Microsoft President Brad Smith told ITV that he believed “with great confidence” that North Korea was behind the worldwide WannaCry cyberattack.
“I think at this point that all observers in the know have concluded that WannaCry was caused by North Korea using cyber tools or weapons that were stolen from the National Security Agency in the United States,” Smith said.
According to Smith, over the last six months the world has “seen threats come to life… in new and more serious way.”
“We need governments to come together as they did in Geneva in 1949 and adopt a new digital Geneva Convention that makes clear that these cyber-attacks against civilians, especially in times of peace, are off-limits and a violation of international law,” he added.
There has been speculation that North Korea may have played a significant role in the WannaCry ransomware attack in May. Shortly after the hack, Neel Mehta, a prominent Google security researcher, revealed a resemblance between the code used in what is said to be an early version of WannaCry ransomware, and that in a hacker tool attributed to the notorious Lazarus Group in a Twitter post.
Russian cyber security firm Kaspersky Lab explained in a blog post that Mehta drew parallels between “a WannaCry cryptor sample from February 2017” and “a Lazarus APT [Advanced Persistent Threat] group sample from February 2015.”
The Lazarus Group is believed to be behind high-profile hacking attacks on SWIFT servers of banks, including an attempt to steal $851 million from Bangladesh Central Bank in February 2016.
However, Kaspersky researches said that the apparent use by the WannaCry attackers of similar code is not enough to come to definitive conclusions about its origin, as there is the possibility of it being a false flag operation.
“Attribution can always be faked, as it’s only a matter of moving bytes around,” another renowned researcher, Matthieu Suiche from Comae Technologies, said at that time, as cited by Cyberscoop.
In May, a South Korean government-commissioned report produced by the Financial Security Institute (FSI) said that North Korea was responsible for the attack on Sony’s entertainment business in 2014, which erased vast amounts of data while disseminating emails and personal data of employees, in addition to leaking pirated copies of upcoming film releases.
The upcoming federal elections in Germany later in September are extremely vulnerable to hacking according to multiple cyber security researchers, who claim that even with prior warning, the elections could become a “total loss.”
“The number of possible attacks and the severity of the vulnerabilities exceed our worst fears,”said Linus Neumann, spokesperson for the white hat hacking group the Chaos Computer Club (CCC).
Neumann claims that a sophisticated hack is not even necessary, citing a “one-click compromise” to manipulate results.
In federal elections in Germany, votes are cast using pen and paper and are then initially counted by hand but results could be manipulated by hackers as the totals from each constituency are broadcast and tallied up at a national level, predominantly using a piece of software known as PC Wahl.
Martin Tschirsich, a 29-year-old IT scientist, discovered a glaring vulnerability in the PC Wahl software.
“At some point, the results need to be typed in somewhere. And from then on, a lot of things can happen digitally,” Tschirsich told Spiegel Online.
The final results are said to be more difficult to tamper with, although the preliminary figures can be falsified, creating a false impression.
“If the final result was manipulated, it would be discovered immediately,” Tschirsich conceded.
While each state has its own specific preliminary voting rules and employs various methods to transmit them using the PC Wahl or equivalent software, telephone or even fax, the president of the Federal Statistical Office (Destatis), Dieter Sarreither, claims such manipulation would be “extremely unlikely,” reports The Local.
Despite the advanced warning, as 61.5 million eligible voters go to the polls at approximately 70,000 polling stations across the country on September 24, the integrity of Germany’s quasi-digital voting system has been severely undermined before a single vote has been cast.
The CCC pulled no punches in their independent analysis of Tschirsich’s claims, asserting that there are “a number of security problems and multiple practicable attack scenarios” in which “a state-funded team of hackers is not even necessary” to change the “vote totals across electoral district and state boundaries.”
A separate analysis carried out in the Netherlands on its voting software, IVU.elect, yielded similarly damning results, the CCC said.
“It is simply not the right millenium to quietly ignore IT-security problems in voting… Effective protective measures have been available for decades, there is no conceivable reason not to use them,” Neumann said.
The presidential order on accepting the Russian government’s proposal to join the cooperation agreement on fighting crime in the sphere of digital technology was posted on the official Russian web portal for legal information on Monday.
“In the course of treaty negotiations, the Russian Interior Ministry should be allowed to introduce changes to the document that are not of fundamental character,” reads a part of the order.
The first agreement on cooperation in countering cybercrime was signed in the Belarusian capital Minsk in 2001. Now that more than a decade has passed it is obvious that the document needs adjustments and in late 2014 the parliamentary assembly of the CIS passed a new model law on information and data security which was then forwarded to national parliaments for scrutiny. The main objective of the model law is introducing single definitions to various forms and aspects of cybercrime that would allow police in various CIS countries to coordinate their operations effectively.
In April this year Russian media reported that the Foreign Ministry had prepared a new UN convention on countering digital crime because it believes the current document could potentially threaten the sovereignty of independent states. The draft has already been presented to UN experts.
Moscow sees the new draft as a necessary replacement for the Budapest Convention of 2001, developed by the Council of Europe.
Russia is the only nation participating in the Council of Europe not to have signed the Budapest Convention. The main reason for this is that paragraph 32 of the convention allows trans-border access to stored computer data during cyber-crime investigations by the intelligence services of various nations.
Earlier this month Russian Prosecutor General Yuri Chaika estimated the damage inflicted by cyber-criminals in Russia in the first 6 months of 2017 at over US$18 million. He also said that the number of crimes committed in Russia with use of modern data technology increased sixfold in just three years – from 11000 in 2013 to 66000 in 2016 with authorities having already registered 40000 such crimes in the first six months of 2017.
“The broad spectrum of illegal actions committed with the help of the internet and communication devices inflict considerable material damage and also target the security of the state,” Chaika said as he addressed the summit of the heads of BRICS nation prosecutor services.
An industry advisory group just issued the latest dire warning regarding America’s extremely vulnerable critical infrastructure: We are living in “a pre-9/11 moment” and we’re running short on time to dramatically improve cyber security before someone — a nation-state, a terrorist group or a lone actor — decimates it.
As reported by NextGov, a new report that has been approved by the Department of Homeland Security’s National Infrastructure Advisory Council (NIAC) warns that cyber destruction of computer systems that control vital infrastructure like power grids, dams, waterways, air traffic control, transportation and the financial sector is inevitable without immediate efforts by government and the private sector to substantially boost efforts to protect those systems.
If they fail to do so, they will have missed a “narrow and fleeting window of opportunity before a watershed, 9/11-level cyberattack,” the report notes [pdf].
In order to prevent such an attack and prepare to defend against cyber attack, government and industry should be working on segregated, highly secure communication networks that are only used for crucial command-and-control systems, according to the report.
In addition, the federal government must also significantly ease up on requirements regarding the sharing of critical cyber threat data with the private sector and with other government agencies, the authors of the report recommended. (Related: This government energy report concludes that our power grid is highly vulnerable to failures that would cause mass die-offs of U.S. citizens.)
NextGov defined that further:
That includes more rapidly declassifying cyber threat information gathered by intelligence agencies so it can be shared broadly throughout critical infrastructure sectors and speeding up the process for granting security clearances to industry cyber leaders so they can review cyber threat information classified at the secret and top-secret levels.
In a perfect world, every critical infrastructure system and facility would have at least a pair of employees who have been cleared to the highest intelligence levels by the government, according to a recommendation by NIAC member Robert Carr, who is chief executive of Heartland Payment Systems and co-chairman of the report.
The authors looked at hundreds of previous studies and conducted interviews with 38 cyber experts, most of whom were involved in the energy and financial services industries.
The NIAC was formed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and is currently tasked with providing DHS recommendations on improving the security of critical U.S. infrastructure, whether the risk is physical or cyber-related.
Sixteen areas of critical infrastructure have been identified by DHS as being vital to the proper functioning of the country. Besides the energy and financial sectors, DHS has identified airports, chemical plants, gas and oil facilities, water treatment plants and other industries as crucial.
But here’s why this report really should matter to you: Very little of what the NIAC is recommending is new. In fact, as NextGov reports, 11 recommendations contained in the NIAC report have been made in the past.
What’s also not new is the fact that for years experts have been warning of the potential for a cyber attack — a massive one like NIAC is currently warning about — against critical infrastructure. In 2010, for instance, former federal government cyber czar Richard Clarke, warned in his book Cyber War that our country’s Internet-based, electronically controlled infrastructure was at risk of destruction.
As Natural News reported last year:
He said then that both state and non-state actors had developed the capability to hack into U.S. government and private-sector systems and cause a level of destruction never before seen.
Now, years later — and after the U.S. government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on defending the country — experts are still warning that the nation’s cyber-connected infrastructure, and especially U.S. power grids, remains vulnerable.
Here we are again.
President Donald J. Trump has made improving our cyber defenses a priority. But honestly, it will probably take a cyber 9/11 to get government and the private sector motivated enough to actually adopt the recommendations that people keep making to improve cyber defenses.
And while the next attack will be thwarted, that first one won’t be.
You should, therefore, already be preparing for the worst.
J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.
[7/24/17 JAMES CORBETT] As Al-CIA-da become the “good guys” (again), and I-CIA-SIS starts to crumble, and the latest boogeymen fail to strike a chord of panic in a boogeyman-weary public (remember the fearsome Khorasan Group, anyone?), it is safe to say that the old Global War on Terror (GWoT) paradigm is falling by the wayside. Lucky for the multi-trillion-dollar global terror-industrial complex, then, that the spiffy new cyberterror paradigm is waiting in the wings to take its place!
But just as the fading GWoT paradigm requires a steady stream of (perceived) threats in order to justify the bloated budgets of the US intelligence and security apparatus, so, too, does this new cyberterror paradigm require a constant flow of (perceived) online threats to justify the bloated budgets of the US cybersecurity forces. And just as in the GWoT, every “failure” of cyber-intelligence and every “inadvertent” proliferation of cyber-weaponry gives the newly-created US Cyber Command an excuse to expand its role and take even bolder action in its quest to “fight the net.”
The GWoT and all of its attendant ills have been built on the back of that “catalyzing event”— our “new Pearl Harbor,” 9/11. So, naturally, the new cybersecurity establishment is waiting breathlessly for the “cyber 9/11” that will justify the complete crackdown and government takeover of the internet.
Unsurprisingly, the “cyber 9/11” meme stretches back almost to 9/11 itself. Back in 2003, even as the Pentagon was feverishly drafting its plans to “fight the net” as if it were “an enemy weapons system,” Mike McConnell, the ex-director of the National Security Agency (NSA), was fear-mongering over the possibility of a cyber attack “equivalent to the attack on the World Trade Center” if a new institution were not created to oversee cybersecurity. Since then, report after report has continued to use the horror of 9/11 as a way of fueling public hysteria over cyberterrorism.
Of course, many of you reading this editorial will already know the reason for the cyberterror frenzy: There is a pre-planned solution waiting in the wings to be revealed to the public after they have been prompted to respond to the next (virtual) false flag provocation. We don’t have to speculate on this point. In 2008, Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig told a technology conference that a cyber equivalent of the Constitution-destroying Patriot Act is on the shelf, ready to be rubber stamped into law. All it requires is a “cyber 9/11” to make such legislation politically viable.
In effect, the advisors, agents and experts in the cybersecurity industry are waiting for a spectacular cyberterror attack to justify a crackdown on the internet. Their plans include “identity management” schemes like fingerprinting for internet access, which would put an end to the free internet.
So if we know the psychopaths in power need a cyber 9/11 to spring their iPatriot Act on the internet, the obvious questions are: Would the US and its cronies really do something like this? And who would be blamed?
The first question is easy enough to answer: Yes. Yes, they would do this. Case in point: Stuxnet.
Stuxnet was a computer worm that the US and Israel jointly created to target Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz. And as we have since learned, Stuxnet was only one part of a much larger cyberattack against Iran, jointly launched by the US and Israel and dubbed “NITRO ZEUS.” Although Stuxnet was intended to be the cyber equivalent of a precision-guided bomb, only capable of damaging the specific computer systems it was intended to target, it quickly escaped the computer systems at Natanz and spread across the internet. Oops. Hope that kind of cyberweaponry doesn’t end up in the hands of one of our “enemies.” That might lead to a cyber 9/11!
And wouldn’t you know it? Other attempts to contain the tools in the Pentagon’s cyber-armory have been similarly unsuccessful.
In 2016 it was revealed that the NSA had not only found security vulnerabilities in numerous software and hardware products but, in direct contradiction to its earlier assurances, had failed to inform the vendors of these problems so they could properly secure their product. Instead, the NSA has been hoarding those exploits so it can gain backdoor access to the computer systems of targeted governments and individuals. As cybersecurity researchers warned at the time, this practice ultimately increases the likelihood that these vulnerabilities will be discovered by criminals, hackers and terrorists somewhere down the line. With the spread of the WannaCry ransomware of 2017, itself made possible by an exploit stolen from the NSA, these fears were realized.
Boy, sure hope this technology doesn’t end up in the hands of the enemies! They might use it to inflict a Cyber Pearl Harbor attack on us!
And who are the enemies, exactly?
Why, the Russians, of course! It’s the Russians! It’s always the Russians! Did you stub your toe on a chair this morning? The Russians rearranged your furniture while you were sleeping! Only mismatched socks left in your sock drawer? That’s because the Russians were rummaging through there last night! And if you get hacked? Well you better believe that’s the Russians!
As we’ve already seen, the “intelligence reports” that have been released so far detailing Russian “election hacking” have been completely evidence-free exercises in political mendacity (but I repeat myself). In fact, we’re not even taking the intelligence agencies’ word for it, because they are taking the DNC’s word for it. Never forget: The DNC refused to hand over its servers to the FBI for examination.
Now, to be fair, it is possible to imagine a universe without contradiction in which the Russians hacked into the DNC to expose their emails to the world. I mean, there’s no evidence whatsoever that that’s what happened, but it’s not impossible to imagine it happening. However, as the meme-sphere has rightly pointed out, even if that did happen, it only means that the Russians rigged the election by exposing how the DNC rigged the election. Hmmm…seems the “I’m Still With Her” crowd haven’t quite thought this one through.
Of course, this isn’t about only the DNC hack or the Podesta spearphishing. Rather, this is a now-familiar cycle in which the #fakenews MSM identifies a hack, worm or cyberattack, immediately blames the Russians in ALL CAPS headlines on the front page, and buries the inevitable retraction in small print at the bottom of page B27 (or the internet equivalent thereof). If you think I’m joking, read MoonOfAlabama’s excellent summary of how this has happened over and over and over and over and over again in the past year.
But as ludicrous as the neo-McCarthyite hysteria has become in recent months, perhaps it reached peak pitch last month in the Qatar crisis. Readers of my column about that crisis will remember how this latest spat in the Gulf (ostensibly) started: The Qatari Emir threw shade at the UAE, Bahrain, Egypt and the Saudis, accusing them of smearing the Qataris and their Muslim Brotherhood/Iranian/Hamas/Hezbollah allies and friends. Or at least that’s what was reported in a curious little piece on the Qatari News Agency website—a piece that was yanked down within half an hour.
The Qataris’ immediate explanation for this swiftly-retracted report? Hackers had broken in and planted the story on their site. Things being what they are, the FBI immediately turned around and blamed those dastardly Russian hackers, and the government’s lapdog MSM dutifully regurgitated this unproven assertion without challenge.
The Russians? The Russians planted a fake news story on the QNA website in order to get the Saudis mad at the Qataris? Really?
No, not really. I know you’re not going to believe this, but the self-same FBI that so confidently pointed the finger at Russia now believes with absolute confidence that it was in fact the UAE that hacked the QNA site. I mean, let’s be clear: The feds are probably wrong about this assertion, too, but it just goes to show how seriously we should take their finger-pointing.
All this flip-flopping raises the question of how the FBI—or the CIA, for that matter—determines culpability for a cyber attack in the first place. There are a number of methods for doing this, of course, from the ridiculously circular (“We attributed this type of attack to Group X in the past, so it must be Group X this time!”) to the just plain ridiculous (“Look! Russian language and references to old KGB chiefs! Clearly those sneaky Russkies forgetting to hide their tracks!”). But then the CIA’s secret tool for disguising their own hacks to look like it came from another country’s government gets exposed, and we’re back to credulously taking the word of the spooks as gospel when they say they never have and never would use such a deceptive tactic (pinky swear!).
In part, the unreliable intel points to the fundamental problem of attribution in the age of cyberterror. It’s one thing to attribute a physical attack to an enemy. In the wake of a bombing or hijacking or other physical attack, there is at least some forensic evidence left behind, some money trail for investigators to follow. I mean, those records can be faked, too, of course, but at least there’s something for outside investigators to scrutinize. But in the cyber sphere, there’s nothing at all for anyone to examine. The only people who have any chance of figuring out what actually happened during a cyberattack are the ones with direct access to the server logs, and even those logs can be corrupted, faked or manipulated in various ways. In the end, it amounts to: “Trust the intelligence agencies! Have they ever lied to you?”
If I really have to answer that question for you, you’re probably not a true Corbett Reporteer. If you do know that the intelligence agencies have lied to you, that they have created and spread cyberweapons in the past, that false flag attacks are used to blame political enemies, and that Russia is being set up to take the fall for the upcoming “Cyber 9/11,” then you’ll know what to think when you see the big New Pearl Harbor 2.0 unfolding before you.
But your friends and neighbors probably won’t. Perhaps you can share some of this information with them before events unfold, so they’ll be forewarned about what’s coming.
Source Article from http://govtslaves.info/bracing-cyber-911/
[7/21/17 ANTIMEDIA] The basis of the WWH-CLUB course is the following: item carding — the purchase of goods in online stores at the expense of various payment methods used by the residents of the USA/EUROPE/ASIA/ with its subsequent sale and profit. You will learn to have a free holiday at the resorts of Europe, America and Asia.”
So reads part of the advertisement for a cyber crime course being sold on a Deep Web forum. The class was discovered by security firm Digital Shadows and detailed in a research report published Wednesday that looks into the popular cyber crime of “carding” — stealing and using other people’s payment card data.
All told, the course costs about $945. For that sum, purchasers get 20 different lectures and the ability to chat with the five instructors running the class while viewing them.
Speaking to CNN Tech, Rick Holland of Digital Shadows said the training in the course is uniquely in-depth — more so than in cheaper items like PDFs that are available for purchase — and that “the curriculum and rigor associated with it is not like most of the training materials that are out there.”
The advertising asks potential customers if they want “to become a professional in the world of carding” and goes on to frame the criminal activity in terms of a career, calling it “a new profession, a new source of income, a completely different quality of life!”
Continuing, the ad says the course “is not time-consuming, it will change your view on personal finance, it will show you how to make money in an interesting, intellectual and amicable way, and find progressive friends and community.”
Norman Barbosa, U.S. attorney for the Western District of Washington, told CNN Tech that carders are growing increasingly crafty in their work and making fewer mistakes. Barbosa was part of the team that prosecuted notorious carder Roman Valerevich Seleznev, whose efforts can be tied to at least $170 million in total fraud loss.
Seleznev was sentenced to 27 years in prison in April, and Barbosa says it was a major win for the U.S. Justice Department.
“It’s somewhat common to identify them,” he says. “It’s a little more difficult to prosecute them. Much of the investigations in computer crimes are focused on trying to pull back layers to find out who is behind the criminal activity.”
“Researchers created 100 fake consumers and gave them fictitious personal information like names, emails and passwords, and either a credit card, Bitcoin wallet, or online payment account. Then they posted the collection of data on a site popular with leaking stolen credentials, once on April 27 and a second time on May 4.”
It didn’t take long for thieves to move in. An hour and a half after the April 27 posting, cyber criminals were already stealing and using the fake data. That’s fast, but not nearly as fast as on May 4, when it took just nine minutes for them to access the accounts.
“All told,” CNN Tech wrote, “there were over 1,200 attempts to access accounts belonging to the fake consumers. That includes a total of $12,825.53 attempted credit card purchases and 493 attempts to access emails.”
The analysis published by Digital Shadows, which has disclosed its discovery of the cyber crime course to law enforcement in the United States and Europe, predicts that up to $24 billion will have been lost to payment card fraud by the end 2018.
Orthodoxy is a word from the Greek ὀρθοδοξία, orthodoxia, meaning “right opinion.” It is adherence to correct or accepted creeds. This word is sometimes mistaken for “truth,” particularly in cyberspace. A few months ago, in response to a lamentation that the technology of internet should have brought the world together, but too frequently has created division, one geopolitical sage suggested the technology was not released until too many people could be trusted to use it stupidly. We’ve all seen episodes of popularity contests, pile-ons, cliques, obviously paid ‘trolls,’ and assorted idiots simply being mean-spirited.
For the most part, though, social media activism has been a helpful antidote to the incessant war-pimping lies of well paid mainstream media Vichy journalists. It is because of the altruistic work of the unpaid writers of truth, that some of humanity is also able to see behind the crimes against peace propaganda showed daily, and nightly, on the news. A handful of international, altruistic, and volunteer writers have become exceptional investigative journalists, particularly in exposing the most heinous international conspiracy in history, that of the attempt of the world’s leading genocidalists — none of whom has ever been indicted — to destroy the Syrian Arab Republic.
All of these honest, independent activist-writers have come under massive, libelous attack, from msm, and from fake independent websites which engage in NATO-lite propaganda, despite many of them literally putting their lives on the line, in walking neighborhoods of Syria, interviewing Syrians, in search of the truth.
The vile attacks against these honest, genuinely independent journalists include a vicious — and paltry followed — Facebook page maligning all of them as some agents of Israel, so deviously clever as to have eluded all of Syrian intelligence, including Syria’s President, Grand Mufti, and Permanent Representative to the UN! So what that among its administrators are liars who have publicly admitted to lying about being Syrian, for several years! What is important is the propagation of the lies!
Despite their great individual and collective works, that troubling orthodoxy does afflict them, from time to time, and they — being human beings — fall prey to certain honest emotions of never wanting those they respect to always be fully respected by all true friends of Syria.
Let’s face it; who among us wants someone we hold in high esteem to come under scrutiny — whether such scrutiny is accurate, or a misunderstanding? Such scrutiny is always unpleasant, both to those whom we hold in this good esteem, and also in the reflections of ourselves. Such provocation can create doubt, where in a more perfect world, none should exist. Should avoidance of discomfort become a path to tribalism among activists?
One of a couple of handfuls of pro-Syria activists once rightfully noted that we must hold ourselves to a higher standard than those paid to lie, as the anti-Syrians do not permit us even a single honest mistake, though they lie with impunity, over and over. I fully agreed with her sentiment, then, and continue to do so.
To this, I add that this higher standard to which we are forced to hold ourselves should also be free of orthodoxy, of double standards, of censorship, shunning, and cyber lynch mob mentality.
Beyond sharing each other’s breakthrough writings, we must also permit free thought, and civilized dialogue, even when we disagree with each other;
Source Article from http://www.syrianews.cc/orthodoxy-activists-tribalism-cyber-lynch-mobs/
Putin & I discussed forming an impenetrable Cyber Security unit so that election hacking, & many other negative things, will be guarded..
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 9, 2017
Trump added that he had “strongly pressed” Putin “twice about Russian meddling in our election.”
“He [Putin] vehemently denied it. I’ve already given my opinion,” he said.
I strongly pressed President Putin twice about Russian meddling in our election. He vehemently denied it. I’ve already given my opinion…..
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 9, 2017
Putin confirmed on Saturday that the accusations claiming Russia meddled in the US election had been addressed during his conversation with Trump. The Russian president reiterated that there is no reason to believe that Russia interfered in the US electoral process.
“He [Trump] asked many questions on that subject. I answered those questions as best I could. I think he took it into consideration and agreed with me, but you should really ask him how he feels about it,” Putin said.
The US president said “a ceasefire in parts of Syria which will save lives” had been negotiated, noting that it’s time “to move forward in working constructively with Russia.”
…We negotiated a ceasefire in parts of Syria which will save lives. Now it is time to move forward in working constructively with Russia!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 9, 2017
On Friday, the first day of the G20 summit in Hamburg, Putin met with Donald Trump for more than two hours.
After the meeting, US and Russian officials announced that a ceasefire agreement had been agreed upon for southwest Syria, to take effect on Sunday, July 9. The ceasefire applies to the Daraa, Quneitra, and As-Suwayda provinces.
Trump said on Saturday that his meeting with Putin had been “tremendous.” Putin noted later that the Trump seen on television is different from the one in real life, adding that he felt relations between the two countries could at least be partially restored.
“I think that if we continue building our relations like during our conversation yesterday, there are grounds to believe that we’ll be able to – at least partially – restore the level of cooperation that we need,” Putin said, addressing journalists.