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

quote:

---

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

---

You probably read the same half-assed information from zerohedge or some other piece of shite outfit that the resident scientist did.

So good for you, I guess.

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.