Cybersecurity and Cyberwarfare

Here are 5 other questions that remain unknown about this story and the ongoing threat that national security officials say Russia poses to the integrity of American elections.
1. How widespread are these attacks?
2. Can the federal government do more?
3. Why do these leaks keep happening?
4. Why can't the US stop these cyberattacks?
5. Will this change Trump's tune?

Apparently, Russian Military Intelligence executed a cyberattack on at least one US voting software supplier and sent spear-phishing e-mails to more than 100 local election officials just days before November 2016’s presidential election. The top-secret National Security Agency document, which was provided anonymously to The Intercept and independently authenticated, analyzes intelligence very recently acquired by the agency about a months-long Russian intelligence cyber effort against elements of the US election and voting infrastructure. The report, dated May 5, 2017, is the most detailed US government account of Russian interference in the election that has yet come to light.

While the document provides a rare window into the NSA’s understanding of the mechanics of Russian hacking, it does not show the underlying “raw” intelligence on which the analysis is based. A US intelligence officer who declined to be identified cautioned against drawing too big a conclusion from the document because a single analysis is not necessarily definitive. The report indicates that Russian hacking may have penetrated further into US voting systems than was previously understood.

Shifting from his previous blanket denials, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that “patriotically minded” private Russian hackers could have been involved in cyberattacks in 2016 to help the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump. While Putin continued to deny any state role, his comments to reporters in St. Petersburg were a departure from the Kremlin’s previous position: that Russia had played no role whatsoever in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and that, after Donald Trump’s victory, the country had become the victim of anti-Russia hysteria among crestfallen Democrats. Raising the possibility of attacks by what he portrayed as free-spirited Russian patriots, Putin said that hackers “are like artists” who choose their targets depending how they feel “when they wake up in the morning.”

A group of Democratic Sens, including some of the loudest critics of Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai's effort to roll back Title II, have asked the FBI to investigate the multiple distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks the FCC says it suffered that affected its online comment system. “This particular attack may have denied the American people the opportunity to contribute to what is supposed to be a fair and transparent process, which in turn may call into question the integrity of the FCC’s rulemaking proceedings,” the Sens wrote to acting FBI director Andrew McCabe. “We request that you update us on the status of the FBI’s investigation and brief us on this matter.”

President Donald Trump has been handing out his cellphone number to world leaders and urging them to call him directly, an unusual invitation that breaks diplomatic protocol and is raising concerns about the security and secrecy of the US commander in chief’s communications. President Trump has urged leaders of Canada and Mexico to reach him on his cellphone, apparently. Of the two, only Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has taken advantage of the offer so far, the officials said. President Trump also exchanged numbers with French President Emmanuel Macron when the two spoke immediately following Macron’s victory earlier in May.

The notion of world leaders calling each other up via cellphone may seem unremarkable in the modern, mobile world. But in the diplomatic arena, where leader-to-leader calls are highly orchestrated affairs, it is another notable breach of protocol for a president who has expressed distrust of official channels. The formalities and discipline of diplomacy have been a rough fit for President Trump — who, before taking office, was long easily accessible by cellphone and viewed himself as freewheeling, impulsive dealmaker.

More than a dozen people sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission saying that their names and contact information were improperly used as part of a widespread political campaign meant to discredit the commission's network neutrality rules. Calling on the FCC to investigate and delete the "dishonest and deceitful" messages made in their name, the citizens said officials cannot afford to ignore the flood of fake comments apparently designed "to manufacture false support for your plan to repeal net neutrality protections."

"To see my good name used to present an opinion diametrically opposed to my own view on Net Neutrality makes me feel sad and violated," said Joel Mullaney, one of the people who signed the letter. "Whoever did this violated one of the most basic norms of our democratic society, that each of us have our own voice, and I am eager to know from what source the FCC obtained this falsified affidavit. I have been slandered."