Sounds plausible for me. Some notions in their "obfuscated" texts suggested that they come from inside the US (not necessarily from US nationals, but at least they live or used to live in the US for quite some time).
After a year of reading that the Shadow Brokers are "definitely" Russian intelligence, despite the implausibility of that theory, I'm glad to see some sanity slowly reassert itself.
But I wonder if anyone who made such confident statements will revisit their prior positions and assumptions? I doubt it.
This article isn't providing any counter-evidence to the claim that The Shadow Brokers are a cover for Russian intelligence.
The HN headline is misleading and does not reflect the actual article's headline: "Shadow Brokers investigation is focusing on former NSA insider"
The NSA's "Q group" is just trying to determine if it was a breach or a leak, and to identify the source of the leak if there was one. It's quite possible it was an internal employee or contractor who gave (or was coerced into giving) information to another intelligence agency. Or to some intermediary who later secretly gave it to an intelligence agency. There are lots of possibilities.
>The investigation is now in a direction which goes BEYOND the original hypotheses that it may have been as result of a leak from Harold Martin's home.
Yes, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily excluding the Russia hypothesis. It could very well mean they're just extending and updating it. Or maybe they are scrapping it - us outsiders have no way of knowing.
>"Shadow Brokers investigation is focusing on former NSA insider"
>theshadowbrokers being an 'is' not an 'are' (as in cover).
If you want to rely on a cyberscoop.com article's credibility and attention to fine detail, then I'd argue they're pointing more in the opposite direction:
>Sources tell CyberScoop that former NSA employees have been contacted by investigators in the probe to discover how a bevy of elite computer hacking tools fell into the Shadow Brokers’ possession.
>While investigators believe that a former insider is involved, the expansive probe also spans other possibilities, including the threat of a current intelligence community employee being connected to the mysterious group.
They explicitly name a real group, and don't seem to imply that the entire Shadow Brokers entity is one disgruntled leaker.
>Cover for SVR? I don't think any serious analysis ever entertained that.
No, no serious public analysis has ever made a strong accusation. But in this case, the public (and possibly even the IC) knows very little about who the true culprit is, so there is a lack of analysis on this in general. As far as I know, it's all been speculation.
Snowden did say "Circumstantial evidence and conventional wisdom indicates Russian responsibility." [1] but I obviously take his view with a huge grain of salt, given his position.
There is no strong evidence pointing to Russia being responsible for this - all I was saying is that nothing in this article is somehow suggesting the Russian theory has been thrown out by NSA's investigators.
> Yes, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily excluding the Russia hypothesis. It could very well mean they're just extending and updating it. Or maybe they are scrapping it - us outsiders have no way of knowing.
No we're keeping an open mind on that.
Okay here's this Rep. Will Hurd, R-Texas (mentioned in the article) was doing the rooms at BHDC yesterday. General Hayden also.
9 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 22.2 ms ] threadPS. Speaking of crazy conspiracies, look up "UFO Obama" on YouTube for a good laugh.
But I wonder if anyone who made such confident statements will revisit their prior positions and assumptions? I doubt it.
The HN headline is misleading and does not reflect the actual article's headline: "Shadow Brokers investigation is focusing on former NSA insider"
The NSA's "Q group" is just trying to determine if it was a breach or a leak, and to identify the source of the leak if there was one. It's quite possible it was an internal employee or contractor who gave (or was coerced into giving) information to another intelligence agency. Or to some intermediary who later secretly gave it to an intelligence agency. There are lots of possibilities.
What now twelve months after the first chatter?
"Shadow Brokers investigation is focusing on former NSA insider"
theshadowbrokers being an 'is' not an 'are' (as in cover).
The investigation is now in a direction which goes BEYOND the original hypotheses that it may have been as result of a leak from Harold Martin's home.
Cover for SVR? I don't think any serious analysis ever entertained that.
>'Misleading'
Duly noted.
Okay, "is and has been for twelve months".
>The investigation is now in a direction which goes BEYOND the original hypotheses that it may have been as result of a leak from Harold Martin's home.
Yes, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily excluding the Russia hypothesis. It could very well mean they're just extending and updating it. Or maybe they are scrapping it - us outsiders have no way of knowing.
>"Shadow Brokers investigation is focusing on former NSA insider" >theshadowbrokers being an 'is' not an 'are' (as in cover).
If you want to rely on a cyberscoop.com article's credibility and attention to fine detail, then I'd argue they're pointing more in the opposite direction:
>Sources tell CyberScoop that former NSA employees have been contacted by investigators in the probe to discover how a bevy of elite computer hacking tools fell into the Shadow Brokers’ possession.
>While investigators believe that a former insider is involved, the expansive probe also spans other possibilities, including the threat of a current intelligence community employee being connected to the mysterious group.
They explicitly name a real group, and don't seem to imply that the entire Shadow Brokers entity is one disgruntled leaker.
>Cover for SVR? I don't think any serious analysis ever entertained that.
No, no serious public analysis has ever made a strong accusation. But in this case, the public (and possibly even the IC) knows very little about who the true culprit is, so there is a lack of analysis on this in general. As far as I know, it's all been speculation.
Snowden did say "Circumstantial evidence and conventional wisdom indicates Russian responsibility." [1] but I obviously take his view with a huge grain of salt, given his position.
There is no strong evidence pointing to Russia being responsible for this - all I was saying is that nothing in this article is somehow suggesting the Russian theory has been thrown out by NSA's investigators.
[1] https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/765514891813945344
No we're keeping an open mind on that.
Okay here's this Rep. Will Hurd, R-Texas (mentioned in the article) was doing the rooms at BHDC yesterday. General Hayden also.