re: So the DNC Server is Clearly Not Important to the Investigation

quote:

---

Decatur had a post that indicated they had real time images of complete data sets taken while the hacking was in progress.

---

No kidding

quote:

---

Dutch intelligence first to alert U.S. about Russian hack of Democratic Party
by Eelco Bosch van Rosenthal
January 25, 2018

In the Summer of 2015, Dutch intelligence services were the first to alert their American counterparts about the cyberintrusion of the Democratic National Committee by Cozy Bear, a hacking group believed to be tied to the Russian government. Intelligence hackers from Dutch AIVD (General Intelligence and Security Service) had penetrated the Cozy Bear computer servers as well as a security camera at the entrance of their working space, located in a university building adjacent to the Red Square in Moscow.
...

After a few months, in November 2014, the Dutch watched as the Russian hackers penetrated the computer network of the State Department. After being alerted to this by the Dutch intelligence chiefs, it took the Americans over 24 hours to avert the Russian attack, after a digital clash which, years later, at a discussion forum in Aspen, the Deputy Director of the NSA would refer to as hand-to-hand combat . Basing itself on intelligence sources, the Washington Post wrote that a Western ally had been of assistance.
...

It is not clear why the hacks at the DNC could continue for so long despite the Dutch warnings. Last year, The New York Times reported that for months, the DNC had not taken the FBI warnings seriously. Eventually, cybersecurity company Crowdstrike, which was investigating the matter on behalf of the Democratic Party, also concluded that Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear were jointly responsible for the hacks. According to the US intelligence services, Russian officials eventually passed on the emails hacked by Fancy Bear to Wikileaks, which published them. The published emails caused a huge scandal in the American election campaign.
...

LINK

---

HOWEVER, Decatur either doesn't understand or more likely does not give a sh*t about actual truth here.

First off, analysis of the actual server would ABSOLUTELY be helpful, and absent any evidence other than Crowdstrike's, would ABSOLUTELY be necessary to successfully prosecute. The question in assessing damage and potential damage also has to do with a complete assessment as to who hacked, when and how.

As we know, and as Decatur knows, there were AT LEAST two different "hacks" on the DNC by two separate entities at different times. Crowdstrike DID NOT pick both of those up live. Nonetheless, we know there were at least two hacks. If live monitoring is the only way to ID hacks (Hint: It isn't), how then do we know there was more than one?

Thus far, we've been told the monitored hack, and the sole admitted unmonitored hack, were tied to Russian Groups. What about others? In light of the 2 separately successful individual hacks already admitted to, what are the odds those were the only two? The answer is "slim to none."

All of this raises questions Decatur and his nothing-to-see-on-the-DNC-server crowdwould like to avoid.
Some of those questions are:
(1) How was the unmonitored hack identified?
(2) How was any possibility of other hacks excluded?
(3) If other hacks (e.g., by the Chinese, or by a 400# kid in a bed somewhere) had been discovered, how would we know the actual hack source of materials subsequently leaked.
(4) Would the substance of #3 have undercut the RussiansRussiansRussiansRussians narrative?

quote:

---

And where are Crooked's 33,000 deleted emails?

---

We are supposed to believe that the NSA has a copy of every digital document and route (similar to the old tracert command in dos).

If they have every single text, email and phone conversation why in the hell have they not been made to produce those emails.

Seems really swampy to me.

And there is not even the most staunch liberal who believes that ALL of those 30,000 emails were personal.

quote:

---

HOWEVER, Decatur either doesn't understand or more likely does not give a sh*t about actual truth here.

---

quote:

---

and absent any evidence other than Crowdstrike's,

---

Ron Howard voice: There was other evidence.

quote:

---

As we know, and as Decatur knows, there were AT LEAST two different "hacks" on the DNC by two separate entities at different times. Crowdstrike DID NOT pick both of those up live.

---

One came in before the other but they were both there at the same time when CrowdStrike was called in.

quote:

---

What about others? In light of the 2 separately successful individual hacks already admitted to, what are the odds those were the only two? The answer is "slim to none."

---

No other APTs were identified. You are making a claim from no evidence.

quote:

---

BeefDawg

---

quote:

---

Decatur

---

I'm sitting this one out. I know some IT, but not nearly enough to comment intelligently on this hacking stuff.

I would, however, like to see Decatur address Beefdawg's post RE: Crowdstrike

quote:

---

What still remains is that a 3rd party company who’s run by a Dem donor, who’s a member of The Atlantic Council, who was paid by Democrats, was the first on the scene and could have easily fabricated all the footprints pointing to Russians, then copied the server image, then simply chronicled the fabrications in a report as if legit, and handed it all to the authorities afterwards.

---

The same company hired by the *Trump Campaign* and apparently still under contract with the NRCC.

quote:

---

As has already been confirmed, CrowdStrike got busted trying to insist Russian hackers (Fancy Bear) hacked into a Ukrainian military Android app, but multiple sources, including the app creator and the Ukrainian government itself, confirmed CrowdStrike lied and made the whole thing up.

CrowdStrike admitted they did this to try and confirm association with Fancy Bear being Russian GRU, and they later had to retract their report after being called out for lying.

---

The only problem with that report was the estimate of Ukrainian artilery lost (which was subsequently revised), not the attribution. That still stands. The report was not retracted as you claim.

quote:

---

MARCH 2017 UPDATE: The information about the combat losses of the D-30 artillery units suffered by Ukrainian forces has been updated with the latest analysis from Henry Boyd, International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) Research Associate for Defence and Military Analysis.

---

quote:

---

According to an update provided in March 2017 by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) Research Associate for Defence and Military Analysis, Henry Boyd, “excluding the Naval Infantry battalion in the Crimea which was effectively captured wholesale, the Ukrainian Armed Forces lost between 15% and 20% of their pre-war D–30 inventory in combat operations.”

---

LINK

quote:

---

Decatur, you have a very limited understanding of the topic,

---

I don’t disagree with this, actually.

I do have some understanding and I’m always eager to learn more.

Could you be a dove and tell me some things I don’t know about this?

quote:

---

Could you be a dove and tell me some things I don’t know about this?

---

hacking evidence can be detected from a hard drive alone. In fact that is most often the method of discovery. (See Sharyl Attkisson hack). Without the hard drive, other hacks would go undetected.

quote:

---

I’m always eager to learn more.

---

I don't believe this at all. You clearly only want to "learn" "facts" that fit your preconceived notions, as do most liberals.

quote:

---

So you're so far down the list of bargaining

---

I'm not sure you understand the first thing about this topic, but are you implying Crowdstrike worked without harddrive access?