At my previous company we were tested once a month to learn how to identify suspicious landing pages or links/domains.
My suspicion is that anyone who downplays phishing attacks is betraying a lack of understanding of how scarily effective targeted phishing attacks are.
They happened to send a fake error report email (which had all of the "red flags" you should catch before clicking a link in an email) on the day I started an oncall rotation that had me receive similar emails. I was wary of missing one, so when I saw it coming, :click:.
I was greeted with a nice message to educate me about what I had just done and how to avoid it. I knew all of this of course (Ive worked in security!), but it just shows how no one is foolproof.
Couldn't disagree more. Generic phishing attempts are. Specific others aren't.
I used to get regularly tested at previous companies and failed a number of them where they were highly contextual e.g. emails were spoofed from real, internal emails asking you to check if a website was available e.g. JIRA, Confluence which have roughly standard website subdomains.
I wonder why that never reached the same amount of outcry when Obama won.
Probably because it wasnt one foreign hostile power directing attempting to sway one specific candidate. Or perhaps because there was no evidence or allegations against Obama or his circle was involved in treasonous activity with said hostile power.
Any idea where can I read more about the analysis around this determination?
The 2016 US Presidential election, by contrast, was quite close: the winning candidate carried only 304 electoral votes, and lost the popular vote (which went by roughly 2 percentage points to the losing candidate). Several analyses have shown that even very small shifts in a couple of states would have sent the election the other way.
In general, people don't get worked up about landslide elections when the popular support for the landslide winner is incredibly obvious. They do worry about signs of interference in close ones, though.
This is, incidentally, what a number of liberal activists have been suggesting as a plan for this year's midterm elections, and the 2020 presidential election: in a close race, a small amount of meddling/outside influence can change the outcome. But a high-turnout race with a significant majority turning out to vote as a bloc is much harder to corrupt, or at least to corrupt in a suitably deniable way.
This isn't complicated.
As car as I can tell, initially the efforts were just to increase division - manipulative ads were placed on BOTH sides of the spectrum, apparently just trying to get people to hate each other and (most importantly) distrust the system. Then when Trump went from 'unlikely' to 'competitive' (be that on his own or not) there was a reevaluation and the efforts went pro trump.
The key concept here is NOT "Trump wouldn't have won" (we can't know) and not even "Russia backed Trump because they saw him as destabilizing/weak/owned or even 'just' polarizing". The key concept is "Russia wanted to interfere with the process and reduce trust in the concept of democracy". Even if they did a terrible job of it with no measurable effect or shot themselves in the foot by electing a powerful and determined outsider that will strengthen both America and Democracy, that has no relevance to what they tried to do.
And yes, countries influence (and attempts to influence) other countries' elections all the time. It is kept in check by the need to be circumspect. If we fail to respond, or even invite it, that balance is lost.
I'm willing to accept Trump won fair and square however much I dislike that result, but I still want to prevent a repeat of other countries putting out false Black/Blue Lives Matter narratives with the intention of destabilizing us.
In 2008 there was no evidence that any foreign government was trying to usurp the democratic process in the way the last election was. And Obama/McCain and their campaigns didn't have dozens/hundreds of interactions with Russian actors. And they definitely didn't owe hundreds of millions to Russian oligarchs.
If anyone thinks this is some new phenomenon you're vastly mistaken. Plenty of documents have been declassified or recovered from foreign entities, particularly Russia, that outline their processes for destroying America from within.
As for relations with Russian actors, there's a lot more indirect that's questionable with many politicians, they've just made a career out of it. You can easily find the money transferred to the Clinton camp as well.
Money has not political affiliation and neither does power.
Ignore potential enemies such as Russia and China for a moment. Instead, think about our "best friend," the UK. What are the odds that the UK has hacked our politicians and has dirt on every major politician from the past few decades? I would estimate this at 100% chance. Everyone who can hack does. And they hack their allies as well as their enemies. If we had a chit chat with UK where we agreed to stop hacking each other, what are the odds that we'd go back to our respective corners and stop hacking? That's gotta be 0%. The intelligence community on both sides would never stop. If someone gets caught, publicly, hacking us, we'll shake our finger at them but not really raise a fuss. And we'll do this pretty much no matter who does it. Because it's just standard operating procedure for global politics.
So where does that leave us with China and Russia hacks? What is so particularly upsetting about the Russia hacks as opposed to the Chinese hacks or UK hacks? I think the distinction is disclosure. Hacking information and using it covertly is one thing. Releasing your dirt on the leaders of foreign Democracy-ish countries is tantamount to attempting to overthrow that government. That is what Russia supposedly/apparently did and what makes it different from China. Russia literally attempted a coup. I think there are legitimate arguments to be made that it was ultimately ineffective, maybe Trump would've won anyways, etc. But if the hacking/release allegations are true, then this was nothing short of a coup attempt. Not necessarily in favor of a Russian puppet, but at the very least in favor of a (Putin) preferred government.
The idea that close allies of the US is hacking them is just ridiculous and it would've been escalated to the highest levels when (not if) the US intelligence agencies found out about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes
>Documents leaked by Snowden in 2013 revealed that the FVEY have been spying on one another's citizens and sharing the collected information with each other in order to circumvent restrictive domestic regulations on surveillance of citizens.
So not only is the UK spying on us, we've explicitly allowed it to in some cases as long as they share some of what they've found. Do you honestly believe that the UK only spies on us lowly citizens and doesn't spy on politicians?
Let's not forget that Hillary wasn't some innocent in this, she was under investigation and to discredit that as a catalyst or a point of contention that would be leveraged is naive. In many ways, her actions and the storm around them brought heightened exposure to the sensitivities of the topic and made for a great way to push and divide the country even more. She's not a victim and in fact I would argue she too was part of the problem.
You're right that Clinton was already under investigation for Benghazi, but that's a sign that the correct domestic legal process was being followed. The FBI gathered evidence and she testified before congressional hearings. That's how things are supposed to go.
Moreover, Hillary doesn't matter any more, in the same way that McCain doesn't (hence the OP referring to Obama only). She is not President, nor is she playing any sizable role in public life. Deflecting the substantive and meaningful criticism of the sitting President with "but Hillary" is at best distracting, and at worst a concerted effort to avoid Trump having to answer very legitimate questions.
As for Deflecting it's the driving force behind, he shouldn't have won, she should have, so no unlike the others it is relevant.