And I'm still laughing at drive images being better than the hard hardrives itself!
Why does the news always show news footage of the FBI removing "computer files and drives" after a raid when AN IMAGE IS EVEN BETTER??
Trump.
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
Posted by: chupacabraThe idea that the FBI ever needed the actual DNC server to investigate the hack is just adorable. Does Bell need your laptop to prove you downloaded copyrighted furry porn?
Trump's Stupid ‘Where Isthe DNC Server?’ Conspiracy Theory, Explained
This is goooood! First, Muellers indictments of 12 russians.. look up Concord Management and Consulting. At least one Russian came to court for discovery. Mueller wasnt ready and still isnt! Why have you not read about this?
Next up from the article: "Even so, what CrowdStrike gave the FBI is likely better than if it had seized and analyzed a physical box. " Ok, so if I understand this right, Crowdstrike imaged the DNC server and then gave the FBI a copy and thats supposed to be better than the actual server? Two questions: How stupid do you think I am to fall for that load of steaming liberal horse shit and how in the hell is an image better than the real drive? You know you can just choose not to image everything on the drive right? So now, if the FBI or any other "computer analyst" compared the DNC server drives to the image Crowdstike delivered and found a discrepancy in anything, CRCs doesnt match, size is off, dates, any number of freaking things and now Crowdstike is found to be liable and culpable in the vast left wing conspiracy against the legally elected President. Not too smart and thats the first I'd be doing if I wanted to put the DNC server thing to rest. Compare the two. Want to bet somehow the Crowdstrike image overwrote a wiped server drive while in the hands of the FBI. Oh ya, computers are soooo secure and the be all end all of an investigation...
Memory dump check is indeed useless unless the server crashed during a Russian hack and dumped the mem to disk at one point. Meh. Thats not even half the article yet.
Next from the article: "Robert Mueller’s indictment relies on information that goes far beyond any single server to tie the Russians to the hack. For example, the indictment states that Russian military agents’ search histories indicated an interest in the DNC network in the weeks leading up to one of the hacks; it also has specific information about the development of malware (called X-Agent and X-Tunnel) used to surveil DNC employees and exfiltrate data from their computers..."
How'd they come to that conclusion without either the server or logs of packet sniffers? Other companies had been investigating Russian hacking activities on the DNC for years but didnt say a thing or inform the DNC? Smells funny already.
I'll skip the shit in the middle and move to the bottom: "“You can envision moving things on a map. In order to move around, you need communications, you need streets and rivers, you need infrastructure like buildings,” Rid said. “You have to study the campaign and troop movement over time. You can see patterns, and reuse of techniques. Looking at only one server is like looking at only one particular building in a larger battlefield and then thinking you can understand the battle’s evolution over time.”
So the DNC server wasnt cloned or backed up over the network? No redundancy built into it ??... Was there two DNC servers then and which server image did Clownstrike give the FBI?
That whole article is hand holding the liberal IT laymen down the wrong path. Except for the very last line in the article: ""As cybersecurity expert and former UK government hacker Matt Tait put it on Twitter: “This is a really dumb conspiracy as conspiracies go.”"
I dont think that article proved a damn thing. If anything, it adds more questions.
Before you criticize how computer information can be retrieved, you should try and bone up in the technology.
And a disk image is the whole disk. That's why it's called a "disk image" and not something else like a partition image.
Last edited by: switch on July 18, 2018, 9:15 p.m., edited 1 time in total.
According to campaign insiders, the Clinton campaign deliberately chose to scapegoat Russia for its embarrassing election loss. Meanwhile, its media surrogates had constructed a fraudulent and simulated reality which completely collapsed on election day and desperately need to account for their failure. They both have given only one possible explanation for the difference between what they predicted and the results of the vote— a still undefined ‘meddling’ by a foreign power and ‘collusion’ between it and the Trump campaign which somehow changed the outcome. The admittedly undoctored dirt released by WikiLeaks is said to have come from a Russian source, based on the word of the intelligence community which routinely meddles in the elections of other countries (including Russia) over that of WikiLeaks which has never had to retract a single publication in its history. Mueller is somehow able to indict Russian nationals for ‘hacking’ the DNC’s computers which the FBI still has yet to examine, while the evidence itself points to a leak by a whistleblower rather than a hack. Meanwhile, Paul Manafort was indicted for having tried to lobby his client, former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, to accept the EU Association Agreement he rejected which led to his ouster in the Maidan. In other words, he was indicted for lobbying against Russia’s interests, not for them.
Links within..... https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/07/18/103756/print/
Freedom of contract. We sell them guns that kill them; they sell us drugs that kill us.
Posted by: switch
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
Posted by: chupacabraThe idea that the FBI ever needed the actual DNC server to investigate the hack is just adorable. Does Bell need your laptop to prove you downloaded copyrighted furry porn?
Trump's Stupid ‘Where Isthe DNC Server?’ Conspiracy Theory, Explained
This is goooood! First, Muellers indictments of 12 russians.. look up Concord Management and Consulting. At least one Russian came to court for discovery. Mueller wasnt ready and still isnt! Why have you not read about this?
Next up from the article: "Even so, what CrowdStrike gave the FBI is likely better than if it had seized and analyzed a physical box. " Ok, so if I understand this right, Crowdstrike imaged the DNC server and then gave the FBI a copy and thats supposed to be better than the actual server? Two questions: How stupid do you think I am to fall for that load of steaming liberal horse shit and how in the hell is an image better than the real drive? You know you can just choose not to image everything on the drive right? So now, if the FBI or any other "computer analyst" compared the DNC server drives to the image Crowdstike delivered and found a discrepancy in anything, CRCs doesnt match, size is off, dates, any number of freaking things and now Crowdstike is found to be liable and culpable in the vast left wing conspiracy against the legally elected President. Not too smart and thats the first I'd be doing if I wanted to put the DNC server thing to rest. Compare the two. Want to bet somehow the Crowdstrike image overwrote a wiped server drive while in the hands of the FBI. Oh ya, computers are soooo secure and the be all end all of an investigation...
Memory dump check is indeed useless unless the server crashed during a Russian hack and dumped the mem to disk at one point. Meh. Thats not even half the article yet.
Next from the article: "Robert Mueller’s indictment relies on information that goes far beyond any single server to tie the Russians to the hack. For example, the indictment states that Russian military agents’ search histories indicated an interest in the DNC network in the weeks leading up to one of the hacks; it also has specific information about the development of malware (called X-Agent and X-Tunnel) used to surveil DNC employees and exfiltrate data from their computers..."
How'd they come to that conclusion without either the server or logs of packet sniffers? Other companies had been investigating Russian hacking activities on the DNC for years but didnt say a thing or inform the DNC? Smells funny already.
I'll skip the shit in the middle and move to the bottom: "“You can envision moving things on a map. In order to move around, you need communications, you need streets and rivers, you need infrastructure like buildings,” Rid said. “You have to study the campaign and troop movement over time. You can see patterns, and reuse of techniques. Looking at only one server is like looking at only one particular building in a larger battlefield and then thinking you can understand the battle’s evolution over time.”
So the DNC server wasnt cloned or backed up over the network? No redundancy built into it ??... Was there two DNC servers then and which server image did Clownstrike give the FBI?
That whole article is hand holding the liberal IT laymen down the wrong path. Except for the very last line in the article: ""As cybersecurity expert and former UK government hacker Matt Tait put it on Twitter: “This is a really dumb conspiracy as conspiracies go.”"
I dont think that article proved a damn thing. If anything, it adds more questions.
Before you criticize how computer information can be retrieved, you should try and bone up in the technology.
And a disk image is the whole disk. That's why it's called a "disk image" and not something else like a partition image.
Thats it? Out of that whole post of mine, you're going to nit pick a definition and exclaim a disk image is just that? In politcs, that's sort of like wiping a server ... with a cloth right? I'm aware of a disk image vs a partitition. I was actually thinking more along the lines of incremental back ups from two different servers having two possibly different images.
Maybe you can elaborate on something for me. Lets say Russia did hack the DNC in early 2016 (it didnt), how would that hack pertain to the election over half a year later? Mueller has proof that the booty of the hack was used to beat the Hildabeast by the teflon Don?
Here have some contrast: DNC hack was more of a leak.
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
And I'm still laughing at drive images being better than the hard hardrives itself!
Why does the news always show news footage of the FBI removing "computer files and drives" after a raid when AN IMAGE IS EVEN BETTER??
That is not what anyone is saying. The image is a forensic image of the whole computer including the RAM, which would be lost if the server was taken anywhere. Everything they need is in the image. Now I know your first thought is that Crowdstrike could doctor the image, and why wouldn't they, because we all know there are connections or something. But the fact is if the server was in FBI hands today the story from the right would be that IT was doctored.
All any of this comes down to is who do you believe. I believe the intelligence agencies that have the resources and have conducted the investigation over websites that are speculating with very little information. You don't trust the intelligence agencies to begin with, so believing the GOP that they are lying and out to get Trump rings true.
I believe the intelligence agencies that have the resources and have conducted the investigation over websites that are speculating with very little information.
I think it's great that the left has embraced the CIA and FBI after so many years of seeing them as the enemies of democracy. I mean they're basically the arms of the US govt that have historically repressed at home and abroad, so it's good to see that they have been rehabilitated and don't do that stuff anymore. I saw Micheal Moore tweeting about how the intelligence community was 'right' and Trump should go - and he used to HATE those guys. Kudos CIA/FBI!
Posted by: chupacabra
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
And I'm still laughing at drive images being better than the hard hardrives itself!
Why does the news always show news footage of the FBI removing "computer files and drives" after a raid when AN IMAGE IS EVEN BETTER??
That is not what anyone is saying. The image is a forensic image of the whole computer including the RAM, which would be lost if the server was taken anywhere. Everything they need is in the image. Now I know your first thought is that Crowdstrike could doctor the image, and why wouldn't they, because we all know there are connections or something. But the fact is if the server was in FBI hands today the story from the right would be that IT was doctored.
All any of this comes down to is who do you believe. I believe the intelligence agencies that have the resources and have conducted the investigation over websites that are speculating with very little information. You don't trust the intelligence agencies to begin with, so believing the GOP that they are lying and out to get Trump rings true.
People, I get what an image is. But why wouldnt the DNC just let the FBI or NSA sit down at their server and image it? Why use Crowdstrike at all?
Look at the basics from that article you linked: GOP server passed intrusion/security tests. DNC's did not, they failed to remedy it. Several other countries or companies were warning the DNC about "the russians are coming the russians are coming" (which means THEY were also probing the DNC themselves and the DNC IT dept didnt even detect it). They still did nothing. DNC eventually gets hacked by "Russia" but they dont let the FBI investigate amid the cries and throws of ohhhh nooooooes the Russians. They use Crowdstrike instead. Doesnt seem like proper protocol to me but the whole chain of events does seem highly suspect.
From what I can tell, there's no timeline of events indicating the hack and any reboots of the DNC server. DNC Server event log will indicate a basic reboot. Theives/hackers go for low hanging fruit and the DNC server was wide open from every and all reports. Why are we blaming anyone other than the DNC when they're the ones who left the back door open? Oh right, its the only way to get rid of President Trump.
.
So for your comp gurus guys:
how does Mueller know what the hackers DNS searches were? Were the GRU guys newbs who didnt change their dns server settings (maybe googles 8.8...)? They didnt even use a proxy? Or did Mueller hack them back? I highly doubt GRU would be leaving traces that'd directly implicate themselves but by golly, I think they did!
Last edited by: aShogunNamedMarcus on July 19, 2018, 1:21 p.m., edited 2 times in total.
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
.
So for your comp gurus guys:
how does Mueller know what the hackers DNS searches were? Were the GRU guys newbs who didnt change their dns server settings (maybe googles 8.8...)? They didnt even use a proxy? Or did Mueller hack them back? I highly doubt GRU would be leaving traces that'd directly implicate themselves but by golly, I think they did!
They say that one of the GRU guys forgot the turn on the VPN once. Hilarious if true.
Posted by: chupacabra
Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus
.
So for your comp gurus guys:
how does Mueller know what the hackers DNS searches were? Were the GRU guys newbs who didnt change their dns server settings (maybe googles 8.8...)? They didnt even use a proxy? Or did Mueller hack them back? I highly doubt GRU would be leaving traces that'd directly implicate themselves but by golly, I think they did!
They say that one of the GRU guys forgot the turn on the VPN once. Hilarious if true.
And that is your smoking gun imo. Specially if you think a vpn is just something you turn on. Russians using an alphashield?
Unless each gru user had their own vpn box to LOGIN TO and he was the fng and the only gru user on the network.. Your way off base (you'd think their default gateway would be their vpn).
But hey who knows, 50/50 right?
Freedom of contract. We sell them guns that kill them; they sell us drugs that kill us.
Posted by: nouseforaname
I believe the intelligence agencies that have the resources and have conducted the investigation over websites that are speculating with very little information.
I think it's great that the left has embraced the CIA and FBI after so many years of seeing them as the enemies of democracy. I mean they're basically the arms of the US govt that have historically repressed at home and abroad, so it's good to see that they have been rehabilitated and don't do that stuff anymore. I saw Micheal Moore tweeting about how the intelligence community was 'right' and Trump should go - and he used to HATE those guys. Kudos CIA/FBI!
I am not "the left" and the IC can be both good and bad, but it would be a rare occasion where the IC was working AGAINST the government, which is what makes the current accusations incredulous. I am expected to believe the FBI, a group as conservative as they come, has decided that they work for the Democrats in a large conspiracy. Why? The NY office was called Trumpland! I am expected to believe that even though Trump hired Manafort as his campaign manager, a man with deep connections to Russia, any insinuation that there might be collusion is preposterous. Why? The man is clearly crooked and there appears to be enough evidence of his criminality to send him to jail for the rest of his life. This is a simple matter of knowing what bullshit smells like.
EDIT: Can one or all of you guys that thinks this is a witch hunt answer me two questions?
1) If the FBI was working for HRC and fabricating evidence of Russian involvement, why didn't they say anything about it before the election and instead chose to tell America that Hillary's email investigation was re-opened?
2) If they thought HRC was a shoe-in to win (assuming that would be part of the answer to Q#1), why take this huge risk in what has to be the most impressive act of conspiracy in American history?
Last edited by: chupacabra on July 20, 2018, 9:51 a.m., edited 1 time in total.
Posted by: KenN
LMAO. Damn you KenN. Or should I say dam you!
For the record, my autocorrect app picked "shoe-in" when I wrote it without the dash.
Forum jump:
