- 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: Problems With CrowdStrike's Anti-Russian Narrative Starting to Gain Media Traction
Posted on 4/7/17 at 9:11 am to LSUTIGER in TEXAS
Posted on 4/7/17 at 9:11 am to LSUTIGER in TEXAS
quote:
So MUH RUSSIANS is all attached to a fake dossier and this this cybersecurity firm whom lied but the FBI took their word for it??!?!?!
Yes. HookerpeeGate started it. MUH RUSSIANS was a cover because Obama was using the IC as political oppo research.
And get this....
THEY STILL LOST!!!
0
Posted on 4/7/17 at 9:11 am to Vacherie Saint
David Carr (not sure who he is) is taking a position contrary to the vast majority of security researchers. Can't tell you if his work has any traction or if his analysis has been peer reviewed.
Crowdstrike's work has been peer reviewed and everyone I know of agrees with them, although with some variations in confidence levels.
I believe the attribution has been settled based upon a preponderance of the evidence.
Crowdstrike's work has been peer reviewed and everyone I know of agrees with them, although with some variations in confidence levels.
I believe the attribution has been settled based upon a preponderance of the evidence.
Posted on 4/7/17 at 9:13 am to Decatur
quote:
David Carr (not sure who he is) is taking a position contrary to the vast majority of security researchers. Can't tell you if his work has any traction or if his analysis has been peer reviewed.
Crowdstrike's work has been peer reviewed and everyone I know of agrees with them, although with some variations in confidence levels.
I believe the attribution has been settled based upon a preponderance of the evidence.
Good luck explaining that to this crowd. When it comes to "the cyber" they get confused and start drawing a lot of conclusions that aren't there.
Posted on 4/7/17 at 9:13 am to SirWinston
quote:
Where did Trumps 13 sexual harassment accusers go?
Probably to the bank.
Posted on 4/7/17 at 9:15 am to Scruffy
The NSA didn't even need or want the servers and they have provided high confidence conclusions.
This server access complaint isn't an issue.
This server access complaint isn't an issue.
Posted on 4/7/17 at 9:19 am to Foy
I'm not a coder and certainly not an expert on this stuff but a lot of people here would greatly benefit from reading the body of work that discusses these events.
Posted on 4/7/17 at 9:20 am to Decatur
quote:Baw, no. The DNC never was looking for the truth. They sought a friendly company that would support the facts they wanted. If the DNC was truly interested in the truth they would have brought this to the FBI. Period.
Decatur
Just stahp.
Posted on 4/7/17 at 9:22 am to Decatur
Why won't you answer the question, hack?
CrowdStrike has been linked to dem corporate benefactors as of late and they have been forced to adapt reports based on the same cybersecurity methodologies as the dnc report. Vault 7 revealed that the us can breadcrumb hacks to Russia and cyber experts have gone on record saying that us hackers have agentx. Assange claims that his source is within the dnc and Guccifer 2.0 has claimed responsibility for the hack.
The entire Russia premise is in question so why won't the dnc let the fbi review the servers? Why only a paid firm with dem ties? Why?
What of Trump hired a company that claimed his wires were tapped, but withheld key evidence from the fbi investigation? Would you be OK with that?
CrowdStrike has been linked to dem corporate benefactors as of late and they have been forced to adapt reports based on the same cybersecurity methodologies as the dnc report. Vault 7 revealed that the us can breadcrumb hacks to Russia and cyber experts have gone on record saying that us hackers have agentx. Assange claims that his source is within the dnc and Guccifer 2.0 has claimed responsibility for the hack.
The entire Russia premise is in question so why won't the dnc let the fbi review the servers? Why only a paid firm with dem ties? Why?
What of Trump hired a company that claimed his wires were tapped, but withheld key evidence from the fbi investigation? Would you be OK with that?
Posted on 4/7/17 at 9:22 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
So answer my question. Why wouldn't the dnc allow the fbi, who is leading the investigation, examine the key piece of evidence? To date, it is allegedly the only hard evidence of Russian hacking.
Around here, it's rare to get an answer to good questions from the Resident Democraps.
Posted on 4/7/17 at 9:23 am to Wolfhound45
I'm gonna have to make you guys a reading list at some point. ;)
Posted on 4/7/17 at 9:25 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
CrowdStrike has been linked to dem corporate benefactors as of late and they have been forced to adapt reports based on the same cybersecurity methodologies as the dnc report.
They were also hired by the Trump campaign.
Invalid argument.
quote:
The entire Russia premise is in question
It's not. Nothing has changed.
quote:
What of Trump hired a company
He hired Crowdstrike!
This post was edited on 4/7/17 at 9:28 am
Posted on 4/7/17 at 9:25 am to Champagne
It's the same assholes screaming for Trump to declassified everything on the Spygate case, that need little more than innuendo to conclude that the entire election was high jacked by Boris and Natasha.
Posted on 4/7/17 at 9:28 am to Decatur
quote:
everyone I know of agrees with them
LOL. Libs agreeing with Libs.
:shockedface:
Posted on 4/7/17 at 9:31 am to Decatur
quote:
They were also hired by the Trump campaign.
That hasn't been confirmed at all. Even if it was, it doesnt change the fact that the fbi was denied access to the key piece of evidence. There is so much reasonable doubt here it is shameful, and that shite would never fly in a court room. Why is it OK when national security is at risk?
Do you just blindly accept everything the democrats tell you?
Posted on 4/7/17 at 9:31 am to NC_Tigah
quote:Interdasting.
- CrowdStrike is also refusing to testify in public to the House Intelligence Committee on what it knows and declined to speak to DailyMail.com
Subpoena their arse.
Posted on 4/7/17 at 9:33 am to bhtigerfan
It's ok, dude.
Everyone Decatur knows agrees with crowdstrike's report.
Now that David Carr guy.... we need to peer review his arse.
Everyone Decatur knows agrees with crowdstrike's report.
Now that David Carr guy.... we need to peer review his arse.
Posted on 4/7/17 at 9:34 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:That should result in the red flag store going out of business.
the fbi was denied access to the key piece of evidence.
Posted on 4/7/17 at 9:34 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
Where did Trumps 13 sexual harassment accusers go?
Probably to the bank.
Gloria Attention Whore lawyer was paid by Crooked Hillary to cart out the women that got their arm brushed in 1972 on the plane. And the women that begged to go in Trumps 5 star hotel room and when Trump asked, what do you want? The one said, dinner, he said okay and they ate and she left.
This post was edited on 4/7/17 at 9:36 am
Posted on 4/7/17 at 9:35 am to bhtigerfan
quote:Another HUGE red flag.
CrowdStrike is also refusing to testify in public to the House Intelligence Committee on what it knows and declined to speak to DailyMail.com
Damn, where can I invest in red flags?
Posted on 4/7/17 at 9:42 am to NC_Tigah
I can't believe people still link to the daily mail. It's basically a British National Enquirer.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News