For example, Russian hackers appear to have breached the Republican National Committee as well as the DNC prior to the 2016 election. The report also suggests that there was additional information that the hackers obtained but did not release. In other words, by the time the GRU carried out the September hack, they were already effectively finished with the hacking operations that resulted in the release of emails during the campaign. According to the Mueller report, metadata on files published by WikiLeaks suggest that the hackers transferred the data to WikiLeaks by Septem(Volume 1, p. Meanwhile, the successful penetration of PodestaвЂ™s inbox occurred on March 16, 2016.

The GRUвЂ™s Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear units hacked into the DNCвЂ™s servers in the summer of 2015 and April 2016, respectively, and released the emails in July 2016. What makes the September attack particularly interesting is that it took place significantly after the email hack and release, which has a clear dissemination strategy.

However, on at least one occasion GRU hackers sent informal Trump advisor Roger Stone stolen information on the Democratic PartyвЂ™s turnout models and asked for his feedback, which Stone gave (Volume 1, p. The Trump campaign has denied any coordination with the GRU hackers. Stolen analytical data could be useful not only as additional information on targets that Democrats hoped to reach, but also as a means of better anticipating, and therefore better countering their campaigns. This type of stolen data, as described in the indictment, appears to be information that would likely be more useful if kept private than if disseminated. These computers contained test applications related to the DNCвЂ™s analytics.вЂќ However, neither the indictment nor the Mueller report appears to say what the Kremlin ultimately did with the data stolen in that attack. Viktor Netyksho, et al, on September 20, 2016, GRU hackers carried out an attack that resulted in them gaining access to вЂњDNC computers hosted on a third-party cloud-computing service.

The indictment and the report also indicate additional hacks and transfers of information that never became public, including the transfer of stolen materials to an undisclosed congressional candidate.ДЄccording to U.S.

WikiLeaks never released any of the data it stole in the final attack, and there is no discussion in either the indictment or the Mueller report of what the GRU did with the data.

Analytics are some of the most critical assets a campaign owns, often valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars.

These computers contained test applications related to the DNCвЂ™s analytics,вЂќ which the hackers copied and stole.

On September 20, 2016, after Russia transferred files to WikiLeaks, members of the same Russian military-intelligence unit вЂњalso successfully gained access to DNC computers hosted on a third-party cloud-computing service.

Metadata on files found on the computers of Russian hackers suggests that they had completed their transfer of emails stolen from John PodestaвЂ™s inbox to WikiLeaks in mid-September 2016.

Russian intelligence worked with a cutout, WikiLeaks, to disseminate the stolen information.

They gained access to the servers of the Democratic National Committee as early as the summer of 2015 John PodestaвЂ™s emails were compromised in March 2016.

Russian hackers from the GRU, the KremlinвЂ™s military-intelligence directorate, conducted multiple rounds of hacking that resulted in the theft of sensitive data and emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

What did they do with the valuable information they stole but did not release?.

Russian intelligence stole data from the DNC as late as September 20, 2016.

It did not release the DNC analytics and campaign plans.

Russian military-intelligence hackers stole confidential political data from the Democratic National Committee that they did not release through WikiLeaks.

Who hacked dnc server