OK... you wanted a Russia investigation, so DNC, start to cooperate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The private security group Crowdstrike said it was all Russia breaching the DNC server. FBI took them at their word. Obama hired a Crowdstrike officer as a part of his staff last summer (Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity). Why would the FBI need to see it after Crowdstrike vouched for the Russkies breach? Google Capital invested $100 million into Crowdstrike. Co-Founder and CTO of CrowdStrike Dmitri Alperovitch is a member of the Atlantic Council, which is funded by George Soros' Open Societies Foundation.

Don't see the problem.

Interesting. Where are the Trilateral Commission and Illuminati references? They have to be part of this too.

Oh yes, and Roswell.

Whenever this poster shows up with the linguistic lasagna of how crazy a poster is, I take a second glance. It is such an a trademark of a GS employee who annoys me in general.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure the raid can be imaged. Was it? Was the BIOS examined? We're talking Russia here, right (according to you)? They're not a third rate actor. A proper examination should take place and it's not. Furthermore, you're hanging your explanation on the words of a spokesman.

People are not satisfied with the data provided. I do dispute the determination. Show me the technical details.


"If the data is stored in the cloud, how would providing the server help?" - that's a very telling answer for a "SME" to give.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/05/09/the_fbi_is_harder_to_trust_on_the_dnc_hack_because_it_relied_on_crowdstrike.html

You are acting like Crowdstrike doesn't know basic forensics. Any professional firm would image both active memory and and storage media. That is simply basic forensics. You keep on harping about the fact that Crowdstrike's statement was issued by a spokesperson. I hate to break it to you, but that's who normally issues statements. The same information has been confirmed by the FBI.

I asked, "If the data is stored in the cloud, how would providing the server help?" You found that "very telling". Could you please answer the question?

Given that by your own admission you -- unlike the FBI -- has not seen the technical details, on what basis do you question their findings? Do you rely on telekinetics to conduct your computer forensics?

I'm sure Crowdtrike found exactly what they were told to find.

Except that they gave it all up for third party review.

[Anonymous]

From the article, "some critics say..."

Who are "some critics?"

Certainly nobody from the FBI or anywhere else in the IC or law enforcement community, because they have already indicated they were satisfied with the information and level of detail they got from Crowdstrike. Crowdstrike has been around for years, and has worked with the FBI many times before this isn't their first dance.

The answer: "some critics" = partisans on a witch hunt.

[Anonymous]

We wanted a Tussia investigation, and we got one. If Mueller feels like he needs original hard drives, he will subpoena them, and the DNC will comply. Do you have any evidence Mueller gives AF about the original hard drives and has subpoenaed them? I didn't think so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure the raid can be imaged. Was it? Was the BIOS examined? We're talking Russia here, right (according to you)? They're not a third rate actor. A proper examination should take place and it's not. Furthermore, you're hanging your explanation on the words of a spokesman.

People are not satisfied with the data provided. I do dispute the determination. Show me the technical details.


"If the data is stored in the cloud, how would providing the server help?" - that's a very telling answer for a "SME" to give.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/05/09/the_fbi_is_harder_to_trust_on_the_dnc_hack_because_it_relied_on_crowdstrike.html

You are acting like Crowdstrike doesn't know basic forensics. Any professional firm would image both active memory and and storage media. That is simply basic forensics. You keep on harping about the fact that Crowdstrike's statement was issued by a spokesperson. I hate to break it to you, but that's who normally issues statements. The same information has been confirmed by the FBI.

I asked, "If the data is stored in the cloud, how would providing the server help?" You found that "very telling". Could you please answer the question?

Given that by your own admission you -- unlike the FBI -- has not seen the technical details, on what basis do you question their findings? Do you rely on telekinetics to conduct your computer forensics?

I'm sure Crowdtrike found exactly what they were told to find.

Except that they gave it all up for third party review.

I'm sure they gave up what they wanted found

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The private security group Crowdstrike said it was all Russia breaching the DNC server. FBI took them at their word. Obama hired a Crowdstrike officer as a part of his staff last summer (Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity). Why would the FBI need to see it after Crowdstrike vouched for the Russkies breach? Google Capital invested $100 million into Crowdstrike. Co-Founder and CTO of CrowdStrike Dmitri Alperovitch is a member of the Atlantic Council, which is funded by George Soros' Open Societies Foundation.

Don't see the problem.

Crowd strike has a contract with the FBI for technical Services.

[Anonymous]

God, I'm so tired of dumb people.

[Anonymous]

Question for you computer geeks - if one wanted information deleted and had a "friend" who knew how to wipe certain items from a server, will that ever show up when the FBI reviews it? When I say review, I qualify it as a physical review, not images created by a third party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure the raid can be imaged. Was it? Was the BIOS examined? We're talking Russia here, right (according to you)? They're not a third rate actor. A proper examination should take place and it's not. Furthermore, you're hanging your explanation on the words of a spokesman.

People are not satisfied with the data provided. I do dispute the determination. Show me the technical details.


"If the data is stored in the cloud, how would providing the server help?" - that's a very telling answer for a "SME" to give.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/05/09/the_fbi_is_harder_to_trust_on_the_dnc_hack_because_it_relied_on_crowdstrike.html

You are acting like Crowdstrike doesn't know basic forensics. Any professional firm would image both active memory and and storage media. That is simply basic forensics. You keep on harping about the fact that Crowdstrike's statement was issued by a spokesperson. I hate to break it to you, but that's who normally issues statements. The same information has been confirmed by the FBI.

I asked, "If the data is stored in the cloud, how would providing the server help?" You found that "very telling". Could you please answer the question?

Given that by your own admission you -- unlike the FBI -- has not seen the technical details, on what basis do you question their findings? Do you rely on telekinetics to conduct your computer forensics?

I'm sure Crowdtrike found exactly what they were told to find.

Except that they gave it all up for third party review.

I'm sure they gave up what they wanted found

Really what makes you sure? Are you technical, did you actually read what they put out? Did you read what the other investigators said? No, of course not. You are just sure anyway. You are the essence of a conspiracy theorist.

I am technical. I read it over, and I can't see how it's in doubt. None of the spy agencies think it's in doubt. And all you have is things you are "sure" of with nothing to support it.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Question for you computer geeks - if one wanted information deleted and had a "friend" who knew how to wipe certain items from a server, will that ever show up when the FBI reviews it? When I say review, I qualify it as a physical review, not images created by a third party.

If you only want to delete certain items, there is a somewhat circular trail that an investigator could follow. Let's say you had a a file titled "private-data.doc" that you wanted deleted. Someone could remove that in such a way that the data from it could never be recovered. However, the act of deleting the file may be logged. Therefore, the "friend" would need to change the file in which that is logged. Then, the act of modifying the log file might itself be logged. On top of all of this, there might be a back-up which has a copy of either "private-data.doc" and the log files. Or, the log files might be stored on a different machine. So, the "friend" would have to break into and remove data from the other computer(s) as well.

I once investigated a hack in which I discovered that a file had been created (the opposite of your scenario). However, I couldn't figure out how that file was created. Other actions by the intruder were logged, but not the creation of the file. My assumption was that the log files had been modified. Because modifying the log file required a higher level of access, I made the further assumption that the intruder had gained higher level access then we previously believed. I was able to retrieve an older copy of the log file from a backup and solve the mystery.

[Anonymous]

Anytime a computer crime is being investigated the law enforcement agency confiscates all hardware. S.O.P. Jeff is full of shyte.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anytime a computer crime is being investigated the law enforcement agency confiscates all hardware. S.O.P. Jeff is full of shyte.

i can say with certainty that this is false.