- 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: Did Seth Rich Download DNC data on thumb-drive before his murder & FBI has 2 Seth laptops?
Posted on 12/21/22 at 2:25 pm to Decatur
Posted on 12/21/22 at 2:25 pm to Decatur
quote:Sigh.
Since you apparently haven't read the link you asked for earlier in the thread I'll quote more from it:
Yes Decatur, I read it.
We have the Crowdstrike "report" (which you are focused on).
We have the Crowdstrike "testimony under oath" (which I am focused on).
The latter contradicts the former.
Let's repeat that because it's important.
Crowdstrike testimony under oath contradicts its reports.
On the other hand, the Crowdstrike testimony (which I am focused on) corresponds with the attestations of expert NSA and CIA analysts I linked for you.
Yet, you refer to those expert analysts as "quacks who are ignoring the facts."
---
Let's review, because this is not complicated.
Here is what Crowdstrike REPORTED (not under oath):
quote:
Theft of Documents from DNC and DCCC Networks
Officers from Unit 26165 stole thousands of documents from the DCCC and DNC networks, including significant amounts of data pertaining to the 2016 U.S. federal elections. Stolen documents included internal strategy documents, fundraising data, opposition research, and emails from the work inboxes of DNC employees.130
The GRU began stealing DCCC data shortly after it gained access to the network. On April 14, 2016 (approximately three days after the initial intrusion) GRU officers downloaded rar.exe onto the DCCC’s document server.
The following day, the GRU searched one compromised DCCC computer for files containing search terms that included “Hillary,” “DNC,” “Cruz,” and “Trump.”131
On April 25, 2016, the GRU collected and compressed PDF and Microsoft documents from folders on the DCCC’s shared file server that pertained to the 2016 election.132
The GRU appears to have compressed and exfiltrated over 70 gigabytes of data from this file server.133
The GRU also stole documents from the DNC network shortly after gaining access. On April 22, 2016, the GRU copied files from the DNC network to GRU-controlled computers. Stolen documents included the DNC’s opposition research into candidate Trump.134
Between approximately May 25, 2016 and June 1, 2016, GRU officers accessed the DNC’s mail server from a GRU-controlled computer leased inside the United States.135
During these connections, Unit 26165 officers appear to have stolen thousands of emails and attachments, which were later released by WikiLeaks in July 2016.136
Here is what Crowdstrike TESTIFIED to UNDER OATH:
quote:
CrowdStrike did not in fact know if such a theft occurred at all: "We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated [moved electronically] from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated," Henry said.
Crowdstrike misled you into believing its claims (reports) were rock solid. It turns out, they overstated their case AT BEST (IMO they lied). I know it's a tough pill to swallow, because you are a bright, informed guy, and you trusted you had reliable information. But the Crowdstrike President was forced to admit the truth under oath. The truth is Crowdstrike (at best) misrepresented conjecture and supposition as concrete evidence.
Further, the Crowdstrike President contends under oath that screenshots (as opposed to actual transfer of data) were the method which must have been used to copy database contents, because it is evident no data was actually transferred during remote hacks. Screenshots are a possibility, Decatur, as they would not register as data transfers.
Practically speaking though, screen shooting would be incredibly inefficient and time consuming. In other words, it's a dubious posit unless the hackers were only seeking a few of the documents, and did not want the specific documents accessed to be known.
However, as this discussion relates to the materials wikileaks released, those wikileaks releases were not screenshots. They were searchable data.
Does the significance of that "detail" not register with you?
1
Posted on 12/21/22 at 2:29 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Crowdstrike misled you into believing its claims (reports) were rock solid. It turns out, they overstated their case AT BEST (IMO they lied).
Bruh USG confirmed Crowdstrike’s findings. USG was the one that told the DNC in the first instance that they were being hacked. USG identified the Russian intelligence officers that participated and indicted them in Federal court.
Posted on 12/21/22 at 2:31 pm to Decatur
quote:That the data was screenshot?
Bruh USG confirmed Crowdstrike’s findings.
Posted on 12/21/22 at 2:47 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:.
“MR. HENRY: So, to go back, because I think it’s important to characterize this. We didn’t have a network sensor in place that saw data leave’ We said that the data Ieft based on the circumstantial evidence. That was a conclusion that we made. when I answered that question, I was trying to be as factually accurate’ I want to provide the facts. so I said that we didn’t have direct evidence’ But we made a conclusion that the data left the network.”
Posted on 12/21/22 at 2:51 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
That the data was screenshot?
From USG’s investigation
quote:
The Arizona-based AMS Panel also stored thousands of files containing keylogging sessions captured through X-Agent. These sessions were captured as GRU officers monitored DCCC and DNC employees’ work on infected computers regularly between April 2016 and June 2016. Data captured in these keylogging sessions included passwords, internal communications between employees, banking information, and sensitive personal information.
Posted on 12/21/22 at 2:52 pm to Decatur
quote:
We didn’t have a network sensor in place that saw data leave’
A network sensor? He is claiming that network data transfers are not logged ... ROUTINELY ...
Posted on 12/21/22 at 2:54 pm to Decatur
quote:
That the data was screenshot?
From USG’s investigation
So was the DNC data screenshot?
Posted on 12/21/22 at 3:07 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
So was the DNC data screenshot?
I think Shawn Henry was speculating about that. He said the Russians were in the network as far back as July 2015 so they could have had several months to take what they wanted before Crowdstrike was brought in to do the remediation.
This post was edited on 12/21/22 at 3:11 pm
Posted on 12/21/22 at 3:18 pm to Decatur
quote:
Bruh USG confirmed Crowdstrike’s findings. USG was the one that told the DNC in the first instance that they were being hacked. USG identified the Russian intelligence officers that participated and indicted them in Federal court.
The Mueller Report was garbage because the Dossier is proven in courts-garbage; just like all FBI under oath in Congress off camera said NO RUSSIAN COLLUSION.
There is court testimony under oath that the Russians did not hack the DNC.
The only thing remaining to discuss is how far the IC went to cover their asses? WikiLeaks showed beyond doubt that our IC can imprint GRU and make it appear as if Russia hacked when they didn't.
So Crowdstrike is the main papa, they said under oath Russia did not hack the DNC files.
Do you care to logically discuss who hacked the DNC? It has been said the IC did to pin it on someone-or Seth Rich did. Or someone within (another pissed off Bern supporter?) gave Seth Rich evidence.
So are we talking about one or two whistle blowers is the only point of discussion.
The FBI DOJ NSD hired Steele and Igor Danchenko (A friggin Russian Spy that was on the take for classified information) So please explain how the intel Community is to be trusted with any of your theories? Or how a bunch of Andrew Weissmann's in the Mueller SC are to be trusted?
Then we can meet halfway in discussion. Until then, you are brainwashed if you think the JustUs department is anything but the DNC on oppo research steroids.
This post was edited on 12/21/22 at 5:07 pm
Posted on 12/21/22 at 3:55 pm to Decatur
quote:Decatur, in my experience, network data exchanges are recorded. It's similar, in a way, to calls in and out of your mobile account. Content of the calls is not recorded, but the length and correspondent numbers are. Similarly, time, data packet size, and address would be noted in network exchanges.
I think Shawn Henry was speculating about that. He said the Russians were in the network as far back as July 2015 so they could have had several months to take what they wanted before Crowdstrike was brought in to do the remediation.
Unless the contention is the DNC was unique and deliberately erased that data, server transfers would be detectable.
If Crowdstrike could detect where hacks previously occurred, they would certainly have been able to glean points where data was transferred.
Remote screenshots would not entail data transfer. So in that instance the stealing of information could be surmised but not proven.
Posted on 12/21/22 at 4:03 pm to Decatur
quote:Right. CS was directed to (1) identify where breaches occurred and detail those as much as possible, and (2) secure the network from future intrusion.
the Russians were in the network as far back as July 2015 so they could have had several months to take what they wanted before Crowdstrike was brought in to do the remediation.
Henry has often conflated the two. It seems incredibly important to him from a marketing stance to emphasize, re-emphasize, and re-re-emphasize the fact that no Russian breaches occurred on Crowdstrike's watch.
But that should have nothing to do with the ability to identify past network data transfers.
Posted on 12/21/22 at 4:07 pm to NC_Tigah
USG has evidence that data was transferred. The GRU used other computers located within the US for this operation. Crowdstrike would not have access to these other computers though.
Posted on 12/21/22 at 4:28 pm to Decatur
quote:That would be expected along with VPN, etc. But any contention those things would blind or hide DNC data transfer does not make sense.
The GRU used other computers located within the US for this operation.
Regardless of the computers used to pull the data, or cloaking employed, the data itself would have been pulled from the DNC servers where it was stored. That action would be detectable.
Posted on 12/21/22 at 4:54 pm to Decatur
quote:As they did with Trump hiring hookers to pee on a Moscow bed, etc., etc., etc., etc.
USG has evidence
When you say "USG has evidence," the NSA is the implication.
So let's take a look.
quote:The NSA has no hard evidence. NSA would be THE agency monitoring the data traffic you're referencing. Which brings us back to incompatible data transfer speeds, incompatible data format, etc.
The NSA had an opportunity to make it clear that there was irrefutable proof of Russian meddling, particularly with regard to the DNC hack, when it signed on to the January 2017 “Intelligence Community Assessment,” regarding Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election:
We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.
The phrase, “moderate confidence” is intelligence speak for “we have no hard evidence.” Thanks to the leaks by Edward Snowden, we know with certainty that the NSA had the capability to examine and analyze the DNC emails. NSA routinely “vacuumed up” email traffic transiting the U.S. using robust collection systems (whether or not anyone in the NSA chose to look for this data is another question). If those emails had been hijacked over the internet then NSA also would have been able to track the electronic path they traveled over the internet.
Posted on 12/21/22 at 4:56 pm to NC_Tigah
Crowdstrike did identify two separate Russian APTs in the DNC system. That itself is evidence of the hack.
Posted on 12/21/22 at 5:12 pm to Decatur
quote:Indeed.
Crowdstrike did identify two separate Russian APTs in the DNC system. That itself is evidence of the hack.
There may have been a Russian hack.
J/c, do you think the CS investigation and findings would have been lost on a young idealistic dude working as a data analyst at the DNC, who also happened to be pissed Bernie Sanders had been railroaded?
Ahhh ... nvm. Just a random musing.
Evidence of a hack really is not relevant in and of itself. This is about the data transferred to Wikileaks.
This post was edited on 12/21/22 at 5:14 pm
Posted on 12/21/22 at 6:05 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.
C'mon man
And that's just the judgment that they wanted Trump to win.
Here's what they said about the hack and dump campaign.
quote:
We assess Russian intelligence services collected against the US primary campaigns, think tanks, and lobbying groups they viewed as likely to shape future US policies. In July 2015, Russian intelligence gained access to Democratic National Committee (DNC) networks and maintained that access until at least June 2016.
? The General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) probably began cyber operations aimed at the US election by March 2016. We assess that the GRU operations resulted in the compromise of the personal e-mail accounts of Democratic Party officials and political figures. By May, the GRU had exfiltrated large volumes of data from the DNC.
quote:
We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks. Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its selfproclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries.
LINK
Posted on 12/21/22 at 6:30 pm to Decatur
quote:
WASHINGTON — When Special Agent Adrian Hawkins of the Federal Bureau of Investigation called the Democratic National Committee in September 2015 to pass along some troubling news about its computer network, he was transferred, naturally, to the help desk.
His message was brief, if alarming. At least one computer system belonging to the D.N.C. had been compromised by hackers federal investigators had named “the Dukes,” a cyberespionage team linked to the Russian government.
The F.B.I. knew it well: The bureau had spent the last few years trying to kick the Dukes out of the unclassified email systems of the White House, the State Department and even the Joint Chiefs of Staff, one of the government’s best-protected networks.
Yared Tamene, the tech-support contractor at the D.N.C. who fielded the call, was no expert in cyberattacks. His first moves were to check Google for “the Dukes” and conduct a cursory search of the D.N.C. computer system logs to look for hints of such a cyberintrusion. By his own account, he did not look too hard even after Special Agent Hawkins called back repeatedly over the next several weeks — in part because he wasn’t certain the caller was a real F.B.I. agent and not an impostor.
“I had no way of differentiating the call I just received from a prank call,” Mr. Tamene wrote in an internal memo, obtained by The New York Times, that detailed his contact with the F.B.I.
quote:
“There shouldn’t be any doubt in anybody’s mind,” Adm. Michael S. Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency and commander of United States Cyber Command, said at a postelection conference. “This was not something that was done casually, this was not something that was done by chance, this was not a target that was selected purely arbitrarily,” he said. “This was a conscious effort by a nation-state to attempt to achieve a specific effect.”
quote:
Mr. Tamene’s initial scan of the D.N.C. system — using his less-than-optimal tools and incomplete targeting information from the F.B.I. — found nothing. So when Special Agent Hawkins called repeatedly in October, leaving voice mail messages for Mr. Tamene, urging him to call back, “I did not return his calls, as I had nothing to report,” Mr. Tamene explained in his memo.
In November, Special Agent Hawkins called with more ominous news. A D.N.C. computer was “calling home, where home meant Russia,” Mr. Tamene’s memo says, referring to software sending information to Moscow. “SA Hawkins added that the F.B.I. thinks that this calling home behavior could be the result of a state-sponsored attack.”
quote:
Mr. Tamene’s initial scan of the D.N.C. system — using his less-than-optimal tools and incomplete targeting information from the F.B.I. — found nothing. So when Special Agent Hawkins called repeatedly in October, leaving voice mail messages for Mr. Tamene, urging him to call back, “I did not return his calls, as I had nothing to report,” Mr. Tamene explained in his memo.
In November, Special Agent Hawkins called with more ominous news. A D.N.C. computer was “calling home, where home meant Russia,” Mr. Tamene’s memo says, referring to software sending information to Moscow. “SA Hawkins added that the F.B.I. thinks that this calling home behavior could be the result of a state-sponsored attack.”
quote:
Only in March 2016 did Fancy Bear show up — first penetrating the computers of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and then jumping to the D.N.C., investigators believe. Fancy Bear, sometimes called A.P.T. 28 and believed to be directed by the G.R.U., Russia’s military intelligence agency, is an older outfit, tracked by Western investigators for nearly a decade. It was Fancy Bear that got hold of Mr. Podesta’s email.
LINK
And Fancy Bear gave Wikileaks access to the email and attachments cache.
This post was edited on 12/21/22 at 6:31 pm
Posted on 12/21/22 at 6:47 pm to Decatur
quote:Everybit of that maybe true. Tie it to Wikileaks.
Decatur
Posted on 12/21/22 at 6:56 pm to Decatur
The Dukes? I knew those old coots were still kickin'!
Page 9 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News