The Russia Hoax - Not
drummerboy said:
The theory was so weak that The Nation magazine, which originally published VIPS's contention had to issue a major disclaimer basically saying that VIPS's story was hogwash and did not meet technical muster.
There’s no need for your interpretation of what it “basically” said, because the editor’s note was already excerpted in this thead: “We should have made certain that several of the article’s conclusions were presented as possibilities, not as certainties.” Referring to an expert from the Guatdian Project it hired to conduct a technical review, The Nation added: “Freitas lays out several scenarios in which the DNC could have been hacked from the outside, although he does not rule out a leak. Freitas concludes that all parties ‘must exercise much greater care in separating out statements backed by available digital metadata from thoughtful insights and educated guesses.’”
Others can decide for themselves what’s hogwash.
PVW said:
The details can be complicated, but the general concepts aren't.
If you read the transcript of Henry's interview, there's basically three things to notice:
1. Crowdstrike saw evidence that the data was prepared for copying from the DNC system to the hacker's system ("exfiltration").
2. The data was exfiltrated, but Crowdstrike was not able to directly observe this.
3. They were able to verify that the exfiltrated data matched the data they saw prepped for exfiltration. For that latter point, from the transcript:
"Henry: So, to be clear, on the document dump, as you've referred to it, there was data that we know was taken off of the DCCC. And we've, I think, chronicled, documented that in the report. There is evidence of exfiltration, not conclusive, but indicators of exfiltration off the DNC. As the person who led the investigation into both of those remediations, I can state those facts. I don't know that I should speculate on why it may have been done. So we did look at hash values, so algorithms of the documents that the FBI had provided, and compared that with documents that came off of the DNC, and they were consistent."
A hash value is basically a fingerprint for a file. It takes the content and turns it into a unique string. Changing the contents of the file even slightly changes that string (the "hash value"). You can try it for yourself. For example, if you go here:
https://www.md5hashgenerator.com/
Type in "hello world" and see the hash (you can see it actually gives you two hashes - MD5 and SHA1. There's a lot of different hash algorithms, but conceptually they all do the same thing -- take content and turn it into a unique string). Change the text just a bit -- add a space, or capitalize a letter -- and you'll see it gives you a different value.
What that means is that if I have the hash value for a file, and you give me another file, and the hash values match, they are the same file.
So if we go back to point 2 above, where Henry says that they infer, but do not have direct evidence, of the exfiltration, we can see that's not really the smoking gun Nan is claiming. After all, they saw the documents in step 1. They confirmed it was the same documents in step 3. So, inarguably, there must have been a step in between where the data was actually exfiltrated, whether or not that exfiltration was directly observed.
What Nan has to argue here is that someone else exfiltrated the data, which is a stretch -- isn't it more likely that the actor who staged the data for exfiltration is the one who exfiltrated it? Is she claiming the Russians hacked into the system, got ready to exfiltrate, decided not to, and then someone else did? That would be a ridiculous theory, wouldn't it?
No, that would not. Lots of people/entities could have been trying to hack into the DNC in addition to the Russians. In fact, that's what Julian Assange said--he claims that the emails did not come from the Russians. He says they may well have hacked in to the server but they did not give him the emails.
Other theories as to what happened were raised by members of VIPS. (https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/a-leak-or-a-hack-a-forum-on-the-vips-memo/) Some of them feel an alleged hack done by Guccifer 2.0. revealed server data that showed the data was removed internally and copied on an external device (thumb drive):
- “After examining metadata from the ‘Guccifer 2.0’ July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device.”
- “Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack. Of equal importance, the forensics show that the copying was performed on the East coast of the U.S.”
There are criticisms of this model and the article above includes a defense of this view at the end of the article.
SO, there are alternative views on what really happened, and also, as mentioned by Aaron Mate, Crowdstrike has had to walk back claims of Russian hacking on multiple occasions--they are not fautless.
Another person with doubts is Jack Matlock, former US ambassador to Russia. He expresses lots of doubts on his blog (https://jackmatlock.com/2018/06/musings-ii-the-intellience-community-russian-interference-and-due-diligence/)
"Among the assertions are that a persona calling itself “Guccifer 2.0” is an instrument of the GRU, and that it hacked the emails on the Democratic National Committee’s computer and conveyed them to Wikileaks. What the report does not explain is that it is easy for a hacker or foreign intelligence service to leave a false trail. In fact, a program developed by CIA with NSA assistance to do just that has been leaked and published."
None of these doubts were presented to the public. They were just told it was the Russians stealing Hilary's emails and giving them to Wikileaks to distribute. This is why Henry's classified admissions under oath are a huge revelation. Henry would not have qualified his answers were it really known that the Russians took the files. You are trying to put 1 + 1 together and saying it must make 2 but we really only have one 1.
DaveSchmidt said:
There’s no need for your interpretation of what it “basically” said, because the editor’s note was already excerpted in this thead: “We should have made certain that several of the article’s conclusions were presented as possibilities, not as certainties.” Referring to an expert from the Guatdian Project it hired to conduct a technical review, The Nation added: “Freitas lays out several scenarios in which the DNC could have been hacked from the outside, although he does not rule out a leak. Freitas concludes that all parties ‘must exercise much greater care in separating out statements backed by available digital metadata from thoughtful insights and educated guesses.’”
Others can decide for themselves what’s hogwash.
I shall no longer offer my opinions in these threads.
nan said:
No, that would not. Lots of people/entities could have been trying to hack into the DNC in addition to the Russians. In fact, that's what Julian Assange said--he claims that the emails did not come from the Russians. He says they may well have hacked in to the server but they did not give him the emails.
Other theories as to what happened were raised by members of VIPS. (https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/a-leak-or-a-hack-a-forum-on-the-vips-memo/) Some of them feel an alleged hack done by Guccifer 2.0. revealed server data that showed the data was removed internally and copied on an external device (thumb drive):
- “After examining metadata from the ‘Guccifer 2.0’ July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device.”
- “Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack. Of equal importance, the forensics show that the copying was performed on the East coast of the U.S.”
There are criticisms of this model and the article above includes a defense of this view at the end of the article.
SO, there are alternative views on what really happened, and also, as mentioned by Aaron Mate, Crowdstrike has had to walk back claims of Russian hacking on multiple occasions--they are not fautless.
Another person with doubts is Jack Matlock, former US ambassador to Russia. He expresses lots of doubts on his blog (https://jackmatlock.com/2018/06/musings-ii-the-intellience-community-russian-interference-and-due-diligence/)
"Among the assertions are that a persona calling itself “Guccifer 2.0” is an instrument of the GRU, and that it hacked the emails on the Democratic National Committee’s computer and conveyed them to Wikileaks. What the report does not explain is that it is easy for a hacker or foreign intelligence service to leave a false trail. In fact, a program developed by CIA with NSA assistance to do just that has been leaked and published."
None of these doubts were presented to the public. They were just told it was the Russians stealing Hilary's emails and giving them to Wikileaks to distribute. This is why Henry's classified admissions under oath are a huge revelation. Henry would not have qualified his answers were it really known that the Russians took the files. You are trying to put 1 + 1 together and saying it must make 2 but we really only have one 1.
This is the disgusting "Seth Rich stole the emails so he was murdered" garbage, which nobody should try to bring up again.
nan said:
No, that would not. Lots of people/entities could have been trying to hack into the DNC in addition to the Russians. In fact, that's what Julian Assange said--he claims that the emails did not come from the Russians. He says they may well have hacked in to the server but they did not give him the emails.
Other theories as to what happened were raised by members of VIPS. (https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/a-leak-or-a-hack-a-forum-on-the-vips-memo/) Some of them feel an alleged hack done by Guccifer 2.0. revealed server data that showed the data was removed internally and copied on an external device (thumb drive):
- “After examining metadata from the ‘Guccifer 2.0’ July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device.”
- “Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack. Of equal importance, the forensics show that the copying was performed on the East coast of the U.S.”
There are criticisms of this model and the article above includes a defense of this view at the end of the article.
SO, there are alternative views on what really happened, and also, as mentioned by Aaron Mate, Crowdstrike has had to walk back claims of Russian hacking on multiple occasions--they are not fautless.
Another person with doubts is Jack Matlock, former US ambassador to Russia. He expresses lots of doubts on his blog (https://jackmatlock.com/2018/06/musings-ii-the-intellience-community-russian-interference-and-due-diligence/)
"Among the assertions are that a persona calling itself “Guccifer 2.0” is an instrument of the GRU, and that it hacked the emails on the Democratic National Committee’s computer and conveyed them to Wikileaks. What the report does not explain is that it is easy for a hacker or foreign intelligence service to leave a false trail. In fact, a program developed by CIA with NSA assistance to do just that has been leaked and published."
None of these doubts were presented to the public. They were just told it was the Russians stealing Hilary's emails and giving them to Wikileaks to distribute. This is why Henry's classified admissions under oath are a huge revelation. Henry would not have qualified his answers were it really known that the Russians took the files. You are trying to put 1 + 1 together and saying it must make 2 but we really only have one 1.
can you provide some background on this assertion?
"As mentioned by Mate, Crowdstrike has had to walk back claims of Russian hacking on multiple occasions"
"As mentioned by Mate" is, of course a huge red flag.
Anyway, my original contention that Mate's article claiming there was no evidence of a hack was a blatant lie (note to dschmidt - I have not used "blatant" in this context yet) still stands as the truth.
drummerboy said:
a total joke. twisted into a pretzel to try to show Trump was not deferential to Putin.
These are a huge deal and not a joke. Have you noticed what's going on between Russia and Ukraine at the moment? Zero joke. Trump started that and Biden continued Trump's policy (don't get me started).
Please explain how Trump was deferential to Putin, given this list.
It's true that he did not call him names to his face the way Biden does, but that is Biden playing to the intense anti-Russian sentiment generated by Russiagate. It's actually been very dangerous and a more diplomatic stance might have prevented the war. Trump was actually the grown up in the room compared to Biden in the early days of their presidencies--on the topic of Russia
But, that's all he was--just a president talking to another president. He was not deferential. The mainstream media made a huge deal out of everything but it was not reality. I remember one meeting, where Trump was alone with Putin and the news media went wild. The late Stephen Cohen, remarked that presidents being alone as normal behavior and cited previous examples, but no mainstream outlet was still inviting him on anymore (no alternative views allowed) so no one heard that.
Anyway, the Trump as Putin's puppet myth was as made up as everything else in Russiagate.
Are. You. Kidding. Me?nan said:
Please explain how Trump was deferential to Putin, given this list.
So Nan believes the Russians staged the data for exfiltration and then... just sat there and did nothing.
Nan posits that the data may have instead been taken by someone else. What's somewhat amusing about that theory is that she made such a big deal about Crowdstrike using circumstantial evidence, but there's even less evidence for Nan's theory of an alternate hacker.
Funny, because when I said that she accepts a lower standard of evidence for theories she agrees with, she said that was not true, and yet here she's doing exactly that, rejecting very strong circumstantial evidence in favor of baseless speculation.
drummerboy said:
nan kind of has 2 arguments going on here.
One is that the lack of direct evidence of the exfiltration (which basically just means copying the emails from the DNC server to somewhere else) justifies Aaron Mate's argument that there was no evidence at all of exfiltration, thereby ignoring the existence of considerable circumstantial evidence.
The second was a theory promulgated by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), which tried to make the case that certain evidence showed that it was impossible for the data to have been copied from the server to another server. And that evidence somehow pointed to someone from the DNC copying the data. The theory was so weak that The Nation magazine, which originally published VIPS's contention had to issue a major disclaimer basically saying that VIPS's story was hogwash and did not meet technical muster.
My ONE argument is that the etched in stone tenet of mainstream media--that the Russians hacked the DNC and stole Hllary's emails-- may not be true and there are lots of doubt, including sworn testimony, and alternative theories.
By the way, I have linked multiple times to that "disclaimer" which is followed by a defense of the original claim. It has not been proven false, but there are more theories or variations as to what happened. It's not just the Russians did or did not take the emails. There are those who doubt it was the Russians on the server in the first place.
DaveSchmidt said:
There’s no need for your interpretation of what it “basically” said, because the editor’s note was already excerpted in this thead: “We should have made certain that several of the article’s conclusions were presented as possibilities, not as certainties.” Referring to an expert from the Guatdian Project it hired to conduct a technical review, The Nation added: “Freitas lays out several scenarios in which the DNC could have been hacked from the outside, although he does not rule out a leak. Freitas concludes that all parties ‘must exercise much greater care in separating out statements backed by available digital metadata from thoughtful insights and educated guesses.’”
Others can decide for themselves what’s hogwash.
Thank you !
nohero said:
This is the disgusting "Seth Rich stole the emails so he was murdered" garbage, which nobody should try to bring up again.
That is a theory and sometimes theories are disgusting but can't be discounted if there is evidence to prove them. So far I have not presented any evidence citing the Seth Rich theory but, since you mentioned it, we can add that one on to the growing pile of alternative ideas about what happened to the DNC emails.
I know that will make you blow a gasket, but this is the Russiagate thread and no Russiagate thread is complete without some Seth Rich mentions thrown in. Here is Craig Murray, who I respect, who says the FBI lies about Seth Rich. I am not saying any of this is true, so don't shoot the messenger.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/01/the-fbi-has-been-lying-about-seth-rich/
drummerboy
nan said:
Please explain how Trump was deferential to Putin, given this list.
Are. You. Kidding. Me?
==============
No, I am not kidding. I gave you a list demonstrating that Trump was NOT deferential to Putin. I think Russiagate is DNC crock so that's out for me. I viewed Trump as, in reality, more hostile to Putin (based on my list).
If you think he was deferential than lets hear the list. I'm all ears.
nan said:
nohero said:
This is the disgusting "Seth Rich stole the emails so he was murdered" garbage, which nobody should try to bring up again.
That is a theory and sometimes theories are disgusting but can't be discounted if there is evidence to prove them. So far I have not presented any evidence citing the Seth Rich theory but, since you mentioned it, we can add that one on to the growing pile of alternative ideas about what happened to the DNC emails.
I know that will make you blow a gasket, but this is the Russiagate thread and no Russiagate thread is complete without some Seth Rich mentions thrown in. Here is Craig Murray, who I respect, who says the FBI lies about Seth Rich. I am not saying any of this is true, so don't shoot the messenger.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/01/the-fbi-has-been-lying-about-seth-rich/
I'm not "shooting the messenger", but you did present everything behind the baseless accusation against the late Seth Rich, while keeping yourself from using his name.
I will say that people should have enough self respect, and respect for others, to not keep repeating a disgusting and debunked lie like that.
drummerboy said:
I shall no longer offer my opinions in these threads.
I doubt it. In any case, there’s something to be said for keeping one’s opinions out of other people’s mouths.
nan said:
drummerboy said:
nan kind of has 2 arguments going on here.
One is that the lack of direct evidence of the exfiltration (which basically just means copying the emails from the DNC server to somewhere else) justifies Aaron Mate's argument that there was no evidence at all of exfiltration, thereby ignoring the existence of considerable circumstantial evidence.
The second was a theory promulgated by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), which tried to make the case that certain evidence showed that it was impossible for the data to have been copied from the server to another server. And that evidence somehow pointed to someone from the DNC copying the data. The theory was so weak that The Nation magazine, which originally published VIPS's contention had to issue a major disclaimer basically saying that VIPS's story was hogwash and did not meet technical muster.
My ONE argument is that the etched in stone tenet of mainstream media--that the Russians hacked the DNC and stole Hllary's emails-- may not be true and there are lots of doubt, including sworn testimony, and alternative theories.
By the way, I have linked multiple times to that "disclaimer" which is followed by a defense of the original claim. It has not been proven false, but there are more theories or variations as to what happened. It's not just the Russians did or did not take the emails. There are those who doubt it was the Russians on the server in the first place.
Have you read the techcrunch article I linked to? There is plenty of debunking, from the tech side, of the VIPS claim. A lot more evidence that it's false than that it is true. In fact, it's been proven false to me, but what do I know? (MS in Comp Sci and 40 years in IT. Just your average layman.)
And what "sworn testimony"? I hope you're not referring the the Crowdstrike testimony.
As for doubts as to who may or may not have been on the server, I have to give the benefit of the doubt to the folks who actually examined the server image. Not bystanders who happen to have an agenda.
Call me crazy...
DaveSchmidt said:
drummerboy said:
I shall no longer offer my opinions in these threads.
I doubt it. In any case, there’s something to be said for keeping one’s opinions out of other people’s mouths.
Yeah, I lied.
nan said:
drummerboynan said:
Please explain how Trump was deferential to Putin, given this list.
Are. You. Kidding. Me?
==============
No, I am not kidding. I gave you a list demonstrating that Trump was NOT deferential to Putin. I think Russiagate is DNC crock so that's out for me. I viewed Trump as, in reality, more hostile to Putin (based on my list).
If you think he was deferential than lets hear the list. I'm all ears.
This is ridiculous. This is "old ground".
Mr Trump, in his first question from an American reporter, was pressed to explain why earlier in the day he had tweeted out that US was to blame for the current tense state of US-Russia relations.
In his answer, he stood by his earlier comments and said he held "both countries responsible".
He said both sides had "made some mistakes" - but declined to specifically mention items like the Russian military involvement in Ukraine and its annexation of Crimea, the Novichok chemical attack in southern England and the indictment of Russians for meddling in the US election. ...
Instead, he insisted there was "no collusion at all" between his campaign and Russia, conflating charges of election meddling - for which there have been indictments of Russian nationals - with evidence of collusion, which the Mueller probe has not yet alleged.
When asked if he would directly condemn Russia and Mr Putin on election meddling, Mr Trump said his intelligence officials - including Director of Intelligence Dan Coats - have told him "they think it's Russia". Mr Putin, he continued, just told him it's not Russia.
"I don't see any reason why it would be," Mr Trump concluded, apparently leaning toward the Russian professions of innocence over the conclusions of his own government.
Trump-Putin summit: After Helsinki, the fallout at home - BBC News
drummerboy said:
Yeah, I lied.
Your commitment to only factual comments from now on is off to a surprising start.
PVW said:
So Nan believes the Russians staged the data for exfiltration and then... just sat there and did nothing.
Nan posits that the data may have instead been taken by someone else. What's somewhat amusing about that theory is that she made such a big deal about Crowdstrike using circumstantial evidence, but there's even less evidence for Nan's theory of an alternate hacker.
Funny, because when I said that she accepts a lower standard of evidence for theories she agrees with, she said that was not true, and yet here she's doing exactly that, rejecting very strong circumstantial evidence in favor of baseless speculation.
Where did I say I believe any of this? Nowhere. You are making that up. Stop.
Crowdstrike told us that they could tell the Russians hacked the server but they could not tell us they took data. They told us that under oath.
I did say there were other possibilities, including that it was not even the Russians who were hacking. These suggestions were made by people with way more technical experience than either you or I. You don't have the ability to say which ones have higher or lower standards of evidence or what is baseless.
nan said:
Where did I say I believe any of this? Nowhere. You are making that up. Stop.
Crowdstrike told us that they could tell the Russians hacked the server but they could not tell us they took data. They told us that under oath.
I did say there were other possibilities, including that it was not even the Russians who were hacking. These suggestions were made by people with way more technical experience than either you or I. You don't have the ability to say which ones have higher or lower standards of evidence or what is baseless.
You don't believe these alternate theories? That's two of us. And yet, you also don't believe the claim that Russia hacked the DNC servers and exfiltrated data. So you believe.. nothing? What a disempowering viewpoint.
I absolutely have the ability to look at claims and reason out how sound the arguments for them are, and so you do you, and so does everyone. We live in age of overwhelming details, and people weaponize that fact to convince us that since we can't know everything we can't know anything, but that's a lie and we shouldn't accept it. We still have our reason, we can apply logic and critical thinking and discern what's more plausible from what's less.
So again, in sworn testimony Henry says they have direct evidence of the data being staged for exfiltration. They have direct evidence that the exfiltrated data matches the data that was staged. The most straightforward and plausible explanation is that the actor who staged the data for exfiltration is the one who then went on and exfiltrated it. Mate says that's "no evidence," but that's the kind of disempowering all-or-nothing thinking we should reject.
Was there another actor in the network? For that to be true, that would mean that either this actor was undetected by Crowdstrike, the FBI, and the DNC techs. Furthermore, it would mean the actual known, detected actor prepared the data for exfiltration but then didn't exfiltrate. Is that more, or less, likely than "the actor who prepared the data exfiltrated it?" Clearly less likely. You don't need any special technical expertise to conclude that.
Was the data stolen by downloading it to a thumb drive instead of being exfiltrated over the network? Remember that the stolen data matched the data prepped for exfiltration. So this second person decided to download the exact same files that were prepped for exfiltration, and yet the hacker in the network decided not to exfiltrate after prepping the files? Again, that theory is clearly less likely.
Don't let people like Mate bamboozle you. The simplest explanations are most often the correct ones. Be suspicious of complicated theories.
Forget Crowdstrike - the fact that T**** hid his biggest deal in the world when he said it wasn't happening was total cause to be suspicious of Donny.
He announced in June 2015 - he was wheeling and dealing
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5719169-Trump-Moscow.html
Felix Sater said - Help World peace and make a lot of money - I would say that's a great lifetime goal for us to go after.
And here's Felix claiming that he thinks he can get Putin to say that he'd like to deal with a leader that can negotiate from November 2015:
Almost sounds like T**** trying to feed Ukraine a line for press coverage. And there are people who didn't see a need to investigate this connection. Unreal.
PVW said:
You don't believe these alternate theories? That's two of us. And yet, you also don't believe the claim that Russia hacked the DNC servers and exfiltrated data. So you believe.. nothing? What a disempowering viewpoint.
I absolutely have the ability to look at claims and reason out how sound the arguments for them are, and so you do you, and so does everyone. We live in age of overwhelming details, and people weaponize that fact to convince us that since we can't know everything we can't know anything, but that's a lie and we shouldn't accept it. We still have our reason, we can apply logic and critical thinking and discern what's more plausible from what's less.
So again, in sworn testimony Henry says they have direct evidence of the data being staged for exfiltration. They have direct evidence that the exfiltrated data matches the data that was staged. The most straightforward and plausible explanation is that the actor who staged the data for exfiltration is the one who then went on and exfiltrated it. Mate says that's "no evidence," but that's the kind of disempowering all-or-nothing thinking we should reject.
Was there another actor in the network? For that to be true, that would mean that either this actor was undetected by Crowdstrike, the FBI, and the DNC techs. Furthermore, it would mean the actual known, detected actor prepared the data for exfiltration but then didn't exfiltrate. Is that more, or less, likely than "the actor who prepared the data exfiltrated it?" Clearly less likely. You don't need any special technical expertise to conclude that.
Was the data stolen by downloading it to a thumb drive instead of being exfiltrated over the network? Remember that the stolen data matched the data prepped for exfiltration. So this second person decided to download the exact same files that were prepped for exfiltration, and yet the hacker in the network decided not to exfiltrate after prepping the files? Again, that theory is clearly less likely.
Don't let people like Mate bamboozle you. The simplest explanations are most often the correct ones. Be suspicious of complicated theories.
There is no correlation between truth/non-truth and a disempowering view or simple explanation. I can believe nothing and respect complex explanations and still be right. Also, you are wrong because I do believe that we can't know at this point who took the DNC emails and that is as simple as rain.
This is your usual attempt to co opt "common sense" and also you are clearly unable to follow the money. Aaron Mate, an independent journalist is not the one trying to bamboozle. The DNC and Crowdstrike have way more at stake here.
By the way, I have 15+ years of experience working in IT and I used to date a guy who worked at Sun Microsystems and then at Google and who was an expert on system monitoring devices and my sister works at Dell (formerly EMC) so I know quite a bit about computers and this explanation from Crowdstrike smells kind of fishy to me. I've searched and read server logs and usually they tell you exactly what happened and that was server logs from 10 years ago. You would think a company who does what Crowdstrike does should be able to get this kind of information. So, it seems kind of weird that they are saying they can't tell who pulled the information off the network. It seems like maybe they are making up a story, but, of course, we don't have evidence to say that.
There are Aaron Mate documents (plus tweets) (https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html, https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/13/hidden_over_2_years_dem_cyber-firms_sworn_testimony_it_had_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.html) and other documents that bring up very important points which I will list below:
- Under oath (https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/sh21.pdf) Shawn Henry said that on 04/22/16 DNC data was staged for exfiltraiton but there was no evidence that it left. Yet, Robert Muller said that on 04/22/16 GRU copied files from the DNC network to GRU controlled computers.
- Muller claims that Guccifer 2.0 stole the documents.
- Julian Assange (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/21/julian-assange-a-man-without-a-country) a guy that knows quite a bit about hacking, remarked about this in a 2017 New Yorker interview:
- In public, Assange tried several things. He asserted that he was the only one who knew the source. He implied that DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 were likely not what they seemed, and were instead the manifestation of a crafty double game—possibly orchestrated by Ukrainian state hackers. (“Those look very much like the Russians, but in some ways they look very amateur, and they look too much like it.”) He also promoted a theory that Guccifer 2.0 was exactly what it seemed, an entity run by Eastern European hackers. By the time I met Assange in the Embassy, the C.I.A., the N.S.A., and the F.B.I. had jointly assessed that Russian military intelligence was behind Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks. When I asked him what he thought of this, he said, “The whole thing is extremely lame,” as if he were talking about the ramblings of a crazy uncle.
Assange also pursued a simpler rhetorical tactic. He argued that any attempt to associate WikiLeaks with Guccifer 2.0 was pernicious spin—trying to turn a coincidence into a conspiracy. Unlike documents that Guccifer 2.0 had published, none of the campaign e-mails that appeared on WikiLeaks contained traces of Russian metadata; therefore, he said, any links one could find binding the persona to Russia did not extend to his work. “There’s no forensic traces on our publications at all tying them to Russia—at all! It’s clearly completely different material, and there’s been a very sneaky attempt to conflate various hacks that have occurred with our publications.”
- In public, Assange tried several things. He asserted that he was the only one who knew the source. He implied that DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 were likely not what they seemed, and were instead the manifestation of a crafty double game—possibly orchestrated by Ukrainian state hackers. (“Those look very much like the Russians, but in some ways they look very amateur, and they look too much like it.”) He also promoted a theory that Guccifer 2.0 was exactly what it seemed, an entity run by Eastern European hackers. By the time I met Assange in the Embassy, the C.I.A., the N.S.A., and the F.B.I. had jointly assessed that Russian military intelligence was behind Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks. When I asked him what he thought of this, he said, “The whole thing is extremely lame,” as if he were talking about the ramblings of a crazy uncle.
- Crowdstrike is not the neutral party it tries to appear (and brags about on that explanation page). It's co-founder is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. ----the think tank that always has an extreme, hawkish, negative view of Russia.
- Shawn Henry used to work for Robert Muller
- James Comey was interviewed about why the FBI did not directly do the investigation and allowed Crowdstrike to provide some reports. Comey said he had confidence in Crowdstrike, which however, Comey said he had made multiple requests to Crowdstrike for the FBI to get direct access to the servers, but Crowdstrike says they never asked. Someone is lying. Mate says, "While failing to identify the “different levels” he consulted, Comey never explained why the FBI took no for an answer. As part of a criminal investigation, the FBI could have seized the servers to ensure a proper chain of evidentiary custody. In investigating a crime, alleged victims do not get to dictate to law enforcement how they can inspect the crime scene."
- The reports the FBI received from Crowdstrike were redacted: "In other words, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party’s legal counsel to decide what it could and could not see in reports on Russian hacking, thereby surrendering the ability to independently vet their claims. The government also took CrowdStrike's word that "no redacted information concerned the attribution of the attack to Russian actors."
- "According to former NSA Technical Director Bill Binney, the NSA is the only U.S. agency that could conclusively determine the source of the alleged DNC email hacks. "If this was really an internet hack, the NSA could easily tell us when the information was taken and the route it took after being removed from the [DNC] server," Binney says. But given Mueller's qualified language and his repeated use of "in or around" rather than outlining specific, down-to-the-second timestamps – which the NSA could provide -- Binney is skeptical that NSA intelligence was included in the GRU indictment and the report.
There has been no public confirmation that intelligence acquired by the NSA was used in the Mueller probe. Asked whether any of its information had been used in the allegations against the GRU, or had been declassified for public release in Mueller's investigation, a spokesperson for the National Security Agency declined to comment." - (https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html)
- Crowdstrike has been wrong before: "But CrowdStrike was forced to retract a similar accusation months after it accused Russia in December 2016 of hacking the Ukrainian military, with the same software that the firm had claimed to identify inside the DNC server." (https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html)
That's enough for now, but there is more. We are right to distrust Crowdstrike and we can not say with any certainty that one of the main tenets of Russiagate--that the Russians hacked the DNC emails-- is true.
jamie said:
Forget Crowdstrike - the fact that T**** hid his biggest deal in the world when he said it wasn't happening was total cause to be suspicious of Donny.
He announced in June 2015 - he was wheeling and dealing
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5719169-Trump-Moscow.html
Felix Sater said - Help World peace and make a lot of money - I would say that's a great lifetime goal for us to go after.
And here's Felix claiming that he thinks he can get Putin to say that he'd like to deal with a leader that can negotiate from November 2015:
Almost sounds like T**** trying to feed Ukraine a line for press coverage. And there are people who didn't see a need to investigate this connection. Unreal.
Anything going on with Felix Sater, a one time FBI informant, never materialized.
Why Did the Mueller Team Falsely Suggest That Trump Tower Moscow Was a Viable Project – and What Was the Role of FBI Informant Felix Sater?
Along with the discredited polling-data theory, House Democrats repeatedly played up the Mueller team's indictment of Michael Cohen for lying to Congress about the failed effort to build a Trump Tower Moscow. In court filings, the Mueller team insinuated that the project was a viable and lucrative one. Because Cohen had lied to Congress and Trump had denied having business dealings in Russia, Rep. Joaquin Castro asked Mueller if he had assessed whether "President Trump could be vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians."
Felix Sater, right: a former FBI informant.Cyrus McCrimmon/Denver Post via AP
In reality, the Trump Tower Moscow project never got beyond a non-binding letter of intent. The only known Kremlin interaction with the Trump Organization came in January 2016, when Cohen wrote to a general Russian government email address in the hopes of making contact with someone who could help move the project along. Elena Poliakova, an assistant to Kremlin press secretary Dmitry Peskov, called Cohen back to reject his request, reportedly informing him that the "Presidential Administration doesn’t build houses." As the Mueller report notes, after their 20-minute phone call, "Cohen could not recall any direct follow-up from Poliakova or from any other representative of the Russian government, nor did the [Special Counsel's] Office identify any evidence of direct follow-up."
Cohen had contacted the Kremlin press office out of frustration with Felix Sater, a longtime Trump associate whose repeated promises of high-level Russian contacts never materialized. Sater's empty representations appear to have continued until the project ultimately collapsed. In the ensuing months, Sater repeatedly told Cohen that Peskov's office wanted them to travel to Moscow. But by June, as Cohen told the Mueller team, an invitation that Sater had secured for an economic forum in St. Petersburg "gave no indication that Peskov had been involved in inviting him." Cohen, the Mueller report adds, "was concerned that Russian officials were not actually involved or were not interested in meeting with him (as Sater had alleged), and so he decided not to go to the Forum."
All of this makes Sater the only source for the widespread belief that Trump and the Russians were "negotiating" over Trump Tower after January 2016. Cohen had no actual contacts with anyone in the Kremlin beyond the Peskov assistant who rejected his request in January 2016. Sater himself also happens to be a former FBI informant whose 1998 cooperation deal was signed by none other than Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissmann.
Asked by Rep. Devin Nunes if the Mueller report had named "any people who were acting as U.S. government informants or sources without disclosing that fact," Mueller declined to answer.
nohero said:
I'm not "shooting the messenger", but you did present everything behind the baseless accusation against the late Seth Rich, while keeping yourself from using his name.
I will say that people should have enough self respect, and respect for others, to not keep repeating a disgusting and debunked lie like that.
Seth Rich was said to be the person who downloaded the DNC emails to pass to Wikileaks. However, the fact that some VIPS members said there was evidence to show that the information was downloaded does not mean Seth Rich was the person who did it. We can't omit legitimate theories because it's triggering for you. I'm not sure the Seth Rich theory has been debunked but it's sure been deemed off-limits which makes me wonder -- but I have zero evidence so that's all I'm saying for now.
drummerboy said:
Have you read the techcrunch article I linked to? There is plenty of debunking, from the tech side, of the VIPS claim. A lot more evidence that it's false than that it is true. In fact, it's been proven false to me, but what do I know? (MS in Comp Sci and 40 years in IT. Just your average layman.)
And what "sworn testimony"? I hope you're not referring the the Crowdstrike testimony.
As for doubts as to who may or may not have been on the server, I have to give the benefit of the doubt to the folks who actually examined the server image. Not bystanders who happen to have an agenda.
Call me crazy...
See my long post to PVW - Crowdstrike and the DNC had agendas.
I'm not sure I read your techcrunch article, but post it again and I will take a look. I read the Nation article where there were some doubts about the VIPS theories, but they were also allowed to defend them. Did you read the defense?
And others have different theories that don't include the Russians hacking into the server and steeling emails. It's not only VIPS versus Crowdstrike.
Respectfully, you're completely wrong here. If it was as simple as reading a server log, you wouldn't have to hire Crowdstrike. Your system admins could just read them themselves. That's kind of their job. Obviously in this case, the answer was not in the logs.nan said:
By the way, I have 15+ years of experience working in IT and I used to date a guy who worked at Sun Microsystems and then at Google and who was an expert on system monitoring devices and my sister works at Dell (formerly EMC) so I know quite a bit about computers and this explanation from Crowdstrike smells kind of fishy to me. I've searched and read server logs and usually they tell you exactly what happened and that was server logs from 10 years ago. You would think a company who does what Crowdstrike does should be able to get this kind of information. So, it seems kind of weird that they are saying they can't tell who pulled the information off the network. It seems like maybe they are making up a story, but, of course, we don't have evidence to say that.
And my experience with logs is that they frequently don't tell you exactly what happened because the overhead required to have extremely detailed logging is not worth the performance/storage costs. You can't log everything, except maybe in super-critical environments, which the DNC certainly wasn't.
As for the rest of your post, I have no idea why you're re-posting Mate's crap again. Haven't we beat that horse to death already?
He's still a liar, regardless of how you try to spin it.
nan said:
See my long post to PVW - Crowdstrike and the DNC had agendas.
I'm not sure I read your techcrunch article, but post it again and I will take a look. I read the Nation article where there were some doubts about the VIPS theories, but they were also allowed to defend them. Did you read the defense?
And others have different theories that don't include the Russians hacking into the server and steeling emails. It's not only VIPS versus Crowdstrike.
Why would Crowdstrike have a freaking agenda? They're an independent business.
I also asked you about your statement that Crowdstrike had to walk back some Russian hacking claims. Details please, if you don't mind.
"By the way, I have 15+ years of experience working in IT and I used to date a guy who worked at Sun Microsystems and then at Google and who was an expert on system monitoring devices and my sister works at Dell (formerly EMC) so I know quite a bit about computers and this explanation from Crowdstrike smells kind of fishy to me."
Lord have mercy. I feel sorry for all of those folks out there who spent years learning about cybersecurity only to find out that all they had to do was date someone or have a sibling who works at Dell.
drummerboy said:
Respectfully, you're completely wrong here. If it was as simple as reading a server log, you wouldn't have to hire Crowdstrike. Your system admins could just read them themselves. That's kind of their job. Obviously in this case, the answer was not in the logs.nan said:
By the way, I have 15+ years of experience working in IT and I used to date a guy who worked at Sun Microsystems and then at Google and who was an expert on system monitoring devices and my sister works at Dell (formerly EMC) so I know quite a bit about computers and this explanation from Crowdstrike smells kind of fishy to me. I've searched and read server logs and usually they tell you exactly what happened and that was server logs from 10 years ago. You would think a company who does what Crowdstrike does should be able to get this kind of information. So, it seems kind of weird that they are saying they can't tell who pulled the information off the network. It seems like maybe they are making up a story, but, of course, we don't have evidence to say that.
And my experience with logs is that they frequently don't tell you exactly what happened because the overhead required to have extremely detailed logging is not worth the performance/storage costs. You can't log everything, except maybe in super-critical environments, which the DNC certainly wasn't.
As for the rest of your post, I have no idea why you're re-posting Mate's crap again. Haven't we beat that horse to death already?
He's still a liar, regardless of how you try to spin it.
Hard to believe that people who are sophisticated enough to hack into systems and pull data aren't willing to just put their names, phone numbers and addresses in system logs! I would think that it would all be in clear text so that even Crowdstrike (and Nan) can find them.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
a total joke. twisted into a pretzel to try to show Trump was not deferential to Putin.