but then quickly withdrew the claim.
Mr. McCaul, who was considered by Mr. Trump for secretary of Homeland Security, initially told CNNâs Wolf Blitzer, âItâs important to note, Wolf, that they have not only hacked into the D.N.C. but also into the R.N.C.â He added that âthe Russians have basically hacked into both parties at the national level, and that gives us all concern about what their motivations are.â
Minutes later, the R.N.C. issued a statement denying that it had been hacked. Mr. McCaul subsequently said that he had misspoken, but that it was true that âRepublican political operativesâ had been the target of Russian hacking. So were establishment Republicans with no ties to the campaign, including former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.
Mr. McCaul may have had in mind a collection of more than 200 emails of Republican officials and activists that appeared this year on the website DCLeaks.com. That website got far more attention for the many Democratic Party documents it posted.
The messages stolen from Republicans have drawn little attention because most are routine business emails from local Republican Party officials in several states, congressional staff members and party activists.
Among those whose emails were posted was Peter W. Smith, who runs a venture capital firm in Chicago and has long been active in âopposition researchâ for the Republican Party. He said he was unaware that his emails had been hacked until he was called by a reporter on Thursday.
He said he believes that his material came from a hack of the Illinois Republican Party.
âIâm not upset at all,â he said. âI try in my communications, quite frankly, not to say anything that would be embarrassing if made public.â
Hacker 2016 Wikipedia Indonesia
The popular culture image is of a hacker operating in a darkened room, a viewpoint that is rarely accurate.
A computerhacker is any skilled computer expert that uses their technical knowledge to overcome a problem. While 'hacker' can refer to any skilled computer programmer, the term has become associated in popular culture with a 'security hacker', someone who, with their technical knowledge, uses bugs or exploits to break into computer systems.
DefinitionsGeneral definition
Reflecting the two types of hackers, there are two definitions of the word 'hacker':
Today, mainstream usage of 'hacker' mostly refers to computer criminals, due to the mass media usage of the word since the 1980s. This includes what hacker slang calls 'script kiddies', people breaking into computers using programs written by others, with very little knowledge about the way they work. This usage has become so predominant that the general public is largely unaware that different meanings exist.[2] While the self-designation of hobbyists as hackers is generally acknowledged and accepted by computer security hackers, people from the programming subculture consider the computer intrusion related usage incorrect, and emphasize the difference between the two by calling security breakers 'crackers' (analogous to a safecracker).
The controversy is usually based on the assertion that the term originally meant someone messing about with something in a positive sense, that is, using playful cleverness to achieve a goal. But then, it is supposed, the meaning of the term shifted over the decades and came to refer to computer criminals.[3]
As the security-related usage has spread more widely, the original meaning has become less known. In popular usage and in the media, 'computer intruders' or 'computer criminals' is the exclusive meaning of the word today. (For example, 'An Internet 'hacker' broke through state government security systems in March.') In the computer enthusiast (Hacker Culture) community, the primary meaning is a complimentary description for a particularly brilliant programmer or technical expert. (For example, 'Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, is considered by some to be a hacker.') A large segment of the technical community insist the latter is the 'correct' usage of the word (see the Jargon File definition below).
Representation in mainstream media
The mainstream media's current usage of the term may be traced back to the early 1980s. When the term was introduced to wider society by the mainstream media in 1983, even those in the computer community referred to computer intrusion as 'hacking', although not as the exclusive definition of the word. In reaction to the increasing media use of the term exclusively with the criminal connotation, the computer community began to differentiate their terminology. Alternative terms such as 'cracker' were coined in an effort to maintain the distinction between 'hackers' within the legitimate programmer community and those performing computer break-ins. Further terms such as 'black hat', 'white hat' and 'gray hat' developed when laws against breaking into computers came into effect, to distinguish criminal activities from those activities which were legal.
Representation in network news
However, network news use of the term consistently pertained primarily to the criminal activities, despite the attempt by the technical community to preserve and distinguish the original meaning, so today the mainstream media and general public continue to describe computer criminals, with all levels of technical sophistication, as 'hackers' and do not generally make use of the word in any of its non-criminal connotations. Members of the media sometimes seem unaware of the distinction, grouping legitimate 'hackers' such as Linus Torvalds and Steve Wozniak along with criminal 'crackers'.[4]
As a result, the definition is still the subject of heated controversy. The wider dominance of the pejorative connotation is resented by many who object to the term being taken from their cultural jargon and used negatively,[5] including those who have historically preferred to self-identify as hackers. Many advocate using the more recent and nuanced alternate terms when describing criminals and others who negatively take advantage of security flaws in software and hardware. Others prefer to follow common popular usage, arguing that the positive form is confusing and unlikely to become widespread in the general public. A minority still use the term in both senses despite the controversy, leaving context to clarify (or leave ambiguous) which meaning is intended.
However, because the positive definition of hacker was widely used as the predominant form for many years before the negative definition was popularized, 'hacker' can therefore be seen as a shibboleth, identifying those who use the technically-oriented sense (as opposed to the exclusively intrusion-oriented sense) as members of the computing community. On the other hand, due to the variety of industries software designers may find themselves in, many prefer not to be referred to as hackers because the word holds a negative denotation in many of those industries.
A possible middle ground position has been suggested, based on the observation that 'hacking' describes a collection of skills and tools which are used by hackers of both descriptions for differing reasons. The analogy is made to locksmithing, specifically picking locks, which is a skill which can be used for good or evil. The primary weakness of this analogy is the inclusion of script kiddies in the popular usage of 'hacker,' despite their lack of an underlying skill and knowledge base.
Sometimes, 'hacker' is simply used synonymously with 'geek': 'A true hacker is not a group person. He's a person who loves to stay up all night, he and the machine in a love-hate relationship.. They're kids who tended to be brilliant but not very interested in conventional goals[..] It's a term of derision and also the ultimate compliment.'[6]
Fred Shapiro thinks that 'the common theory that 'hacker' originally was a benign term and the malicious connotations of the word were a later perversion is untrue.' He found that the malicious connotations were already present at MIT in 1963 (quoting The Tech, an MIT student newspaper), and at that time referred to unauthorized users of the telephone network,[7][8] that is, the phreaker movement that developed into the computer security hacker subculture of today.
TypesHacker culture
Hacker culture is an idea derived from a community of enthusiast computer programmers and systems designers in the 1960s around the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's (MIT's) Tech Model Railroad Club (TMRC)[9] and the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.[10] The concept expanded to the hobbyist home computing community, focusing on hardware in the late 1970s (e.g. the Homebrew Computer Club)[11] and on software (video games,[12]software cracking, the demoscene) in the 1980s/1990s. Later, this would go on to encompass many new definitions such as art, and life hacking.
Security related hacking
Security hackers are people involved with circumvention of computer security. Among security hackers, there are several types, including:
White hats are hackers who work to keep data safe from other hackers by finding system vulnerabilities that can be mitigated. White hats are usually employed by the target system's owner and are typically paid (sometimes quite well) for their work. Their work is not illegal because it is done with the system owner's consent.
![]()
Black hats or crackers are hackers with malicious intentions. They often steal, exploit, and sell data, and are usually motivated by personal gain. Their work is usually illegal. A cracker is like a black hat hacker,[13] but is specifically someone who is very skilled and tries via hacking to make profits or to benefit, not just to vandalize. Crackers find exploits for system vulnerabilities and often use them to their advantage by either selling the fix to the system owner or selling the exploit to other black hat hackers, who in turn use it to steal information or gain royalties.
Grey hats include those who hack for fun or to troll. They may both fix and exploit vulnerabilities, but usually not for financial gain. Even if not malicious, their work can still be illegal, if done without the target system owner's consent, and grey hats are usually associated with black hat hackers.
Motives
Four primary motives have been proposed as possibilities for why hackers attempt to break into computers and networks. First, there is a criminal financial gain to be had when hacking systems with the specific purpose of stealing credit card numbers or manipulating banking systems. Second, many hackers thrive off of increasing their reputation within the hacker subculture and will leave their handles on websites they defaced or leave some other evidence as proof that they were involved in a specific hack. Third, corporate espionage allows companies to acquire information on products or services that can be stolen or used as leverage within the marketplace. And fourth, state-sponsored attacks provide nation states with both wartime and intelligence collection options conducted on, in, or through cyberspace.[14]
Overlaps and differences
The main basic difference between programmer subculture and computer security hacker is their mostly separate historical origin and development. However, the Jargon File reports that considerable overlap existed for the early phreaking at the beginning of the 1970s. An article from MIT's student paper The Tech used the term hacker in this context already in 1963 in its pejorative meaning for someone messing with the phone system.[7] The overlap quickly started to break when people joined in the activity who did it in a less responsible way.[15] This was the case after the publication of an article exposing the activities of Draper and Engressia.
According to Raymond, hackers from the programmer subculture usually work openly and use their real name, while computer security hackers prefer secretive groups and identity-concealing aliases.[16] Also, their activities in practice are largely distinct. The former focus on creating new and improving existing infrastructure (especially the software environment they work with), while the latter primarily and strongly emphasize the general act of circumvention of security measures, with the effective use of the knowledge (which can be to report and help fixing the security bugs, or exploitation reasons) being only rather secondary. The most visible difference in these views was in the design of the MIT hackers' Incompatible Timesharing System, which deliberately did not have any security measures.
There are some subtle overlaps, however, since basic knowledge about computer security is also common within the programmer subculture of hackers. For example, Ken Thompson noted during his 1983 Turing Award lecture that it is possible to add code to the UNIX 'login' command that would accept either the intended encrypted password or a particular known password, allowing a backdoor into the system with the latter password. He named his invention the 'Trojan horse'. Furthermore, Thompson argued, the C compiler itself could be modified to automatically generate the rogue code, to make detecting the modification even harder. Because the compiler is itself a program generated from a compiler, the Trojan horse could also be automatically installed in a new compiler program, without any detectable modification to the source of the new compiler. However, Thompson disassociated himself strictly from the computer security hackers: 'I would like to criticize the press in its handling of the 'hackers,' the 414 gang, the Dalton gang, etc. The acts performed by these kids are vandalism at best and probably trespass and theft at worst. .. I have watched kids testifying before Congress. It is clear that they are completely unaware of the seriousness of their acts.'[17]
The programmer subculture of hackers sees secondary circumvention of security mechanisms as legitimate if it is done to get practical barriers out of the way for doing actual work. In special forms, that can even be an expression of playful cleverness.[18] However, the systematic and primary engagement in such activities is not one of the actual interests of the programmer subculture of hackers and it does not have significance in its actual activities, either.[16] A further difference is that, historically, members of the programmer subculture of hackers were working at academic institutions and used the computing environment there. Free spins no deposit verify number. In contrast, the prototypical computer security hacker had access exclusively to a home computer and a modem. However, since the mid-1990s, with home computers that could run Unix-like operating systems and with inexpensive internet home access being available for the first time, many people from outside of the academic world started to take part in the programmer subculture of hacking.
Since the mid-1980s, there are some overlaps in ideas and members with the computer security hacking community. The most prominent case is Robert T. Morris, who was a user of MIT-AI, yet wrote the Morris worm. The Jargon File hence calls him 'a true hacker who blundered'.[19] Nevertheless, members of the programmer subculture have a tendency to look down on and disassociate from these overlaps. They commonly refer disparagingly to people in the computer security subculture as crackers and refuse to accept any definition of hacker that encompasses such activities. The computer security hacking subculture, on the other hand, tends not to distinguish between the two subcultures as harshly, acknowledging that they have much in common including many members, political and social goals, and a love of learning about technology. They restrict the use of the term cracker to their categories of script kiddies and black hat hackers instead.
All three subcultures have relations to hardware modifications. In the early days of network hacking, phreaks were building blue boxes and various variants. The programmer subculture of hackers has stories about several hardware hacks in its folklore, such as a mysterious 'magic' switch attached to a PDP-10 computer in MIT's AI lab, that when turned off, crashed the computer.[20] The early hobbyist hackers built their home computers themselves, from construction kits. However, all these activities have died out during the 1980s, when the phone network switched to digitally controlled switchboards, causing network hacking to shift to dialing remote computers with modems, when pre-assembled inexpensive home computers were available, and when academic institutions started to give individual mass-produced workstation computers to scientists instead of using a central timesharing system. The only kind of widespread hardware modification nowadays is case modding.
An encounter of the programmer and the computer security hacker subculture occurred at the end of the 1980s, when a group of computer security hackers, sympathizing with the Chaos Computer Club (which disclaimed any knowledge in these activities), broke into computers of American military organizations and academic institutions. They sold data from these machines to the Soviet secret service, one of them in order to fund his drug addiction. The case was solved when Clifford Stoll, a scientist working as a system administrator, found ways to log the attacks and to trace them back (with the help of many others). 23, a German film adaption with fictional elements, shows the events from the attackers' perspective. Stoll described the case in his book The Cuckoo's Egg and in the TV documentary The KGB, the Computer, and Me from the other perspective. According to Eric S. Raymond, it 'nicely illustrates the difference between 'hacker' and 'cracker'. Stoll's portrait of himself, his lady Martha, and his friends at Berkeley and on the Internet paints a marvelously vivid picture of how hackers and the people around them like to live and how they think.'[21]
See also
References
Further reading
Computer security
Free software/open source
External linksWatch Hacker 2016
Hackers Movie 2016
Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hacker&oldid=918724746'
Comments are closed.
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2020
Categories |