Putin’s Response Options To Pindo Cyber Attack
Jeffrey Carr, Medium.com, Oct 16 2016
On Oct 7, the Pindosi government formally accused the Russian government of interfering with the Pindosi election process.
The Pindosi Intelligence Community is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from pindo persons and institutions, including from pindo political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked emails on sites like DCLeaks and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the Pindosi election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow. The Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most (sic – RB) officials could have authorized these activities.
We will react, of course, especially given (that) specific figures from the Russian government were mentioned.
From the Pindo government’s perspective, it is the victim of Russian aggression. (It claims) that the evidence pointing to the Russian government is sufficient to meet the attribution standard of “reasonable certainty” , and so it is entitled to respond in self defense as long as its response is proportionate to the attack . It’s certainly possible that Putin directed the FSB and GRU at different times, once in 2015 and once in 2016, to mount a secret influence operation that would favor Donald Trump’s run for President and that those normally competent spy agencies executed this secret operation by using not one but two blown threat-actor groups (Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear), Russian servers and toolsets, free Russian-hosted email accounts on Yandex, and distributed the files via Wikileaks (a long suspected Russian front). Oh, and also create a FancyBear dot net website and a character named Guccifer 2.0 who negotiates with reporters and speaks at security conferences. Because, you know, SECRET.
Or it’s possible that the Russian government hasn’t directed this attack and that the White House, in the midst of the ugliest election season in our lifetime, fueled with Russophobic hysteria generated in part by headline-grabbing cyber intelligence firms, has misattributed it to a State actor and is now about to launch a cyber-attack against a nuclear power with cyber capabilities close to our own. Under international law, Russia could pursue remedies at the UNSC and the ICJ or it could respond with counter-measures proportionate to whatever action Pindostan takes No-one knows what Russia’s actual cyber-capabilities are, but based upon the quality of their scientific universities and the worldwide respect garnered by their computer science engineers, they certainly are superior to the Keystone Cops antics of Fancy Bear, Cozy Bear, and Guccifer 2.0. We already have enough real problems with Russia in Syria and Ukraine. Someone has embarrassed the Democrats, maybe someone Russian, but there’s no hard proof as to who’s responsible. And the bottom line is that the DNC bears at least some of the responsibility, no matter who attacked them. This decision by the White House to name the Russian government in the DNC hack and threaten them with a response is both inflammatory and irresponsible, especially when our entire network infrastructure is so vulnerable to retaliation by cyber means.
 Kenneth Yeager v IRI, Iran-Pindostan CTR #17 p 92, pp 101–102 (1987) — “in order to attribute an act to the State, it is necessary to identify with reasonable certainty the actors and their association with the State.”
 Jensen, Eric Talbot, Cyber Attacks: Proportionality and Precautions in Attack (Oct 1, 2012). 89 Int’l L Stud. 198 (2013). Available at SSRN here or here.
Weirdness from Julian:
On Sunday, before Wikileaks tweeted about Assange’s internet access being “intentionally severed,” the verified account, which has 3.7 million followers, sent three tweets which they called ‘pre-commitments’ and appeared to be written in an encrypted code.
Monday 22:10 BST: It is not yet known what Ecuador’s motivation was for cutting his Wi-Fi. A source in the Ecuadorian government told the Press Association: “We don’t respond to speculation circulating on Twitter. Ecuador will continue to protect Julian Assange and uphold the political asylum granted to him in 2012.”