The Russia Hoax - Not
Maybe nan thinks the Russian hackers only wanted to read the emails…but didn’t understand English…and decided to go watch you tube videos instead? It’s obvious she’s not understanding the meaning of the word “exflltrate” in cyber security terminology.
What's kind of ironic is that I would have liked to have a seen a deep dive investigative piece on the Crowdstrike investigation. I've been looking for one, hoping to find it among the techier sites but haven't found one yet.
And Aaron Mate and the grayzone gang certainly won't fill the bill.
drummerboy said:
oy. it's not a question of what to believe. it's a question of understanding what was said. (btw - 1 and 2 are both accurate and I believe both. they are not contradictory)
and you don't understand what the sworn testimony is saying.
the sworn testimony is true (I assume, anyway. as do you)
But it simply doesn't say what you think it says. He doesn't say there was absolutely no evidence. He said there was no evidence of a specific kind. Simpleminded Mate sees the phrase "no evidence" and jumps on it as proof of no evidence at all, either because he's an idiot or because he knows that's what his fans want to hear.
Plus he's ignoring almost 80 pages of sworn testimony and focusing on about one page. Good journalism once again!
In either case Mate is spinning you like a corkscrew.
No, Crowdstrike is spinning PR BS. I understand what the testimony is saying--and do you notice Henry says "Council just reminded me. . ." because he's under oath and he can't spin the usual mumbo jumbo.
It's a splitting hairs kind of conversation we are having here but you are the one being played.
nan said:
No, Crowdstrike is spinning PR BS. I understand what the testimony is saying--and do you notice Henry says "Council just reminded me. . ." because he's under oath and he can't spin the usual mumbo jumbo.
It's a splitting hairs kind of conversation we are having here but you are the one being played.
you are so off base on this. how do you think you have an accurate view of Crowdstrike's investigative work from ONE PAGE of testimony? What do you think are on the other 80 pages - just babble?
And we're not splitting hairs. It's talking about the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. All you know about is the lack of direct evidence, and you're taking it to mean there is NO evidence, which is wrong.
This is really not tough stuff and I can't quite figure out why you're so resistant to understanding it, other than the fact that you might have to admit that Mate (and everyone else pushing this line) has been misleading you, which is too much for you to bear.
nan,
The other thing that's kind of mind boggling is believing that Crowdstrike - a respected company in the cybersecurity field and one who obviously depends on high standards of integrity for their success, would, according to you, brazenly provide one story to Congress and another, completely different story to the public. And thinking they could get away with it.
Of course, they were hired by Michael Sussman and the DNC so yada yada blah blah blah.
drummerboy said:
nan, here's some excerpts of the Henry testimony that you've probably never seen (unless you read my CrowdStrike link completely) that I'm sure Mate has never shown you.
computer forensic analysis of a hack is highly technical and very complicated. Unfortunately Mate does not have the expertise to report on it accurately.
Or maybe he's just a liar who pretends he does.
==============================================================
Did CrowdStrike see in real-time the adversaries exfiltrate data and emails from the DNC network?
No and that’s typical for incident response cases. In the vast majority of cyber investigations, incident responders don’t witness exfiltration in real-time. In fact, often we are called in after theft has taken place. We collect forensics, evidence of prior activity on the network, map where the adversary has gained access and prepare remediation plans.
In this particular case, CrowdStrike saw circumstantial evidence of data exfiltration from the DNC network. As a reference point circumstantial evidence is the type of evidence such as DNA analysis or fingerprints that are fully admissible in courts.
Shawn Henry stated in his testimony that CrowdStrike had indicators of exfiltration (page 32 of the testimony):
“Counsel just reminded me that, as it relates to the DNC’ we have indicators that data was exfiltrated. We did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.’
and circumstantial evidence that data was taken as he states on page 75 ”so there is circumstantial evidence that it was taken” and page 76:
“MR. HENRY: So, to go back, because I think it’s important to characterize this. We didn’t have a network sensor in place that saw data leave’ We said that the data Ieft based on the circumstantial evidence. That was a conclusion that we made. when I answered that question, I was trying to be as factually accurate’ I want to provide the facts. so I said that we didn’t have direct evidence’ But we made a conclusion that the data left the network.”
On page 32 of the testimony, Henry also explains that
“We don’t have video of it happening, but there are indicators that it happened” and “we did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.” As another reference point, the independent report by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller also cites the theft of documents from the DNC and DCCC on page 40, stating the following:
“Officers from Unit 26165 stole thousands of documents from the DCCC and DNC networks, including significant amounts of data pertaining to the 2016 U.S. federal elections. Stolen documents included internal strategy documents, fundraising data, opposition research, and emails from the work inboxes of DNC employees.”
I read all of this last night and I see where you are going and I don't agree. I also used to work in IT so I know what these things look like in real life and how they are described and the reality. For example, when they say they need to fix the environment so business can work again it might just mean everyone has to change their passwords. Simple things are often described in much larger terms. Not saying that is the case here, but that's an example of confusing IT verbiage.
They say they have indicators of all these thing and that it's typical not to experience exfiltraion in real time--no kidding --- no one would unless they were anticipating a hack and knew what to watch for and set up a monitoring probe. They are just stating the obvious with this question and it's not even relevant because we know they were called in AFTER the hacking. Why are they even putting this in? Probably to fill up space.
They say:
"In this particular case, CrowdStrike saw circumstantial evidence of data exfiltration from the DNC network. As a reference point circumstantial evidence is the type of evidence such as DNA analysis or fingerprints that are fully admissible in courts."
Yes, it's admissible in courts, but it's still circumstantial -- it's not proof. And yet they announced it to the world in the mainstream media as if there were no doubts.
They did not have a sensor in place because they were there after the fact. They know the data left but they can't say with certainty that the Russians took it. I think you get bamboozled by phrases like "high confidence" when historically these often mean "we don't have a clue." There was high confidence related to WMDs also. Don't forget.
There are, by the way, alternate views on the hacking and exfiltrating. Crowdstrike is hardly the last word. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
They don't address any of these possibilities and they don't even seem to question that it was the Russian government doing the hacking. Might have been but, as Mate points out, Crowdstrike has had to walk back that claim before.
You want me to look at page 32:
Again they admit they don't have concrete evidence and they cite the Muller Report. Aaron Mate also cites the Muller report and he says that the Henry testimony, which Muller (not the public) would have been aware of was probably why the report uses qualifiers such as the word "appears." Muller is also cautious when saying these things--Rachel Maddow not so much.
Aaron Mate is not lying--he's an investigative reporter with a reputation to uphold. If he gets something wrong he comes clean--can't say that about CNN or MSNBC. They did not even report on Henry's testimony when it came to light three years after it was given.
Jaytee said:
Maybe nan thinks the Russian hackers only wanted to read the emails…but didn’t understand English…and decided to go watch you tube videos instead? It’s obvious she’s not understanding the meaning of the word “exflltrate” in cyber security terminology.
What don't I understand? I worked in IT for more than 15 years. Please enlighten me.
drummerboy said:
What's kind of ironic is that I would have liked to have a seen a deep dive investigative piece on the Crowdstrike investigation. I've been looking for one, hoping to find it among the techier sites but haven't found one yet.
And Aaron Mate and the grayzone gang certainly won't fill the bill.
I put one in my last post to you. The VIPS guys who used to work in intelligence IT have a lot to say about the hack. I doubt you will give them any respect but that's who has the background and interest to do a deep dive.
For the record, Aaron Mate does not endorse VIPS finding, not because he thinks they are wrong, but because he is cautious and does not feel he can make a decision on who hacked the DNC.
drummerboy said:
nan,
The other thing that's kind of mind boggling is believing that Crowdstrike - a respected company in the cybersecurity field and one who obviously depends on high standards of integrity for their success, would, according to you, brazenly provide one story to Congress and another, completely different story to the public. And thinking they could get away with it.
Of course, they were hired by Michael Sussman and the DNC so yada yada blah blah blah.
I can't say how this got to where it did, but from looking at the big picture, Michael Sussman hired a firm who he knew would give him what he wanted. He also hired Fusion GPS for the same reason. It's not some coincidence as reported.
Crowdstrike covers their butts well--they have you believing them over an objective investigative reporter.
nan said:
drummerboy said:
nan, here's some excerpts of the Henry testimony that you've probably never seen (unless you read my CrowdStrike link completely) that I'm sure Mate has never shown you.
computer forensic analysis of a hack is highly technical and very complicated. Unfortunately Mate does not have the expertise to report on it accurately.
Or maybe he's just a liar who pretends he does.
==============================================================
Did CrowdStrike see in real-time the adversaries exfiltrate data and emails from the DNC network?
No and that’s typical for incident response cases. In the vast majority of cyber investigations, incident responders don’t witness exfiltration in real-time. In fact, often we are called in after theft has taken place. We collect forensics, evidence of prior activity on the network, map where the adversary has gained access and prepare remediation plans.
In this particular case, CrowdStrike saw circumstantial evidence of data exfiltration from the DNC network. As a reference point circumstantial evidence is the type of evidence such as DNA analysis or fingerprints that are fully admissible in courts.
Shawn Henry stated in his testimony that CrowdStrike had indicators of exfiltration (page 32 of the testimony):
“Counsel just reminded me that, as it relates to the DNC’ we have indicators that data was exfiltrated. We did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.’
and circumstantial evidence that data was taken as he states on page 75 ”so there is circumstantial evidence that it was taken” and page 76:
“MR. HENRY: So, to go back, because I think it’s important to characterize this. We didn’t have a network sensor in place that saw data leave’ We said that the data Ieft based on the circumstantial evidence. That was a conclusion that we made. when I answered that question, I was trying to be as factually accurate’ I want to provide the facts. so I said that we didn’t have direct evidence’ But we made a conclusion that the data left the network.”
On page 32 of the testimony, Henry also explains that
“We don’t have video of it happening, but there are indicators that it happened” and “we did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.” As another reference point, the independent report by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller also cites the theft of documents from the DNC and DCCC on page 40, stating the following:
“Officers from Unit 26165 stole thousands of documents from the DCCC and DNC networks, including significant amounts of data pertaining to the 2016 U.S. federal elections. Stolen documents included internal strategy documents, fundraising data, opposition research, and emails from the work inboxes of DNC employees.”
I read all of this last night and I see where you are going and I don't agree. I also used to work in IT so I know what these things look like in real life and how they are described and the reality. For example, when they say they need to fix the environment so business can work again it might just mean everyone has to change their passwords. Simple things are often described in much larger terms. Not saying that is the case here, but that's an example of confusing IT verbiage.
They say they have indicators of all these thing and that it's typical not to experience exfiltraion in real time--no kidding --- no one would unless they were anticipating a hack and knew what to watch for and set up a monitoring probe. They are just stating the obvious with this question and it's not even relevant because we know they were called in AFTER the hacking. Why are they even putting this in? Probably to fill up space.
They say:
"In this particular case, CrowdStrike saw circumstantial evidence of data exfiltration from the DNC network. As a reference point circumstantial evidence is the type of evidence such as DNA analysis or fingerprints that are fully admissible in courts."
Yes, it's admissible in courts, but it's still circumstantial -- it's not proof. And yet they announced it to the world in the mainstream media as if there were no doubts.
They did not have a sensor in place because they were there after the fact. They know the data left but they can't say with certainty that the Russians took it. I think you get bamboozled by phrases like "high confidence" when historically these often mean "we don't have a clue." There was high confidence related to WMDs also. Don't forget.
There are, by the way, alternate views on the hacking and exfiltrating. Crowdstrike is hardly the last word. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/
They don't address any of these possibilities and they don't even seem to question that it was the Russian government doing the hacking. Might have been but, as Mate points out, Crowdstrike has had to walk back that claim before.
You want me to look at page 32:
Again they admit they don't have concrete evidence and they cite the Muller Report. Aaron Mate also cites the Muller report and he says that the Henry testimony, which Muller (not the public) would have been aware of was probably why the report uses qualifiers such as the word "appears." Muller is also cautious when saying these things--Rachel Maddow not so much.
Aaron Mate is not lying--he's an investigative reporter with a reputation to uphold. If he gets something wrong he comes clean--can't say that about CNN or MSNBC. They did not even report on Henry's testimony when it came to light three years after it was given.
If Mate is claiming there is no evidence, he's lying. Circumstantial evidence is evidence.
If you admit there is circumstantial evidence, then you have to agree that Mate is lying. There is no other choice. The whole point of that original article of his was to claim there was no evidence of a hack. And the Russia-hoaxers have been pushing that line ever since.
Paul was pushing that VIPS analysis years ago, and it was dealt with at that time. It's more b.s.
And it's not a deep dive into Crowdstrike's investigation. It's a complete sideways turn into nonsense that has nothing to do with Crowdstrike's efforts.
This is referring to the VIPS article published by the Nation.
The Nation magazine acknowledged on Friday that an article claiming it would have been “impossible based on the data” for Russia-backed hackers to be behind the leak of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails was not supported by its own evidence.
The article, penned by reporter Patrick Lawrence and published in early August, hinged on technical claims roundly disputed by technical experts — including the expert brought in by The Nation in its review of the article.
“As part of the editing process, however, we should have made certain that several of the article’s conclusions were presented as possibilities, not as certainties,” The Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel wrote in a lengthy editor’s note added to the article.
drummerboy said:
If Mate is claiming there is no evidence, he's lying. Circumstantial evidence is evidence.
If you admit there is circumstantial evidence, then you have to agree that Mate is lying. There is no other choice. The whole point of that original article of his was to claim there was no evidence of a hack. And the Russia-hoaxers have been pushing that line ever since.
Paul was pushing that VIPS analysis years ago, and it was dealt with at that time. It's more b.s.
And it's not a deep dive into Crowdstrike's investigation. It's a complete sideways turn into nonsense that has nothing to do with Crowdstrike's efforts.
If circumstantial evidence were the same as real evidence they would not bother saying it's circumstantial. Sometimes the circumstances make it obvious, but in this case they don't. There are other narratives possible and Crowdstrike has been wrong before.
You don't accept that there were other narratives possible, although you can't possibly have the technical ability to dispute VIPS on anything other than your unwillingness to believe that the Clinton campaign could have been up to no good. Aaron Mate knows his limits which is why he does not agree or disagree with VIPS. You think you know everything and circumstantial evidence says that's because it fits into your tightly woven world view.
nan said:
drummerboy said:
If Mate is claiming there is no evidence, he's lying. Circumstantial evidence is evidence.
If you admit there is circumstantial evidence, then you have to agree that Mate is lying. There is no other choice. The whole point of that original article of his was to claim there was no evidence of a hack. And the Russia-hoaxers have been pushing that line ever since.
Paul was pushing that VIPS analysis years ago, and it was dealt with at that time. It's more b.s.
And it's not a deep dive into Crowdstrike's investigation. It's a complete sideways turn into nonsense that has nothing to do with Crowdstrike's efforts.
If circumstantial evidence were the same as real evidence they would not bother saying it's circumstantial. Sometimes the circumstances make it obvious, but in this case they don't. There are other narratives possible and Crowdstrike has been wrong before.
You don't accept that there were other narratives possible, although you can't possibly have the technical ability to dispute VIPS on anything other than your unwillingness to believe that the Clinton campaign could have been up to no good. Aaron Mate knows his limits which is why he does not agree or disagree with VIPS. You think you know everything and circumstantial evidence says that's because it fits into your tightly woven world view.
ridiculous - there are many kinds of evidence, and they need to be qualified when you talk about them. But when you use the word "evidence" by itself, you're talking about all possible forms, which is why Mate is lying.
As for VIPS - see my post about the Nation's clarification about the VIPS claims.
If the Clinton campaign was up to no good…why are the issues she was planning on addressing are on the front pages of the news today? From gun control to climate change, a fair tax system, infrastructure, healthcare reform, lgbt rights, voting rights, women’s rights, racial justice, debt free college, workers rights, mental health issues and so much more.
What do you mean she was up to no good.?? It’s people like you who got trumpenstein into the White House… you are all members of the same “cults of the poison minds”
here's a good starting point if you want to look into debunking the VIPS story.
The article has a bunch of links that expand on the story. Makes for interesting reading.
Jaytee said:
If the Clinton campaign was up to no good…why are the issues she was planning on addressing are on the front pages of the news today? From gun control to climate change, a fair tax system, infrastructure, healthcare reform, lgbt rights, voting rights, women’s rights, racial justice, debt free college, workers rights, mental health issues and so much more.
What do you mean she was up to no good.?? It’s people like you who got trumpenstein into the White House… you are all members of the same “cults of the poison minds”
you are obviously not up to date on the horrors of Hillary Clinton. 
First you need to understand that in 2016, Hillary took over the DNC and was then able to steal the nomination from Bernie.
And then, before the election even happened, she started the Russia-gate hoax to distract us from the fact that she lost the election to sad sack Trump. Again, the election hadn't happened yet. (this one requires considerable suspension of disbelief)
After the election, she continued to control the Russia investigations that were being undertaken under Trump's administration. Again, to distract us from her loss.
It's all Hillary all the time.
This is Crowdstrikes's reponse to an article that suggests Crowdstrike had no proof of the data being exfiltrated:
CrowdStrike Statement of Response:
- The suggestion that CrowdStrike ‘had no proof’ of the data being exfiltrated is incorrect. Shawn Henry clearly said in his testimony that CrowdStrike had indicators of exfiltration ( page 32 of the testimony) and circumstantial evidence (page 75) that indicated the data had been exfiltrated. Also, please note that the Senate Intelligence Committee in April 2020 issued a report (https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume4.pdf/) validating the previous conclusions of the Intelligence community that Russia was behind the DNC data breach.
When all of the Crowdstrike reports, and the testimony of its official, are taken as a whole, they describe how the work of "cybersleuthing" is carried out. And it is true that they don't have a "picture" of the thief actually taking the material. But, they have evidence which points to the identified party as the thief.
That's circumstantial evidence, by definition, but that's not the same as "no proof".
Aaron Mate knows this, so he highlights excerpts of reports and testimony, and makes claims as if that's the only evidence. He knows that he is telling an incomplete story, when he makes his argument. He is counting on his readers to trust him; what he's doing is insulting them, by deliberately misleading.
Comparing the sum total of the reporting and testimony from Crowdstrike, with the story that Mate tells, shows that he's untrustworthy on this.
drummerboy said:
ridiculous - there are many kinds of evidence, and they need to be qualified when you talk about them. But when you use the word "evidence" by itself, you're talking about all possible forms, which is why Mate is lying.
As for VIPS - see my post about the Nation's clarification about the VIPS claims.
I posted the Nation's clarification.
They have disagreements but they have continued working on the case and demanding answers from Crowdstrike--who according to this article has yet to reply.
You will not find a more qualified team more dedicated to investigating this hack. But it does not fit your view that Russiagate was a real connection between Trump and Russia and that the Clinton campaign was not politically motivated in exposing it (not creating it).
cramer said:
This is Crowdstrikes's reponse to an article that suggests Crowdstrike had no proof of the data being exfiltrated:
CrowdStrike Statement of Response:
- The suggestion that CrowdStrike ‘had no proof’ of the data being exfiltrated is incorrect. Shawn Henry clearly said in his testimony that CrowdStrike had indicators of exfiltration ( page 32 of the testimony) and circumstantial evidence (page 75) that indicated the data had been exfiltrated. Also, please note that the Senate Intelligence Committee in April 2020 issued a report (https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report_Volume4.pdf/) validating the previous conclusions of the Intelligence community that Russia was behind the DNC data breach.
Indicators are not proof or they would be called proof, not indicators and he would not say they had no proof. We were told in the news that there was proof, not indicators. This is important because for years we were told it was proven that the Russians hacked the DNC and stole emails. This is considered fact, but it's not.
The Senate Intelligence Committe report is a report on the investigation, not a group that actually did an examination of servers. They can only surmise the evidence that has been presented.
nohero said:
When all of the Crowdstrike reports, and the testimony of its official, are taken as a whole, they describe how the work of "cybersleuthing" is carried out. And it is true that they don't have a "picture" of the thief actually taking the material. But, they have evidence which points to the identified party as the thief.
That's circumstantial evidence, by definition, but that's not the same as "no proof".
Aaron Mate knows this, so he highlights excerpts of reports and testimony, and makes claims as if that's the only evidence. He knows that he is telling an incomplete story, when he makes his argument. He is counting on his readers to trust him; what he's doing is insulting them, by deliberately misleading.
Comparing the sum total of the reporting and testimony from Crowdstrike, with the story that Mate tells, shows that he's untrustworthy on this.
Aaron Mate cites new findings that we did not have before -- which is that under oath the Crowdstrike people were not as sure as previously reported. We were not going to hear this from the mainstream media which speaks of the DNC email hack as fact.
Were it not for Mate, we would likely not be aware of this inconsistency. And yet, you attack him for informing us of information we need to know. When will CNN/MSNBC et al be making a correction?
Jaytee said:
If the Clinton campaign was up to no good…why are the issues she was planning on addressing are on the front pages of the news today? From gun control to climate change, a fair tax system, infrastructure, healthcare reform, lgbt rights, voting rights, women’s rights, racial justice, debt free college, workers rights, mental health issues and so much more.
What do you mean she was up to no good.?? It’s people like you who got trumpenstein into the White House… you are all members of the same “cults of the poison minds”
Clinton created Russiagate to harm Donald Trump and to cover for her stunning loss to a moronic orange game show host. She did this with the help of Sussman and Mook and some others. This has been covered up for a long time, but is slowly unraveling as more information comes to light.
As for what she was planning, we have gone over that on many threads so lets not get sidetracked here. It does not have any relation to Russiagate. I don't know how you think I got Trump elected since I despise him and did not vote for him and voted for HIllary, despite despising her as well.
nan said:
I can't say how this got to where it did, but from looking at the big picture, Michael Sussman hired a firm who he knew would give him what he wanted.
What firm would YOU have hired?
nan said:
nohero said:
When all of the Crowdstrike reports, and the testimony of its official, are taken as a whole, they describe how the work of "cybersleuthing" is carried out. And it is true that they don't have a "picture" of the thief actually taking the material. But, they have evidence which points to the identified party as the thief.
That's circumstantial evidence, by definition, but that's not the same as "no proof".
Aaron Mate knows this, so he highlights excerpts of reports and testimony, and makes claims as if that's the only evidence. He knows that he is telling an incomplete story, when he makes his argument. He is counting on his readers to trust him; what he's doing is insulting them, by deliberately misleading.
Comparing the sum total of the reporting and testimony from Crowdstrike, with the story that Mate tells, shows that he's untrustworthy on this.
Aaron Mate cites new findings that we did not have before -- which is that under oath the Crowdstrike people were not as sure as previously reported. We were not going to hear this from the mainstream media which speaks of the DNC email hack as fact.
Were it not for Mate, we would likely not be aware of this inconsistency. And yet, you attack him for informing us of information we need to know. When will CNN/MSNBC et al be making a correction?
He's not citing new findings, nor is he showing an inconsistency. He is not "informing" he is misinforming by making his claims and convincing people that he's "cites new findings" and that he's showing an "inconsistency". Your response illustrates my point.
jamie said:
What firm would YOU have hired?
I would not be trying to create a fake connection between Trump and Putin so I would probably go with the best deal or just work with the FBI.
nan said:
But it does not fit your view that Russiagate was a real connection between Trump and Russia and that the Clinton campaign was not politically motivated in exposing it (not creating it).
If you were expecting apolitical motivations from a presidential campaign, no wonder it’s a scandal.
nan said:
jamie said:
What firm would YOU have hired?
I would not be trying to create a fake connection between Trump and Putin so I would probably go with the best deal or just work with the FBI.
How about hire the company that the GOP uses for cybersecurity.
When the National Republican Campaign Committee was hacked: "The hack was first detected by an MSSP, a managed security services provider that monitors the NRCC’s network. The MSSP informed NRCC officials and they, in turn, alerted Crowdstrike, a well-known cybersecurity firm that had already been retained by the NRCC."
Exclusive: Emails of top NRCC officials stolen in major 2018 hack - POLITICO
nan said:
I would not be trying to create a fake connection between Trump and Putin so I would probably go with the best deal or just work with the FBI.
FBI does not provide recovery services. Your entire worldview is so skewed from reality that it's sad.
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
HUGE Rummage sale to benefit the Bloomfield High School Robotics Team Sale Date: Apr 27, 2024
More info
nan, here's some excerpts of the Henry testimony that you've probably never seen (unless you read my CrowdStrike link completely) that I'm sure Mate has never shown you.
computer forensic analysis of a hack is highly technical and very complicated. Unfortunately Mate does not have the expertise to report on it accurately.
Or maybe he's just a liar who pretends he does.
==============================================================
Did CrowdStrike see in real-time the adversaries exfiltrate data and emails from the DNC network?
No and that’s typical for incident response cases. In the vast majority of cyber investigations, incident responders don’t witness exfiltration in real-time. In fact, often we are called in after theft has taken place. We collect forensics, evidence of prior activity on the network, map where the adversary has gained access and prepare remediation plans.
In this particular case, CrowdStrike saw circumstantial evidence of data exfiltration from the DNC network. As a reference point circumstantial evidence is the type of evidence such as DNA analysis or fingerprints that are fully admissible in courts.
Shawn Henry stated in his testimony that CrowdStrike had indicators of exfiltration (page 32 of the testimony):
“Counsel just reminded me that, as it relates to the DNC’ we have indicators that data was exfiltrated. We did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.’
and circumstantial evidence that data was taken as he states on page 75 ”so there is circumstantial evidence that it was taken” and page 76:
“MR. HENRY: So, to go back, because I think it’s important to characterize this. We didn’t have a network sensor in place that saw data leave’ We said that the data Ieft based on the circumstantial evidence. That was a conclusion that we made. when I answered that question, I was trying to be as factually accurate’ I want to provide the facts. so I said that we didn’t have direct evidence’ But we made a conclusion that the data left the network.”
On page 32 of the testimony, Henry also explains that
“We don’t have video of it happening, but there are indicators that it happened” and “we did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.” As another reference point, the independent report by Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller also cites the theft of documents from the DNC and DCCC on page 40, stating the following:
“Officers from Unit 26165 stole thousands of documents from the DCCC and DNC networks, including significant amounts of data pertaining to the 2016 U.S. federal elections. Stolen documents included internal strategy documents, fundraising data, opposition research, and emails from the work inboxes of DNC employees.”