Cozy Bear, Fancy Bear and Guccifer 2.0 are all GRU.
1 Like
Again I cannot understand you. I’m trying but it just makes no damn sense. I have no idea what you’re on about at this point.
This is more legible, so I’ll address it.
We know that wikileaks got it from guccifer because we have the transaction. We have messages between wikileaks and guccifer. We have the receipts.
Yeah. It’s a wierd claim to make that Wikileaks might not have gotten the emails from Guciffer 2.0 when they said that that is where they were getting them from.
1 Like
You think they’d leave that poor dead kid alone.
In his blog, Dmitri also notes that FANCY BEAR (also known as Sofacy or APT 28) is a Russian-based threat actor whose attacks have ranged far beyond the United States and Western Europe. The group has been observed targeting victims in multiple sectors across the globe. Because of its extensive operations against defense ministries and other military victims, FANCY BEAR’s profile closely mirrors the strategic interests of the Russian government, and may indicate affiliation with Главное Разведывательное Управление (Main Intelligence Department) or GRU, Russia’s premier military intelligence service.
At DNC, COZY BEAR intrusion has been identified going back to summer of 2015, while FANCY BEAR separately breached the network in April 2016. We have identified no collaboration between the two actors, or even an awareness of one by the other. Instead, we observed the two Russian espionage groups compromise the same systems and engage separately in the theft of identical credentials.
Why don’t you go to what US Intelligence says.
I bet that made sense when you typed it.
On June 22, 2016, by which point the online publication Motherboard had already debunked Guccifer 2.0’s claim to be a lone Romanian hacker, WikiLeaks sent a typo-ridden message to the persona, saying that releasing the material through WikiLeaks would have “a much higher impact than what you are doing,” the indictment states.
“If you have anything hillary related we want it in the next (two) days pref(er)able because the DNC is approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after,” says a message from July 6, 2016, referring to the upcoming Democratic National Convention and Clinton’s chief party rival
and since ya missed it. Guccifer 2.0 was tweeting publiclly to wikileaks, not just the dm’s we’ve seen. this was public.
About an hour after the conversation ended, Guccifer 2.0 announced on Twitter that it was sending a “major trove” of data and emails to WikiLeaks.
Why don’t you know these things?
I know what Mueller said. The specifically only spoke about Guciffer 2.0
No mention of the Bears.
Mueller’s indictment makes it clear that the attack came from the Russian intelligence agencies and Guccifer 2.0 was an online persona they used to make their identity.
Fancy Bear/Cozy Bear and Guccifer 2.0 are one in the same.
NO they are not.
You are making an implication that they are the same they are not.
Cozy. Bear was in the System for a long time.
They ALL MAY work for Russia but they are NOT all the same.
You would be wrong about that.
Read up on it here.
1 Like
So is Anonymous all the same?
NO they are not. They are all different hackers working for the same goals.
That is the bears and Guccifer 2.0
Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear are pseudonyms we’ve applied to them. The indictment refers to GRU unit 26165 and 74455 which are the official (if such a thing exists for spy agencies) names.
1 Like
I have a feeling you don’t know who Matt Tait is, or his pwnallthethings account https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings
You should really come join us in reality. All I can do at this point is invite you to join us.
1 Like
No, anonymous isn’t the same.
Guccifer 2.0 was made up by the Russian agencies. They’re one in the same. This is in the indictment.
Why would you assume they’re separate?
Ok that article mentions them
All the ones I was reading only Mentioned Guccifer 2.0
Guccifer was not the actual hacker that was the distribution of the hacked gathered by the bears.
So I was incorrect.
2 Likes
Now you are starting to understand it.
good link
The indictment includes the specific allegations that between 4:19 and 4:56 pm on June 15, 2016, the defendants used their Moscow-based server to search for the same English words and phrases that Guccifer 2.0 used in “his” first blog post, where “he” claimed to be a lone Romanian hacker and claimed to be solely responsible for the attacks on Democratic targets.
They were even learning along the way; Mueller’s indictment points to evidence of hackers researching their techniques and commands in real time as the attacks unfolded.
The intelligence officers then coordinated with their colleagues in Unit 74455 to gather and release publicly the stolen files through websites like DCLeaks, Guccifer 2.0, and what the indictment calls a “third entity.”
What’s the role of WikiLeaks? Rosenstein pointedly noted that the individuals charged Friday “transferred stolen documents to another organization, not named in the indictment, and discussed timing the release of the documents in an attempt to enhance the impact on the election.” That organization almost certainly was the website WikiLeaks, or at least a cut-out that handed the documents to WikiLeaks, since that website ultimately published them. Then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo last year referred to WikiLeaks as "non-state hostile intelligence service,” saying the Julian Assange-founded website “walks like a hostile intelligence service and talks like a hostile intelligence service” and is “often abetted by state actors like Russia.” Pompeo also said that the Russian state TV channel RT, which was similarly deeply involved in many of the state-backed election propaganda efforts in 2016, has “actively collaborated” with WikiLeaks. Were his words omens that the controversial site itself would be the subject of a future indictment?
and we shouldn’t forget this often overlooked report from the Dutch:
It’s the summer of 2014. A hacker from the Dutch intelligence agency AIVD has penetrated the computer network of a university building next to the Red Square in Moscow, oblivious to the implications. One year later, from the AIVD headquarters in Zoetermeer, he and his colleagues witness Russian hackers launching an attack on the Democratic Party in the United States. The AIVD hackers had not infiltrated just any building; they were in the computer network of the infamous Russian hacker group Cozy Bear. And unbeknownst to the Russians, they could see everything.
2 Likes