* **Summary**: Pre-Existing Assets are assets which existed before the observed incident which have not been Repurposed; i.e. they are still being used for their original purpose. <br><br>An example could be an Account which presented itself with a Journalist Persona prior to and during the observed potential incident.
* **Belongs to tactic stage**: TA06
| Incident | Descriptions given for this incident |
| [I00119 Independent journalist publishes Trump campaign document hacked by Iran despite election interference concerns](../../generated_pages/incidents/I00119.md) | <i>An American journalist who runs an independent newsletter published a document [on 26 Sep 2024] that appears to have been stolen from Donald Trump’s presidential campaign — the first public posting of a file that is believed to be part of a dossier that federal officials say is part of an Iranian effort to manipulate the [2024] U.S. election.<br><br>The PDF document is a 271-page opposition research file on former President Donald Trump’s running mate, Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio.<br><br>For more than two months, hackers who the U.S. says are tied to Iran have tried to persuade the American media to cover files they stole. No outlets took the bait.<br><br>But on Thursday, reporter Ken Klippenstein, who self-publishes on Substack after he left The Intercept this year, published one of the files.<br><br>[...]<br><br>Reporters who have received the documents describe the same pattern: An AOL account emails them files, signed by a person using the name “Robert,” who is reluctant to speak to their identity or reasons for wanting the documents to receive coverage.<br><br>NBC News was not part of the Robert persona’s direct outreach, but it has viewed its correspondence with a reporter at another publication.<br><br> One of the emails from the Robert persona previously viewed by NBC News included three large PDF files, each corresponding to Trump’s three reported finalists for vice president. The Vance file appears to be the one Klippenstein hosts on his site.</i><br><br>In this example hackers attributed to Iran used the Robert persona to email journalists hacked documents (T0146: Account Asset, T0097.100: Individual Persona, T0153.001: Email Platform).<br><br>The journalist Ken Kippenstien used his existing blog on substack to host a link to download the document (T0089: Obtain Private Documents, T0097.102: Journalist Persona, T0115: Post Content, T0143.001: Authentic Persona, T0152.001: Blogging Platform, T0152.002: Blog Asset, T0150.003: Pre-Existing Asset). |
| [I00120 factcheckUK or fakecheckUK? Reinventing the political faction as the impartial factchecker](../../generated_pages/incidents/I00120.md) | Ahead of the 2019 UK Election during a leader’s debate, the Conservative party rebranded their “Conservative Campaign Headquarters Press” account to “FactCheckUK”:<br><br><i>The evening of the 19th November 2019 saw the first of three Leaders’ Debates on ITV, starting at 8pm and lasting for an hour. Current Prime Minister and leader of the Conservatives, Boris Johnson faced off against Labour party leader, Jeremy Corbyn. Plenty of people will have been watching the debate live, but a good proportion were “watching” (er, “twitching”?) via Twitter. This is something I’ve done in the past for certain shows. In some cases I just can’t watch or listen, but I can read, and in other cases, the commentary is far more interesting and entertaining than the show itself will ever be. This, for me, is just such a case. But very quickly, all eyes turned upon a modestly sized account with the handle @CCHQPress. That’s short for Conservative Campaign Headquarters Press. According to their (current!) Twitter bio, they are based in Westminster and they provide “snippets of news and commentary from CCHQ” to their 75k followers.<br><br>That is, until a few minutes into the debate.<br><br>All at once, like a person throwing off their street clothes to reveal some sinister new identity underneath, @CCHQPress abruptly shed its name, blue Conservative logo, Boris Johnson banner, and bio description. Moments later, it had entirely reinvented itself.<br><br>The purple banner was emblazoned with white font that read “✓ factcheckUK [with a “FROM CCQH” subheading]”.<br><br>The matching profile picture was a white tick in a purple circle. The bio was updated to: “Fact checking Labour from CCHQ”. And the name now read factcheckUK, with the customary Twitter blue (or white depending on your phone settings!) validation tick still after it</i><br><br>In this example an existing verified social media account on Twitter was repurposed to inauthentically present itself as a Fact Checking service (T0151.008: Microblogging Platform, T0150.003: Pre-Existing Asset, T0146.003: Verified Account Asset, T0097.203: Fact Checking Organisation Persona, T0143.002: Fabricated Persona). |
