title: Collapsing: Why the ‘Russia Hack’ Witch Hunt Will Not End Well for Congress, or America
text: 21st Century Wire says Washington s Russian witch hunt is now collapsing before our eyes. As host Patrick Henningsen revealed last Wednesday on ACR Radio, the supposedly damning information submitted by the FBI s private  cyber security  contractor Crowdstrike, of which the entire  Russian Hack  conspiracy theory hinges on   is fraudulent. Here is a link to their primary invented piece of  evidence  included in the US Intelligence Assessment. This means that we were correct back on Nov 1st when we said the Russian Hack story was a hoax designed distract from the explosive contents on the DNC and Podesta email leaks, and also to bolster a failing Hillary Clinton campaign by discrediting Donald Trump as being somehow in league with the evil Russians.If they keep pressing this story, it will only hurt the credibility of a Democratic Party that still refuses to admit the abject failures and corruption within of their political organization.Now the question remains: how more millions in US taxpayer money will Hollywood s Congressman Adam Schiff, and ringleaders Lindsey Graham waste before they re done trying to  look tough  on Russia and Trump? Will they be held accountable by anyone?In the end, we discover that Schiff, Feinstein, Graham, McCain and so many others in Washington have done extreme damage to American interests, and in the long run   to national security. Here s the story  US Congressman and NeoMcCarthyite Adam Schiff has himself become a ridiculous-looking caricature as of late. Justin Raimondo Antiwar.comThe allegation   now accepted as incontrovertible fact by the  mainstream  media   that the Russian intelligence services hacked the Democratic National Committee (and John Podesta s emails) in an effort to help Donald Trump get elected recently suffered a blow from which it may not recover.Crowdstrike is the cybersecurity company hired by the DNC to determine who hacked their accounts: it took them a single day to determine the identity of the culprits   it was, they said, two groups of hackers which they named  Fancy Bear  and  Cozy Bear,  affiliated respectively with the GRU, which is Russian military intelligence, and the FSB, the Russian security service.How did they know this?These alleged  hacker groups  are not associated with any known individuals in any way connected to Russian intelligence: instead, they are identified by the tools they use, the times they do their dirty work, the nature of the targets, and other characteristics based on the history of past intrusions.Yet as Jeffrey Carr and other cyberwarfare experts have pointed out, this methodology is fatally flawed.  It s important to know that the process of attributing an attack by a cybersecurity company has nothing to do with the scientific method,  writes Carr: Claims of attribution aren t testable or repeatable because the hypothesis is never proven right or wrong. Neither are claims of attribution admissible in any criminal case, so those who make the claim don t have to abide by any rules of evidence (i.e., hearsay, relevance, admissibility). Likening attribution claims of hacking incidents by cybersecurity companies to intelligence assessments, Carr notes that, unlike government agencies such the CIA, these companies are never held to account for their misses: When it comes to cybersecurity estimates of attribution, no one holds the company that makes the claim accountable because there s no way to prove whether the assignment of attribution is true or false unless (1) there is a criminal conviction, (2) the hacker is caught in the act, or (3) a government employee leaked the evidence. This lack of accountability may be changing, however, because Crowdstrike s case for attributing the hacking of the DNC to the Russians is falling apart at the seams like a cheap sweater.To begin with, Crowdstrike initially gauged its certainty as to the identity of the hackers with  medium confidence.  However, a later development, announced in late December and touted by the Washington Post, boosted this to  high confidence.  The reason for this newfound near-certainty was their discovery that  Fancy Bear  had also infected an application used by the Ukrainian military to target separatist artillery in the Ukrainian civil war. As the Post reported: While CrowdStrike, which was hired by the DNC to investigate the intrusions and whose findings are described in a new report, had always suspected that one of the two hacker groups that struck the DNC was the GRU, Russia s military intelligence agency, it had only medium confidence. Now, said CrowdStrike co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch,  we have high confidence  it was a unit of the GRU. CrowdStrike had dubbed that unit  Fancy Bear. Crowdstrike published an analysis that claimed a malware program supposedly unique to Fancy Bear, X-Agent, had infected a Ukrainian targeting application and, using GPS to geo-locate Ukrainian positions, had turned the application against the Ukrainians, resulting in huge losses: Between July and August 2014, Russian-backed forces launched some of the most-decisive attacks against Ukrainian forces, resulting in significant loss of life, weaponry and territory. Ukrainian artillery forces have lost over 50% of their weapons in the two years of conflict and over 80% of D-30 howitzers, the highest percentage of loss of any other artillery pieces in Ukraine s arsenal. Alperovitch told the PBS News Hour that  Ukraine s artillery men were targeted by the same hackers, that we call Fancy Bear, that targeted DNC, but this time they were targeting cell phones to try to understand their location so that the Russian artillery forces can actually target them in the open battle. It was the same variant of the same malicious code that we had seen at the DNC. He told NBC News that this proved the DNC hacker  wasn t a 400-pound guy in his bed,  as Trump had opined during the first presidential debate   it was the Russians.The only problem with this analysis is that is wasn t true. It turns out that Crowdstrike s estimate of Ukrainian losses was based on a blog post by a pro-Russian blogger eager to tout Ukrainian losses: the Ukrainians denied it. Furthermore, the hacking attribution was based on the hackers  use of a malware program called X-Agent, supposedly unique to Fancy Bear. Since the target was the Ukrainian military, Crowdstrike extrapolated from this that the hackers were working for the Russians.All somewhat plausible, except for two things: To begin with, as Jeffrey Carr pointed out in December, and now others are beginning to realize, X-Agent isn t unique to Fancy Bear. Citing the findings of ESET, another cybersecurity company, he wrote: Unlike Crowdstrike, ESET doesn t assign APT28/Fancy Bear/Sednit to a Russian Intelligence Service or anyone else for a very simple reason. Once malware is deployed, it is no longer under the control of the hacker who deployed it or the developer who created it. It can be reverse-engineered, copied, modified, shared and redeployed again and again by anyone. In other words     malware deployed is malware enjoyed! In fact, the source code for X-Agent, which was used in the DNC, Bundestag, and TV5Monde attacks, was obtained by ESET as part of their investigation! During our investigations, we were able to retrieve the complete Xagent source code for the Linux operating system . If ESET could do it, so can others. It is both foolish and baseless to claim, as Crowdstrike does, that X-Agent is used solely by the Russian government when the source code is there for anyone to find and use at will. Secondly, the estimate Crowdstrike used to verify the Ukrainian losses was supposedly based on data from the respected International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). But now IISS is disavowing and debunking their claims: [T]he International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) told [Voice of America] that CrowdStrike erroneously used IISS data as proof of the intrusion. IISS disavowed any connection to the CrowdStrike report. Ukraine s Ministry of Defense also has claimed combat losses and hacking never happened . The CrowdStrike report uses our data, but the inferences and analysis drawn from that data belong solely to the report s authors,  the IISS said.  The inference they make that reductions in Ukrainian D-30 artillery holdings between 2013 and 2016 were primarily the result of combat losses is not a conclusion that we have ever suggested ourselves, nor one we believe to be accurate. One of the IISS researchers who produced the data said that while the think tank had dramatically lowered its estimates of Ukrainian artillery assets and howitzers in 2013, it did so as part of a  reassessment  and reallocation of units to airborne forces. No, we have never attributed this reduction to combat losses,  the IISS researcher said, explaining that most of the reallocation occurred prior to the two-year period that CrowdStrike cites in its report. The vast majority of the reduction actually occurs   before Crimea/Donbass,  he added, referring to the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine. The definitive  evidence  cited by Alperovitch is now effectively debunked: indeed, it was debunked by Carr late last year, but that was ignored in the media s rush to  prove  the Russians hacked the DNC in order to further Trump s presidential ambitions. The exposure by the Voice of America of Crowdstrike s falsification of Ukrainian battlefield losses   the supposedly solid  proof  of attributing the hack to the GRU   is the final nail in Crowdstrike s coffin Continue this story at Antiwar.comREAD MORE RUSSIAN HACK NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Russian Hack FilesSUPPORT 21WIRE    SUBSCRIBE & BECOME A MEMBER@ 21WIRE.TV 