The Russia Hoax - Not

Steve said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

No.

Well, then continue to be uninformed.  As usual. 

no **** way.  He doesn’t add anything to the conversation. Moreover, you refuse to actually comprehend what is written and accept distinctions that disagree with your understanding of the “facts.”   

Furthermore, even if data weren’t exfiltrated, it was accessed over an extended period of time. That you don’t (or won’t) accept the significance of this is stunning. 

Is "exfiltrated", in this case, a term of art? Does it mean anything more than copying the data off of the server? Or does it mean something more specific?

Put another way - can someone read the data off of the server without exfiltrating it?


It’s my understanding that exfiltrated means taking the data by copying it.  I also believe that once they are in, all the data can be seen. 


here's a good piece on the issue

https://techcrunch.com/2019/04/18/mueller-clinton-arizona-hack/

I wish I could find a reel geeky, technical explanation of the hack.


Jaytee said:

er, wrong thread?  cheese


Steve said:

no **** way.  He doesn’t add anything to the conversation. Moreover, you refuse to actually comprehend what is written and accept distinctions that disagree with your understanding of the “facts.”   

Furthermore, even if data weren’t exfiltrated, it was accessed over an extended period of time. That you don’t (or won’t) accept the significance of this is stunning. 

1.  Crowdstrike has no evidence that the DNC emails were obtained by the Russians.

2.  Crowdstrike is says they think the Russians hacked the DNC, but they have been wrong about Russian hacking at least twice before so there is no assurance that they are right this time.

3. Crowdstrike did not let the FBI look at the servers--not a good look and not helping to believe their story.

Where does it say that the data was accessed over an extended period of time and why is that important in a negative way since the data was eventually published for everyone to see and we learned some eye opening truths?


drummerboy said:

Is "exfiltrated", in this case, a term of art? Does it mean anything more than copying the data off of the server? Or does it mean something more specific?

Put another way - can someone read the data off of the server without exfiltrating it?

Exfiltrated means malicious data copy or transfer.   Another source gets the data. 


nan said:


3. Crowdstrike did not let the FBI look at the servers--not a good look and not helping to believe their story.

Lie.

nan said:

Steve said:

no **** way.  He doesn’t add anything to the conversation. Moreover, you refuse to actually comprehend what is written and accept distinctions that disagree with your understanding of the “facts.”   

Furthermore, even if data weren’t exfiltrated, it was accessed over an extended period of time. That you don’t (or won’t) accept the significance of this is stunning. 

1.  Crowdstrike has no evidence that the DNC emails were obtained by the Russians.

2.  Crowdstrike is says they think the Russians hacked the DNC, but they have been wrong about Russian hacking at least twice before so there is no assurance that they are right this time.

3. Crowdstrike did not let the FBI look at the servers--not a good look and not helping to believe their story.

Where does it say that the data was accessed over an extended period of time and why is that important in a negative way since the data was eventually published for everyone to see and we learned some eye opening truths?

ZAZWORLD!!!!   Unhinged lunacy.   Zazworld!


drummerboy said:

Lie.

How is this a lie?


sbenois said:

ZAZWORLD!!!!   Unhinged lunacy.   Zazworld!

she’s thick as a brick 


There's a lot more evidence that Russia hacked the DNC than that the US launched a coup in Ukraine, but Nan seems to have much different standards of evidence for the latter case.


Endlessly rehashing and responding to Aaron's arguments trying to rewrite the history of the Russian "hack" is a waste of time.


nohero said:

Endlessly rehashing and responding to Aaron's arguments trying to rewrite the history of the Russian "hack" is a waste of time.

I mean, it honestly doesn't matter. There could be video of Russia exfiltrating data on Fifth Avenue and Aaron Mate wouldn't lose a single follower.


PVW said:

There's a lot more evidence that Russia hacked the DNC than that the US launched a coup in Ukraine, but Nan seems to have much different standards of evidence for the latter case.

Not true.  


PVW said:

I mean, it honestly doesn't matter. There could be video of Russia exfiltrating data on Fifth Avenue and Aaron Mate wouldn't lose a single follower.

In the video I posted, Aaron Mate reads directly from the transcript.  The guy says Crowdstrike could not determine if it was the Russians who took the data.  Mate also points out two instances where Crowdstrike said the Russians hacked something and they had to walk it back.  Crowdstrike, hired by the Clinton campaign, was the only ones allowed to investigate the servers.  The FBI accepted their report without doing their own investigation.  

This is about facts, not Aaron Mate's popularity.  


nan said:

drummerboy said:

Lie.

How is this a lie?

um, it's not true?


drummerboy said:

um, it's not true?

oh oh


nan said:

drummerboy said:

Is "exfiltrated", in this case, a term of art? Does it mean anything more than copying the data off of the server? Or does it mean something more specific?

Put another way - can someone read the data off of the server without exfiltrating it?

Exfiltrated means malicious data copy or transfer.   Another source gets the data. 

No, it has no inherent "malicious" aspect.


drummerboy said:

um, it's not true?

Except you can't explain why.  You just say that and the majority here agree with you and pile on like junior high bullies.  Not a good look.  You will all continue to believe Russiagate is real no matter how much evidence is presented.  It must be too painful to admit you were a fool for all those years.  

Kinda how I felt when I found out at the age of 50 that lemmings did not really commit suicide.  It was made up for a Disney special.  I was embarrassed to have thought that for so long without question. 


Dennis_Seelbach said:

No, it has no inherent "malicious" aspect.

Do you know how to google?   You are never too old to learn.

How Does Data Exfiltration Occur?

Data exfiltration occurs in two ways, through outsider attacks and via insider threats. Both are major risks, and organizations must ensure their data is protected by detecting and preventing data exfiltration at all times.

An attack from outside the organization occurs when an individual infiltrates a network to steal corporate data and potentially user credentials. This typically is a result of a cyber criminal injecting malware onto a device, such as a computer or smartphone, that is connected to a corporate network.

Some strands of malware are designed to spread across an organization’s network and infiltrate other devices, searching for sensitive corporate data in an attempt to exfiltrate information. Other types of malware will lay dormant on a network to avoid detection by organizations’ security systems until data is exfiltrated subversively or information is gradually collected over a period of time.

Attacks can result from malicious insiders stealing their own organization’s data and sending documents to their personal email address or cloud storage services, potentially to sell to cyber criminals. They can also be caused by careless employee behavior that sees corporate data fall into the hands of bad actors.


nan said:

drummerboy said:

um, it's not true?

Except you can't explain why.  You just say that and the majority here agree with you and pile on like junior high bullies.  Not a good look.  You will all continue to believe Russiagate is real no matter how much evidence is presented.  It must be too painful to admit you were a fool for all those years.  

Kinda how I felt when I found out at the age of 50 that lemmings did not really commit suicide.  It was made up for a Disney special.  I was embarrassed to have thought that for so long without question. 

I can't explain why? Sure I can.

You said Crowdstrike prevented the FBI from examining the servers.

Crowdstrike DID NOT prevent the FBI from examining the servers.

Lie explained.

Easy peasy.

Ok, if you need more, Crowdstrike worked from server images - they did not have physical control of the servers, they didn't own them, and therefore it was not in their power to prevent the FBI from checking them out.

And I'm pretty sure that if the FBI really wanted access they could have subpoenaed them. The FBI is good at that.

So, now take those 3 or 4 neurons connected to that factoid and erase them from your memory, which is what normal people do when faced with contrary evidence.


nan said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

No, it has no inherent "malicious" aspect.

Do you know how to google?   You are never too old to learn.

How Does Data Exfiltration Occur?

Data exfiltration occurs in two ways, through outsider attacks and via insider threats. Both are major risks, and organizations must ensure their data is protected by detecting and preventing data exfiltration at all times.

An attack from outside the organization occurs when an individual infiltrates a network to steal corporate data and potentially user credentials. This typically is a result of a cyber criminal injecting malware onto a device, such as a computer or smartphone, that is connected to a corporate network.

Some strands of malware are designed to spread across an organization’s network and infiltrate other devices, searching for sensitive corporate data in an attempt to exfiltrate information. Other types of malware will lay dormant on a network to avoid detection by organizations’ security systems until data is exfiltrated subversively or information is gradually collected over a period of time.

Attacks can result from malicious insiders stealing their own organization’s data and sending documents to their personal email address or cloud storage services, potentially to sell to cyber criminals. They can also be caused by careless employee behavior that sees corporate data fall into the hands of bad actors.

Damn, she's right about this one.

The definition I mean, not anything else.


drummerboy said:

nan said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

No, it has no inherent "malicious" aspect.

Do you know how to google?   You are never too old to learn.

How Does Data Exfiltration Occur?

Data exfiltration occurs in two ways, through outsider attacks and via insider threats. Both are major risks, and organizations must ensure their data is protected by detecting and preventing data exfiltration at all times.

An attack from outside the organization occurs when an individual infiltrates a network to steal corporate data and potentially user credentials. This typically is a result of a cyber criminal injecting malware onto a device, such as a computer or smartphone, that is connected to a corporate network.

Some strands of malware are designed to spread across an organization’s network and infiltrate other devices, searching for sensitive corporate data in an attempt to exfiltrate information. Other types of malware will lay dormant on a network to avoid detection by organizations’ security systems until data is exfiltrated subversively or information is gradually collected over a period of time.

Attacks can result from malicious insiders stealing their own organization’s data and sending documents to their personal email address or cloud storage services, potentially to sell to cyber criminals. They can also be caused by careless employee behavior that sees corporate data fall into the hands of bad actors.

Damn, she's right about this one.

The definition I mean, not anything else.

Wrong DB, not unexpectedly. Exfiltration has no inherent bias of "malicious" or even "beneficial. It merely refers to the movement, or copying, of info, electronically, from its home to another location." There is no motive of any kind attached. It is a purely physical act.


Dennis_Seelbach said:

Wrong DB, not unexpectedly. Exfiltration has no inherent bias of "malicious" or even "beneficial. It merely refers to the movement, or copying, of info, electronically, from its home to another location." There is no motive of any kind attached. It is a purely physical act.

I dunno. I've been googling and it does appear to be connected to maliciousness. At least that seems to be the predominant usage. It's the opposite of data infiltration.

Not a terribly important point in the grand scheme of things though.

I was looking at this article by Mate , which focuses on the testimony of Crowdstrike allegedly saying that they had no evidence of exfiltration of the DNC servers. This article has become gospel among the Russia-hoax crowd. (nan might have linked to it earlier)

It is written by a person who either knows squat about computers (which is OK. can't all be experts about everything), or is just trying to bowl people over with nonsense. (not OK)

The testimony is being very specific and exact about what actual evidence Crowdstrike was able to obtain from the server images. Absent either a real time monitor that looked for the copying of specific files, or very detailed logging which did the same, there is no way to get absolute evidence of the copying of data off the server images. (To say nothing of server images far removed in time from when the actual data breech occurred.) The DNC server had neither of those things, so this absolute evidence did not exist.

That doesn't mean, in any way, that NO evidence existed. Something Mate simply glosses over, because he's a liar.

https://www.itprotoday.com/security/25-signs-data-exfiltration


drummerboy said:

I dunno. I've been googling and it does appear to be connected to maliciousness. At least that seems to be the predominant usage. It's the opposite of data infiltration.

Not a terribly important point in the grand scheme of things though.

I was looking at this article by Mate , which focuses on the testimony of Crowdstrike allegedly saying that they had no evidence of exfiltration of the DNC servers. This article has become gospel among the Russia-hoax crowd. (nan might have linked to it earlier)

It is written by a person who either knows squat about computers (which is OK. can't all be experts about everything), or is just trying to bowl people over with nonsense. (not OK)

The testimony is being very specific and exact about what actual evidence Crowdstrike was able to obtain from the server images. Absent either a real time monitor that looked for the copying of specific files, or very detailed logging which did the same, there is no way to get absolute evidence of the copying of data off the server images. (To say nothing of server images far removed in time from when the actual data breech occurred.) The DNC server had neither of those things, so this absolute evidence did not exist.

That doesn't mean, in any way, that NO evidence existed. Something Mate simply glosses over, because he's a liar.

https://www.itprotoday.com/security/25-signs-data-exfiltration

So it sounds as if it'd be like having CCTV footage of someone walking into the bank with a gun and demanding to be taken to the vault, footage of them going down into the vault, footage of then coming back up with several large sacks, but claiming that since there was no camera in the vault itself there's no evidence that person robbed the bank.


Doesn’t everyone know crowdstrike is owned by Ukrainians and the server is currently in Ukraine?  T**** explained it all years ago

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/us/politics/trump-ukraine-conspiracy.html


PVW said:

So it sounds as if it'd be like having CCTV footage of someone walking into the bank with a gun and demanding to be taken to the vault, footage of them going down into the vault, footage of then coming back up with several large sacks, but claiming that since there was no camera in the vault itself there's no evidence that person robbed the bank.

kinda. the evidence you do have here is just circumstantial. so someone testifying about the camera would say "well, we don't have 100% incontrovertible proof that this guy did it, but c'mon!"


jamie said:

Doesn’t everyone know crowdstrike is owned by Ukrainians and the server is currently in Ukraine?  T**** explained it all years ago

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/us/politics/trump-ukraine-conspiracy.html

this is, surprisingly enough, something that the Russia-gaters have not glommed onto. They appear to have some standards. Not much, but some.


drummerboy said:

I can't explain why? Sure I can.

You said Crowdstrike prevented the FBI from examining the servers.

Crowdstrike DID NOT prevent the FBI from examining the servers.

Lie explained.

Easy peasy.

Ok, if you need more, Crowdstrike worked from server images - they did not have physical control of the servers, they didn't own them, and therefore it was not in their power to prevent the FBI from checking them out.

And I'm pretty sure that if the FBI really wanted access they could have subpoenaed them. The FBI is good at that.

So, now take those 3 or 4 neurons connected to that factoid and erase them from your memory, which is what normal people do when faced with contrary evidence.

Newsflash:  We are not in 7th grade.  You can stop with the insults and act like an adult. Nothing you have said here is verifiable fact.

Here is your favorite, CNN, reporting that the FBI said they asked for the servers and the DNC did not give them access.  The DNC says they were never asked.  Who do you think is lying?  It seems crazy that the FBI would ask for cooperation in an investigation of computer hacking without asking to look at the computer.  Dontchthink?  Does not the whole thing set off some alarms in your brain?

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/fbi-russia-hacking-dnc-crowdstrike/index.html

WashingtonCNN —

The Democratic National Committee “rebuffed” a request from the FBI to examine its computer services after it was allegedly hacked by Russia during the 2016 election, a senior law enforcement official told CNN Thursday.

“The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated,” a senior law enforcement official told CNN. “This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information. These actions caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier.”

This statement is in response to reports that the FBI never asked the DNC for access to the hacked systems.

The DNC told Buzzfeed News that they did not receive a request from the FBI to access their computer servers.

“The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the FBI’s Cyber Division and its Washington Field Office, the Department of Justice’s National Security Division, and US Attorney’s Offices, and it responded to a variety of requests for cooperation, but the FBI never requested access to the DNC’s computer servers,” Eric Walker, the DNC’s deputy communications director, told BuzzFeed News.

The FBI instead relied on the assessment from a third-party security company called CrowdStrIke.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Advertise here!

Sponsored Business

Find Business