- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Russia did not hack the DNC. The FBI did not investigate it. The company lied.
Posted on 5/12/17 at 2:15 pm to Foy
Posted on 5/12/17 at 2:15 pm to Foy
quote:
The attacker or attackers registered a deliberately misspelled domain name used for email phishing attacks against DNC employees, connected to an IP address associated with APT 28/Fancy Bear.
Malware found on the DNC computers was programmed to communicate with an IP address associated with APT 28/Fancy Bear.
Metadata in a file leaked by “Guccifer 2.0? shows it was modified by a user called, in cyrillic, “Felix Edmundovich,” a reference to the founder of a Soviet-era secret police force. Another document contained cyrillic metadata indicating it had been edited on a document with Russian language settings.
Peculiarities in a conversation with “Guccifer 2.0? that Motherboard published in June suggests he is not Romanian, as he originally claimed.
The DCLeaks.com domain was registered by a person using the same email service as the person who registered a misspelled domain used to send phishing emails to DNC employees.
Some of the phishing emails were sent using Yandex, a Moscow-based webmail provider.
A bit.ly link believed to have been used by APT 28/Fancy Bear in the past was also used against Podesta.
read the link clown.
That information was all released by CrowdStrike.
And then they had to walk it ALL BACK.
1
Posted on 5/12/17 at 2:17 pm to Foy
quote:
There is plenty of other forensic evidence that shows the attacks were committed by a large group of native Russian language speakers with the funding and expertise of a state-level actor.
There could be but the fact that we haven't seen a shred of it with all of the leaking the Obama holdouts have engaged in suggests there is not. What we do know is that you haven't seen it.
Posted on 5/12/17 at 2:19 pm to Foy
quote:
The attacker or attackers registered a deliberately misspelled domain name used for email phishing attacks against DNC employees, connected to an IP address associated with APT 28/Fancy Bear. Malware found on the DNC computers was programmed to communicate with an IP address associated with APT 28/Fancy Bear. Metadata in a file leaked by “Guccifer 2.0? shows it was modified by a user called, in cyrillic, “Felix Edmundovich,” a reference to the founder of a Soviet-era secret police force. Another document contained cyrillic metadata indicating it had been edited on a document with Russian language settings. Peculiarities in a conversation with “Guccifer 2.0? that Motherboard published in June suggests he is not Romanian, as he originally claimed. The DCLeaks.com domain was registered by a person using the same email service as the person who registered a misspelled domain used to send phishing emails to DNC employees. Some of the phishing emails were sent using Yandex, a Moscow-based webmail provider. A bit.ly link believed to have been used by APT 28/Fancy Bear in the past was also used against Podesta.
But did you actually see Putin sitting at a computer terminal hitting send?
No? Didn't think so. Now get the rest of those facts out of here. Russia is not an aggressive cyber-actor or adversary to the US and wouldn't do something like this.
Posted on 5/12/17 at 2:20 pm to Navytiger74
quote:
But did you actually see Putin sitting at a computer terminal hitting send?
No? Didn't think so. Now get the rest of those facts out of here. Russia is not an aggressive cyber-actor or adversary to the US and wouldn't do something like this.
Crowd Strike released that information Polly.
Not the FBI, not the CIA, not the NSA.
Crowd Strike did....and then had to PUBLICLY WALK IT BACK.
Posted on 5/12/17 at 2:20 pm to Navytiger74
quote:
But did you actually see Putin sitting at a computer terminal hitting send?
No, but I did read when Crowdstrike walked back all of these assertions.
Posted on 5/12/17 at 2:20 pm to CptBengal
quote:
Crowd Strike did....and then had to PUBLICLY WALK IT BACK.
Not in the link.
Posted on 5/12/17 at 2:20 pm to kingbob
quote:
What evidence? The entire narrative is based on one testimony, by one company, the only group that was allowed to examine the servers. All of the intelligence agencies were denied the opportunity to examine the servers that were penetrated,
FACT!!!
Which should be the most telling of the entire narrative!!!
Since when, has ANY law enforcement agency not been allowed/denied to examine information relative to a possible criminal investigation. Even more so if it related to possible national security.
The answer is obvious... NEVER!
The only reason none of this happened is because the entire thing is/was political bullshite put out as a narrative to stupid people!
Posted on 5/12/17 at 2:23 pm to CptBengal
quote:Crowdstrike partially revised its findings while standing behind its conclusions.
Crowd Strike released that information Polly. Not the FBI, not the CIA, not the NSA. Crowd Strike did....and then had to PUBLICLY WALK IT BACK.
Which is irrelevant. Our own technical analysts identified signatures pointing back to Kremlin-linked cyber actors. That's been publicly disclosed. The specifics have not.
Posted on 5/12/17 at 2:24 pm to kingbob
quote:
Crowdstrike, the sole source of the Russia narrative has already recanted their analysis,
Got a link for that -- other than Zerohedge?
Posted on 5/12/17 at 2:24 pm to kingbob
quote:You probably read the same half-assed information from zerohedge or some other piece of shite outfit that the resident scientist did.
No, but I did read when Crowdstrike walked back all of these assertions.
So good for you, I guess.
Posted on 5/12/17 at 2:25 pm to Navytiger74
quote:
No? Didn't think so. Now get the rest of those facts out of here. Russia is not an aggressive cyber-actor or adversary to the US and wouldn't do something like this.
No one disputes the fact that the Russians were willing and capable. Just pointing out that no evidence has been released or leaked beyond the Crowdstrike assessment. It may well have been the Russians but it is far from proven.
And no matter what you think of Assange, he is more credible than Crowdstrike.
Posted on 5/12/17 at 2:25 pm to Navytiger74
quote:
Crowdstrike partially revised its findings while standing behind its conclusions.
they went from "medium confidence"
to "low confidence"
after the revision...
quote:
Which is irrelevant.
quote:
Our own technical analysts identified signatures
They NEVER got to look at the machines or data.
are you an idiot or just a liar?
Posted on 5/12/17 at 2:26 pm to CptBengal
quote:You're a gullible, anti-American piece of shite. The whole lot of you. And I'm not half kidding.
They NEVER got to look at the machines or data. are you an idiot or just a liar?
Posted on 5/12/17 at 2:26 pm to Navytiger74
quote:
They NEVER got to look at the machines or data. are you an idiot or just a liar?
You're a gullible, anti-American piece of shite. The whole lot of you. And I'm not half kidding.
So the FBI, NSA, and CIA admit they did not get access to the server or the data...publicly.
And we're lying about them not having access?
Posted on 5/12/17 at 2:28 pm to shinerfan
quote:So why has the IC recently strengthened its confidence level following crowdstrike's revisions of some of its findings? What does "no evidence" mean? That it didn't come from Trump or Assange's lips so you don't believe it?
No one disputes the fact that the Russians were willing and capable. Just pointing out that no evidence has been released or leaked beyond the Crowdstrike assessment. It may well have been the Russians but it is far from proven.
Posted on 5/12/17 at 2:29 pm to Navytiger74
quote:
So why has the IC recently strengthened its confidence level following crowdstrike's revisions of some of its findings?
So CrowdStrike lowered from "medium confidence" to "low confidence"
and the IC increased theres?
Posted on 5/12/17 at 2:31 pm to Loserman
quote:And muh narrative - muh talking points - muh...muh...muh... ???
Zero evidence has ever been provided by any intelligence agency, much less 17 that this occurred.
But hey, Wapo, CNN, Mother Jones, Huff Post says muh Russians.
Muh Russians. Just because...
This post was edited on 5/12/17 at 2:33 pm
Posted on 5/12/17 at 2:32 pm to Navytiger74
quote:
What does "no evidence" mean?
It means no evidence released or leaked aside from the Crowdstrike assessment. Even with the amount of leaking of irrelevant bullshite you seriously believe that they have real evidence and are holding it tight?
Posted on 5/12/17 at 2:33 pm to CptBengal
quote:
So the FBI, NSA, and CIA admit they did not get access to the server or the data...publicly. And we're lying about them not having access?
quote:They were provided with enough good information, which they were able to corroborate by [many] other means to strengthen their argument. They don't need physical access to servers to monitor any and all activity relating to those servers. They undoubtedly have insights into other activities on the other end--multiple other ends, in fact.
So the FBI, NSA, and CIA admit they did not get access to the server or the data...publicly. And we're lying about them not having access?
Posted on 5/12/17 at 2:34 pm to CptBengal
Russia MAY have hacked the DNC.
I May have hacked the DNC.
You MAY have hacked the DNC
Seth Rich MAY have provided the emails without hacking.
All of those are plausible.
The SETH RICH one may be the MOST plausible!
You are absolutely correct that ZERO US intelligence agencies ever got to SEE, TOUCH, much less EXAMINE the DNC servers.
The only info we have is a company PAID by the DNC said such and such.
The only other evidence we have is EVERY Law enforcement/intelligence group we have in the US did NOT pursue this through any of the most basic methods they would have( you know get a judge to rubber stamp their request for a warrant) if they even REMOTELY considered this to be criminal or at the VERY LEAST a matter of national security they would have been all over it.
That should tell you all you need to know.
The info was provided by an insider on the DNC payroll, and it was not a criminal offense but a firing offense(IOW non criminal but a civil matter).
I May have hacked the DNC.
You MAY have hacked the DNC
Seth Rich MAY have provided the emails without hacking.
All of those are plausible.
The SETH RICH one may be the MOST plausible!
You are absolutely correct that ZERO US intelligence agencies ever got to SEE, TOUCH, much less EXAMINE the DNC servers.
The only info we have is a company PAID by the DNC said such and such.
The only other evidence we have is EVERY Law enforcement/intelligence group we have in the US did NOT pursue this through any of the most basic methods they would have( you know get a judge to rubber stamp their request for a warrant) if they even REMOTELY considered this to be criminal or at the VERY LEAST a matter of national security they would have been all over it.
That should tell you all you need to know.
The info was provided by an insider on the DNC payroll, and it was not a criminal offense but a firing offense(IOW non criminal but a civil matter).
This post was edited on 5/12/17 at 2:37 pm
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News