re: Russia did not hack the DNC. The FBI did not investigate it. The company lied.

No one was hacked.

Podesta's password was password and he flew for a simple fishing scheme

quote:

---

Crowd Strike did....and then had to PUBLICLY WALK IT BACK.

---

You say that over and over again without any source or link???

quote:

---

What I have always found weird about this story is why the DNC refused to let the Obama led justice dept and FBI look at that server. Why would you deny the preeminent investigative agency in the country access and instead run it through a private business instead? My only conclusion is that there was stuff on that server that DNC officials did not want the FBI to see. I'd be willing to bet it is was a lot more damning than the stuff that got released.

---

It's standard operating procedure for large organizations with decent counsel to not just turnover it's entire server history to an investigatory body. The DNC has no idea what exactly all their employees are emailing or looking at. What if someone talks about selling drugs at work or drinking on the job? You're opening up the organization to liability needlessly. No attorney worth a shite would let their company do that.

If the RNC handed over the entirety of their server history to the FBI then they need to fire their attorneys

"Everyone" uses third parties to locate only the relevant information. When Sony was hacked they didn't just give the FBI carte blanche access to their server history. They did re same thing the DNC did. Hell, I have serious doubts that the RNC just gave the FBI the entirety of its server history.

That's like a millionaire reporting being mugged and turning over the entire financial history of his family and businesses.

quote:

---

Welcome to July of last year. 



 

Then why is Muh Russians still going on?

---

Exactly. Between the MSM and the Democrats (plus GOPe hacks like McCuck & McSuck), you'd think that Trump colluding with the Russians had already been proven.

So it seems that yesterday's big hacking attack on the British NHS and elsewhere was conducted with tools developed by the NSA. So by lib logic, that means that it could have only been NSA. Its gonna be fun to watch them contort to explain how Russian hacking tools mean Russian involvement but NSA hacking tools could be anybody. (But probably Russians.)

quote:

---

CptBengal

---

How much of a flat out fake do you have to be to push this crap?!?

quote:

---

No, but I did read when Crowdstrike walked back all of these assertions.

---

You and Bengal keep repeating this, but what exactly did CrowdStrike recant? You guys seem to be swallowing the bullshite headlines from shady sources without bothering to explain the nature of the mistake that CrowdStrike admitted.

It's hard to sift through all the bullshite ZeroHedge links, but searching on Google, I only see where CrowdStrike walked back some of its assertions regarding Ukrainian howitzers ( LINK):

quote:

---

The company removed language that said Ukraine's artillery lost 80 percent of the Soviet-era D-30 howitzers, which used aiming software that purportedly was hacked. Instead, the revised report cites figures of 15 to 20 percent losses in combat operations, attributing the figures to IISS.

---

It seems as though expert agencies & consulting firms in this field routinely share the same forensic information and come to different conclusions. If I'm understanding this report correctly, in this case, CrowdStrike used forensic information from IISS and botched its analysis of the actual real-world impact. That's hardly a damning indictment of its ability to determine actors.

And coming back to the distinct issue of the 2016 campaign, what does misinterpreting data about the # of howitzers lost have to do with judging the source of the DNC hacks?

It's true that Comey said the FBI requested direct access and was denied by the DNC. However, if you look at his statements in articles like this from The Hill, he doesn't seem to think this at all affected the FBI's ability to reach its own conclusion. He only thinks it delayed the analysis.

quote:

---

“The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated,” the official said.

“This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information. These actions caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier.”

---

I mean, what's the deal here? Are you people really suggesting that CrowdStrike made up the data?

Just look at all the different organizations which concurred in the assessment ( LINK):

quote:

---

A self-styled hacker going by the moniker "Guccifer 2.0" claimed to be the source of the leaks;[39][40] WikiLeaks did not reveal its source.[21] Cybersecurity experts and firms, including CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, and ThreatConnect, and the editor for Ars Technica, stated the leak was part of a series of cyberattacks on the DNC committed by two Russian intelligence groups.[41][42][43][44][45][46] U.S. intelligence agencies also stated (with "high confidence"[47]) that the Russian government was behind the theft of emails and documents from the DNC, according to reports in the New York Times and the Washington Post.[47][48][49][50][51]

---

Do you think other firms like Fidelis, Mandiant, etc., would just put their rubber stamp on data provided by CrowdStrike if they thought there was a good chance CrowdStrike was just making it all up?

And why is it so difficult to believe that Fancy Bear would actually hack the DNC?

quote:

---

Fancy Bear is thought to be responsible for cyber attacks on the German parliament, the French television station TV5Monde, the White House, NATO, the Democratic National Committee, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the campaign of French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron.[7]

---

And why is it so difficult to believe that Guccifer 2.0 was a front used for leaking material obtained by Fancy Bear to groups such as WikiLeaks?

I mean, this DNC hack is really not even the core part of the story here. The real allegations behind what the Russians did in this election are actually much worse than just cyberattacks. So in theory I'm open to the possibility that this analysis was botched and that the DNC hack came from elsewhere. But to convince me of that, you need to show me something more than ZeroHedge posts and rants from disgruntled bloggers. I mean, shite man, the links in this thread are fricking terrible.

quote:

---

"Everyone" uses third parties to locate only the relevant information. When Sony was hacked they didn't just give the FBI carte blanche access to their server history. They did re same thing the DNC did. Hell, I have serious doubts that the RNC just gave the FBI the entirety of its server history.

---

Thank you.