Western intelligence hacked Yandex to spy on accounts

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-yandex-exclusive-idUSKCN1TS2SX

by jbegley • 7 years ago

188 92 7 years ago

gloflo• 7 years ago

'Western' meaning the usual aggressors, the “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing alliance of the United States, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

tantalor• 7 years ago

Here it's vague enough to be meaningless to the point of irresponsible journalism. WHICH COUNTRY?

kss238• 7 years ago

The article mentions, that sources could not confirm which nation launched the attack.

rurban• 7 years ago

Not particularly. The last known time a western aggressor hacked into such a Russian intelligence company, Kaspersky, it was revealed to be the Dutch intelligence agency, sharing their info with the US. So it could be any of the 5 eyes or any of their partners.

mc322• 7 years ago

Unsurprisingly Yandex say that this was detected early, no damage was done and no user data was accessed via the hacking.

Obviously that rings hollow... but, I wonder, what kind of security protocol do high gov officials in RU use, do they follow better security hygiene than the West?

This release coincides with G20 meetings. Intentional or happenstance?

gbuk2013• 7 years ago

Something like this maybe?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/russia-reverts...

;)

mc322• 7 years ago

Heh. But do they stay true to that protocol?

knicholes2• 7 years ago

I could swear there was something recent I've read about determining which keys are being pushed by hearing the sound of the keyboard...

ajross• 7 years ago

No one follows good security hygiene anywhere. It's certainly not a cultural thing.

derefr• 7 years ago

Almost sounds like a sci-fi thing. A species that has evolved to experience physiological disgust at the idea of doing insecure things.

codedokode2• 7 years ago

As far as I know, Putin says that he doesn't use mobile phones and computers. Can it be considered a security measure? Other officials, like PM Medvedev, are better with technology and had their devices hacked: [1]

Regarding Yandex, they have good talents there so what they say might be true.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/14/dmitry-medvede...

pugworthy• 7 years ago

Are we at all surprised by this?

Really, it's a lot like the allowable amount of insect parts that the US Govt. Food and Drug Administration allows in food. You're shocked a bit to read it, but the truth is you've been living it (and eating it) for some time.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Food_Defect_Action_Levels for example for what I mean about "allowable amount of insect parts"

lemoncucumber• 7 years ago

I've heard that people who think they're allergic to chocolate are actually allergic to the cockroaches bits are in most chocolate. Not sure how well proven that is though.

sprafa4• 7 years ago

If we weren’t hacking into Yandex, I’d be asking for new chiefs at the intelligence agencies who would. What the heck of the point of an agency if you’re not gathering intelligence?

saagarjha• 7 years ago

What does hacking into Yandex give us other than a reason for Russia to do the same?

nradov• 7 years ago

Insect parts in general aren't harmful. In fact insects are commonly eaten in many cultures.

Veen2• 7 years ago

Consider what it would take to guarantee that there are absolutely no insect parts in a given volume of food. Insects are everywhere, and it's almost impossible to eliminate them with total confidence from every step of the food supply chain. Even if it were possible, it would be incredibly expensive.

Unless you want your yoghurt to cost $100 a pot, you have to accept that some insect parts will find their way into some food. The point of regulation is to ensure that the amount is minimized. If the standard was zero parts, food prices would skyrocket, many food suppliers would go out of business, and poor people wouldn't be able to eat. So the standard is some reasonable low level.

These things are always about tradeoffs and not absolutes.

samirm2• 7 years ago

Except eating insects is not that big of a deal and not at all the same thing as espionage...

labster• 7 years ago

One of these days, New Zealand will turn on us, and we will all be speaking Eeenglish and living in hobbit holes.

notthegov• 7 years ago

In my view, if you’re hacking for espionage purposes as a nation who defends classical liberalism, then I’d argue your actions are justified. I do not understand why sources involved with this (or related stories) would talk to reporters.

Despite our flaws, there’s a difference in Russia or China hacking and the US. To suggest otherwise is advocating moral relativism in my opinion.

I do, however, support a pardon for Snowden and Assange.

thrwayxyz• 7 years ago

Yes, we need to hack the British for their opposition to the classical liberal position of free exchange of slaves between states.

gerdesj2• 7 years ago

Are you having a laugh? "as a nation who defends classical liberalism" Why should: "actions are justified"

If you think you hold yourself to a higher purpose, then why not behave as such. I'm not sure what "moral relativism" even means.

"there’s a difference in Russia or China hacking and the US" - no, that's bollocks. I'll assert that and stick to it.

perfmode2• 7 years ago

given this persons previous posts, i wouldn’t take what they’re saying too seriously:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17061936

astazangasta2• 7 years ago

Err? So, suggesting a uniform standard that says hacking is bad is advocating moral relativism?

There is no end to this "ends justify the means" crap. "Well, we're the good guys, so it's ok for us to torture, depose governments, nuke civilians, fix elections, assassinate foreign leaders, spy on our citizens..." Etc.

Veen2• 7 years ago

It doesn't matter whether "we're" the good guys or even if there are any good guys. Where there are groups with different interests there will always be conflict.

Given that there will always be conflict, you can choose to do nothing and be out-competed, you can act in the interest of the group to which you belong, or you can act in the interest of the other side.

It's possible to argue that these actions are not, in fact, in the interest of your group, but that has nothing to do with some facile Hollywood conception of international relations as good guys vs. bad guys.

RomanBob2• 7 years ago

Despite our flaws, there’s a difference in Russia or China hacking and the US.

the difference is you identify the US as 'our'.

codedokode2• 7 years ago

Why would Assange, who is neither citizen nor resident of US, need a pardon from US? That's a political case.

billfruit3• 7 years ago

Kind of ethically dubious to this type of work. There is moral outrage when Google tries to do military contracting, but none against when federal government doing this type of extra-legal actions.

wavefunction• 7 years ago

I expect my government to spy on foreign citizens and governments. If they do something truly terrible like kill civilians or disrupt the natural society of a country I'd have to take a hard look. Google is a private firm and subject to market forces like boycotts over military contracting. It's because governments and Google are two very different things.

avs733• 7 years ago

And you also rely on them for information as to who is truly terrible.

raxxorrax4• 7 years ago

Really? Because your government treats an attack on digital infrastructure as an act of war.

So why do you war so much yourself?

pjc50• 7 years ago

If they do something truly terrible like kill civilians or disrupt the natural society of a country I'd have to take a hard look.

I can't tell whether the "they" in this sentence is referring to your government or the foreign one.

billfruit3• 7 years ago

From an employees perspective I do not think federal government is much different from any other large employer.

sonnyblarney5• 7 years ago

It's definitely not 'extra-legal'.

Espionage against a country that has 1000 nuclear warheads pointed at you, and practices using them, is a very responsible thing to do, and very much sanctioned by government.

RomanBob2• 7 years ago

Well then by your logic, spying on US citizens by the US government is perfectly fine, since it would count at 'espionage against a country that has 10,000 nukes, used it a couple of times to incinerate a few 100ks people, and is very much sanctioned by government".

billfruit3• 7 years ago

Sanctioned by the government does not imply it is not extra-legal; to my eye these type of actions are morally and ethically problematic in peacetime.

stirfrykitty• 7 years ago

I'm rather fond of Yandex. They have great engineers and make a solid product. Being Russian doesn't bother me, as I have nothing against the Russians. Yandex search has a fantastic image search that rival most others. And the fact that one does not have to provide a mobile number is a plus.

piffey• 7 years ago

Their reverse image search is beyond anything else out there. It's incredible.

stareatgoats• 7 years ago

Not to mention ClickHouse

webmobdev2• 7 years ago

Their search engine is not bad too, and I use it as my primary search engine. They also helpfully provide a link to other search engines so that if you are not satisfied with their search result you can search on the other search engines with just a click. This ensures that they get crucial data (the search query) to improve their search results and also doesn't leave their user disgruntled due to non-relevant search result.

On the flip side, they are just as intrusive as Google. When I installed their browser or mail app (don't remember which one) it asked for my ios PIN / password (no ios app ever requires a PIN / password for installation - and no, I am not talking about an iCloud password which is required for app installation if you have enabled it for app installation).

Bakary• 7 years ago

That's sad. One of the main features of Yandex mail was that your data was reasonably safe from Western intelligence.

Western intelligence hacked Yandex to spy on accounts

Related Stories