The second link has nothing to do with the DNC breach. It's the Ukrainian military disagreeing with Crowdstrike attributing a hack of Ukrainian software to Russia. And ThreatConnect also attributed it to Russia: https://threatconnect.com/blog/shiny-object-guccifer-2-0-and...
>we assess Guccifer 2.0 most likely is a Russian denial and deception (D&D) effort that has been cast to sow doubt about the prevailing narrative of Russian perfidy
So Ukraine's military and the app creator denied their artillery app was hacked by Russians, which might have caused them to lose some artillery pieces? Sounds like they aren't entirely unbiased. Ironically, DNC initially didn't believe they were hacked either.
There's something of a difference between 'alternative scenarios' and demonstrating that the 'settled' story doesn't fit with the limited evidence. One popular example is that the exploit Crowdstrike claim was used wasn't in production until after they claimed it was used.
>There's something of a difference between 'alternative scenarios' and demonstrating that the 'settled' story doesn't fit with the limited evidence.
You've failed to demonstrate that, since your second link doesn't show the Ukrainian military disputing the DNC hack, just a separate hack of Ukrainian software, and the first link doesn't show ThreatConnect disagreeing with the assessment. ThreatConnect (and CrowdStrike, Fidelis, and FireEye) attributes the DNC hack to Russia.
>One popular example is that the exploit Crowdstrike claim was used wasn't in production until after they claimed it was used.
I see that now. I should have been more careful while searching for and sharing links. I have shot myself in the foot. And I'm not going to waste my time or others digging for and sharing what I think I remembered reading. I've done enough damage today. Thank you for your thorough reply.
