>>11068630 pb
>>11068947 pb
CISA seem to be 10x more concerned about these vulnerabilities.
"CISA is aware of some instances where this activity resulted in unauthorized access to elections support systems; however, CISA has no evidence to date that integrity of elections data has been compromised."
So CISA warns you and nicely suggests to update your shit asap to prevent any re-occurrences, thwart future attacks while even linking you to everything that you may need.
The FBI on the other hand, use the fact CISA had no evidence regarding election meddling to come to said conclusion,
"However, even if actors did achieve such an impact, the public should be aware that election officials have multiple safeguards and plans in place"
Mmmkay so even if ACTORS ACHIEVE AN IMPACT… yea so what exactly is this impact bro?
Let's refer back to the CISA article where they call this "impact" a vulnerability.
"This vulnerability could allow an unauthenticated attacker with network access to a domain controller to completely compromise all AD identity services (Valid Accounts: Domain Accounts [T1078.002]). Malicious actors can leverage this vulnerability to compromise other devices on the network (Lateral Movement [TA0008])."
So the FBI just tell everyone, "bruh don't worry even if some guy from Xorbrex 4 gains access to the network, we got all kinds of things to as they state —to limit the impact and recover from a cyber incident with minimal disruption to voting"
This seems a very wishy washy way of explaining/downplaying the consequences of such a breach never mind the things they suggest to prevent future problems… Nearly none have anything to do with a cyber-security threat, while CISA urge users to treat the threat with an "assume breach" mentality.
The disparity of between how both groups (supposedly working together) explain the situation and "vulnerability" is what grooves my papaya.
The photos are things that interested me,
Maybe that's what joe Quantum meant by "read both carefully"
tis but a mere observation,
cheers.