Former NSA Experts: There Was No DNC Hack, It Was A Leak- aka How To Repel A Liberal

[Deleted member 21794]

I know, I know, leftists. You've repeated the Russia hacking meme enough times that you think it should be accepted as the truth by now. Unfortunately for you, thinking people have been suspicious about these claims. And now even The Nation has seen fit to write an extensive article on the non-hack of DNC servers. Gee, I wonder why the DNC didn't want the FBI to get their hands on their servers!

Clearly this is liberal blasphemy. The Nation must be attacked for this blatant heresy!

If only Seth Rich were alive to comment....

=========================================================

snip....

"There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.

"Forensic investigations of documents made public two weeks prior to the July 5 leak by the person or entity known as Guccifer 2.0 show that they were fraudulent: Before Guccifer posted them they were adulterated by cutting and pasting them into a blank template that had Russian as its default language. Guccifer took responsibility on June 15 for an intrusion the DNC reported on June 14 and professed to be a WikiLeaks source—claims essential to the official narrative implicating Russia in what was soon cast as an extensive hacking operation. To put the point simply, forensic science now devastates this narrative."

snip...

Do we even know that John Podesta’s e-mail was in fact “phished”? What evidence of this has been produced? Such rock-bottom questions as these must now be posed in all other cases.

https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/

 

[Deleted member 21794]

Damn, it works even better than I thought!

 

[RickWA]

Damn, it works even better than I thought!

Yep. You repelled lefty. Radioactive.

It's almost like you offered a job or something.

 

[SouthernBoyI]

BOOM

SB

I know, I know, leftists. You've repeated the Russia hacking meme enough times that you think it should be accepted as the truth by now. Unfortunately for you, thinking people have been suspicious about these claims. And now even The Nation has seen fit to write an extensive article on the non-hack of DNC servers. Gee, I wonder why the DNC didn't want the FBI to get their hands on their servers!

Clearly this is liberal blasphemy. The Nation must be attacked for this blatant heresy!

If only Seth Rich were alive to comment....

=========================================================

snip....

"There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.

"Forensic investigations of documents made public two weeks prior to the July 5 leak by the person or entity known as Guccifer 2.0 show that they were fraudulent: Before Guccifer posted them they were adulterated by cutting and pasting them into a blank template that had Russian as its default language. Guccifer took responsibility on June 15 for an intrusion the DNC reported on June 14 and professed to be a WikiLeaks source—claims essential to the official narrative implicating Russia in what was soon cast as an extensive hacking operation. To put the point simply, forensic science now devastates this narrative."

snip...

Do we even know that John Podesta’s e-mail was in fact “phished”? What evidence of this has been produced? Such rock-bottom questions as these must now be posed in all other cases.

https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/

 

[middleview]

I know, I know, leftists. You've repeated the Russia hacking meme enough times that you think it should be accepted as the truth by now. Unfortunately for you, thinking people have been suspicious about these claims. And now even The Nation has seen fit to write an extensive article on the non-hack of DNC servers. Gee, I wonder why the DNC didn't want the FBI to get their hands on their servers!

Clearly this is liberal blasphemy. The Nation must be attacked for this blatant heresy!

If only Seth Rich were alive to comment....

=========================================================

snip....

"There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee’s system on July 5 last year—not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak—a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC’s system. This casts serious doubt on the initial “hack,” as alleged, that led to the very consequential publication of a large store of documents on WikiLeaks last summer.

"Forensic investigations of documents made public two weeks prior to the July 5 leak by the person or entity known as Guccifer 2.0 show that they were fraudulent: Before Guccifer posted them they were adulterated by cutting and pasting them into a blank template that had Russian as its default language. Guccifer took responsibility on June 15 for an intrusion the DNC reported on June 14 and professed to be a WikiLeaks source—claims essential to the official narrative implicating Russia in what was soon cast as an extensive hacking operation. To put the point simply, forensic science now devastates this narrative."

snip...

Do we even know that John Podesta’s e-mail was in fact “phished”? What evidence of this has been produced? Such rock-bottom questions as these must now be posed in all other cases.

https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new-report-raises-big-questions-about-last-years-dnc-hack/

The foreskinator stuff has already been shown to be full of flaws. How, exactly, did he determine the download speed. He would need two timestamps to do that and he doesn't say where they came from. The only thing I can deduce is that he is looking at the last modification time of one of the email extract files in the .zip file and comparing it to the creation timestamp of the .zip file. That actually proves nothing at all. I can have two PCs sitting next to each other and the can be minutes off on the correct time.

PC A is set at 10:00 and PC B is 10:30. If I use foreskinator's method and do a PKZIP of a file from PC B to PC A it will be zipped 10:00 before it was created at 10:15.

If I'm sitting in Moscow and use remote desktop to gain access to PC A, then everything I do will have the timestamp from PC A, not my PC in Moscow.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

The foreskinator stuff has already been shown to be full of flaws. How, exactly, did he determine the download speed. He would need two timestamps to do that and he doesn't say where they came from. The only thing I can deduce is that he is looking at the last modification time of one of the email extract files in the .zip file and comparing it to the creation timestamp of the .zip file. That actually proves nothing at all. I can have two PCs sitting next to each other and the can be minutes off on the correct time.

PC A is set at 10:00 and PC B is 10:30. If I use foreskinator's method and do a PKZIP of a file from PC B to PC A it will be zipped 10:00 before it was created at 10:15.

If I'm sitting in Moscow and use remote desktop to gain access to PC A, then everything I do will have the timestamp from PC A, not my PC in Moscow.

That's true as far as it goes, but there are ways in most cases to tell whether or not that is the case, and it's possible (likely) that these investigators had access to the UTC attributes of the timestamps of these files. And yes, these can be "manipulated" as well, but it would be incredible to think the "hacker" went to the trouble to do that, and then didn't bother to cover his ip tracks (which is the biggest "clue" leading "investigators" to "conclude" that it was "the Russians" behind this effort).

 

[Deleted member 21794]

The foreskinator stuff has already been shown to be full of flaws. How, exactly, did he determine the download speed. He would need two timestamps to do that and he doesn't say where they came from. The only thing I can deduce is that he is looking at the last modification time of one of the email extract files in the .zip file and comparing it to the creation timestamp of the .zip file. That actually proves nothing at all. I can have two PCs sitting next to each other and the can be minutes off on the correct time.

PC A is set at 10:00 and PC B is 10:30. If I use foreskinator's method and do a PKZIP of a file from PC B to PC A it will be zipped 10:00 before it was created at 10:15.

If I'm sitting in Moscow and use remote desktop to gain access to PC A, then everything I do will have the timestamp from PC A, not my PC in Moscow.

You lost me at foreskinator stuff. However, you should take up your objections with VIPS. They originated in 2003 to object to the intelligence used to make cause for the war in Iraq.

However, they've certainly provided more specifics than the FBI or other cretins within the US government.

 

[Boca]

The foreskinator stuff has already been shown to be full of flaws.

I knew I could find you here when I saw this thread's title. You remember don't you when you claimed to me to be the last word in Information Technology from way back in 1972 ( before the technology had a name) , At least I think you said 1972.

Anyway I thought I would add this to the discussion as reported by Patrick Lawrence of The Nation, one of the country's most liberal publications.

There's quite a bit more at the link for those who would like to know more, These are snippets for you...particularly the underlined names. I suppose you must know them

Now, the infamous hack of the Democratic National Committee, the cornerstone of the Russia hacking allegations, indeed the root which holds together the very underpinnings of the scandal, has been blown wide open by a new bombshell report by Patrick Lawrence of The Nation, one of the country's most liberal publications.

All those interviewed came in between 90 percent and 100 percent certain that the forensics prove out. I have already quoted Skip Folden’s answer: impossible based on the data. “The laws of physics don’t lie,” Ray McGovern volunteered at one point. “It’s QED, theorem demonstrated,” William Binney said in response to my question. “There’s no evidence out there to get me to change my mind.” When I asked Edward Loomis, a 90 percent man, about the 10 percent he held out, he replied, “I’ve looked at the work and it shows there was no Russian hack. But I didn’t do the work. That’s the 10 percent. I’m a scientist.”​

 

[Deleted member 21794]

I knew I could find you here when I saw this thread's title. You remember don't you when you claimed to me to be the last word in Information Technology from way back in 1972 ( before the technology had a name) , At least I think you said 1972.

Anyway I thought I would add this to the discussion as reported by Patrick Lawrence of The Nation, one of the country's most liberal publications.

There's quite a bit more at the link for those who would like to know more, These are snippets for you...particularly the underlined names. I suppose you must know them

Now, the infamous hack of the Democratic National Committee, the cornerstone of the Russia hacking allegations, indeed the root which holds together the very underpinnings of the scandal, has been blown wide open by a new bombshell report by Patrick Lawrence of The Nation, one of the country's most liberal publications.

All those interviewed came in between 90 percent and 100 percent certain that the forensics prove out. I have already quoted Skip Folden’s answer: impossible based on the data. “The laws of physics don’t lie,” Ray McGovern volunteered at one point. “It’s QED, theorem demonstrated,” William Binney said in response to my question. “There’s no evidence out there to get me to change my mind.” When I asked Edward Loomis, a 90 percent man, about the 10 percent he held out, he replied, “I’ve looked at the work and it shows there was no Russian hack. But I didn’t do the work. That’s the 10 percent. I’m a scientist.”​

Poor middleview... looks like he's going to have to accuse some pretty far left people of being in on the right wing conspiracy to deny Russia hacked anything.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Poor middleview... looks like he's going to have to accuse some pretty far left people of being in on the right wing conspiracy to deny Russia hacked anything.

Exactly. He thinks he has dispensed with forensicator's (who some believe is a high level FBI IT forensics expert) analysis but by my reading:

https://www.sans.org/reading-room/whitepapers/forensics/filesystem-timestamps-tick-36842

You can tell from the metadata whether the timestamp of the computer is synced with UTC (coordinated universal time) or not. Forensicator wouldn't be so ill informed as the be fooled by a computer clock time change. So I think it is safe to assume that the computer's clock in this case was synced to UTC (and MV's case is nothing but a red herring)...

 

[middleview]

I knew I could find you here when I saw this thread's title. You remember don't you when you claimed to me to be the last word in Information Technology from way back in 1972 ( before the technology had a name) , At least I think you said 1972.

Anyway I thought I would add this to the discussion as reported by Patrick Lawrence of The Nation, one of the country's most liberal publications.

There's quite a bit more at the link for those who would like to know more, These are snippets for you...particularly the underlined names. I suppose you must know them

Now, the infamous hack of the Democratic National Committee, the cornerstone of the Russia hacking allegations, indeed the root which holds together the very underpinnings of the scandal, has been blown wide open by a new bombshell report by Patrick Lawrence of The Nation, one of the country's most liberal publications.

All those interviewed came in between 90 percent and 100 percent certain that the forensics prove out. I have already quoted Skip Folden’s answer: impossible based on the data. “The laws of physics don’t lie,” Ray McGovern volunteered at one point. “It’s QED, theorem demonstrated,” William Binney said in response to my question. “There’s no evidence out there to get me to change my mind.” When I asked Edward Loomis, a 90 percent man, about the 10 percent he held out, he replied, “I’ve looked at the work and it shows there was no Russian hack. But I didn’t do the work. That’s the 10 percent. I’m a scientist.”​

You couldn't tell the truth if your life depended on it. Where is the post where I "claimed to me to be the last word in Information Technology from way back in 1972 ( before the technology had a name) , At least I think you said 1972."

I've already demonstrated that the timestamps that the forensicator claims shows the transport speed are not an indication of anything at all.

Binney quit working for the NSA in 2001...and so has no access to anything other than what you and I can see. He has been at war with the NSA since then...

 

[middleview]

Exactly. He thinks he has dispensed with forensicator's (who some believe is a high level FBI IT forensics expert) analysis but by my reading:

https://www.sans.org/reading-room/whitepapers/forensics/filesystem-timestamps-tick-36842

You can tell from the metadata whether the timestamp of the computer is synced with UTC (coordinated universal time) or not. Forensicator wouldn't be so ill informed as the be fooled by a computer clock time change. So I think it is safe to assume that the computer's clock in this case was synced to UTC (and MV's case is nothing but a red herring)...

Wow...how in hell can you tell from the metadata in the zip file if the system is synced to an outside clock? If it is not synced to an outside clock then the system clock is whatever someone set it as....and on my systems it is based on my wrist watch...and UTC is simply calculated by the local time on my PC.

If you notice, in section 6.1 you can cause your system to sync to TIME.WINDOWS.COM if you choose to do so...it is not a requirement. You can use REGEDIT to see your own settings. You cannot tell if the system is syncing to an outside source from the metadata from that .zip file.

Knowing how the file times may or <may not> be affected by the NTP server is often an overlooked area within digital forensics as most, but certainly not all, computers are utilizing the time.windows.com, 0x9 valuesto synchronize. As Hagen (2015) states, the NTP should be one of the first places to look before doing any type of forensic investigation as the touching and transferring of filesover the network, including the Internet, inherently depend on this clock for timestamps.

By the way...I taught OS internals for a computer manufacturer.

 

[Deleted member 21794]

You couldn't tell the truth if your life depended on it. Where is the post where I "claimed to me to be the last word in Information Technology from way back in 1972 ( before the technology had a name) , At least I think you said 1972."

I've already demonstrated that the timestamps that the forensicator claims shows the transport speed are not an indication of anything at all.

Binney quit working for the NSA in 2001...and so has no access to anything other than what you and I can see. He has been at war with the NSA since then...

Interesting. He quit the NSA in 2001 and has been at war with them ever since. Gee, I wonder what happened.

Let me guess: his gripes with Republicans are spot on, and those with Democrats are foolish. At least be honest and admit that is your position. Everyone already knows it.

 

[RickWA]

Interesting. He quit the NSA in 2001 and has been at war with them ever since. Gee, I wonder what happened.

Let me guess: his gripes with Republicans are spot on, and those with Democrats are foolish. At least be honest and admit that is your position. Everyone already knows it.

In paid hack buttboy fashion, middleview went straight to the slobbering "foreskinator" garbage. He is every bit the integrity-bereft, unserious hack that the other couple of toadies are in this forum. It's time to disregard their input. All they do is obfuscate on behalf of ALL Democrat Party causes right down the line.

Paid operatives.

 

[Queen Titania]

The foreskinator stuff has already been shown to be full of flaws. How, exactly, did he determine the download speed. He would need two timestamps to do that and he doesn't say where they came from. The only thing I can deduce is that he is looking at the last modification time of one of the email extract files in the .zip file and comparing it to the creation timestamp of the .zip file. That actually proves nothing at all. I can have two PCs sitting next to each other and the can be minutes off on the correct time.

PC A is set at 10:00 and PC B is 10:30. If I use foreskinator's method and do a PKZIP of a file from PC B to PC A it will be zipped 10:00 before it was created at 10:15.

If I'm sitting in Moscow and use remote desktop to gain access to PC A, then everything I do will have the timestamp from PC A, not my PC in Moscow.

Wtf is a foreskinator?

 

[Drumcollie]

Yep. You repelled lefty. Radioactive.

It's almost like you offered a job or something.

It's genius.

 

[Drumcollie]

Wtf is a foreskinator?

It's what Bill Clintloin uses now he too old to just get it....You know...When he is going after other women.

 

[Queen Titania]

It's what Bill Clintloin uses now he too old to just get it....You know...When he is going after other women.

The mind boggles - ohhh no best not even try to think about it! Yuk

 

[RickWA]

Wtf is a foreskinator?

Apparently, some reference to MV's dietary habits.

 

[middleview]

Wtf is a foreskinator?

I'm thinkin he's a rabbi....AKA Forensicator