Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, August 11, 2017

Former NSA experts say it wasn't a hack at all, but a leak -- an inside job by someone with access to the DNC's system.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

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.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"It indicated that the highest average ISP speeds of first-half 2016 were achieved by Xfinity and Cox Communications."

"Highest average."
What does that mean?

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-11 11:43 PM | Reply

#2

Really? You don't understand what "highest average ISP speeds" means? Is "highest batting average" also befuddling you?

#4 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-08-11 11:48 PM | Reply

What about "time stamps"? Is that too tricky for you?

#5 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2017-08-11 11:50 PM | Reply

#2 How can you be that thick headed? "Peak speeds at higher rates were recorded intermittently but still did not reach the required 22.7 megabytes per second." And "The stamps recording the download indicate that it occurred in the Eastern Daylight Time Zone at approximately 6:45 pm. This confirms that the person entering the DNC system was working somewhere on the East Coast of the United States."

#6 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-11 11:52 PM | Reply

I saw this earlier today.

Interesting theory.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-08-12 12:08 AM | Reply

(I figured out what it means.)

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-12 12:24 AM | Reply

(That you backed the wrong candidate when we could have had Bernie?)

#12 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 12:27 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC's server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second."

Are they sure the data weren't compressed and encrypted before being sent?

Asking for a comrade.

By the way, thumb drive sounds reasonable. In fact, seeding a target site with thumb drives with a virus is so cliche it's a tv trope now.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-12 12:36 AM | Reply

"It indicated that the highest average ISP speeds of first-half 2016 were achieved by Xfinity and Cox Communications."

Unless the DNC had these for their ISP, what is the relevance of those other carriers average highest speeds?

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-12 12:39 AM | Reply

All that is dealt with in the article. These are VIPS secure documents, and every time they are read the meta-data changes. It took 87 seconds to transfer a copy of the orginals, and the fastest peak speeds of the fastest networks was still slower than the 87 second transfer. And Guccifer 2.0 was in Romania at the time.

Really, you should read the article.

#15 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 12:44 AM | Reply

And maybe I should put the word peak in caps, because networks at the couldn't achieve 22.7 Mbp/s. That's the speed of a USB-2 thumb drive.

#16 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 12:47 AM | Reply

*at the time those where the fastest networks. And probably still are.

#17 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 12:48 AM | Reply

And there's even more in the article than what I point out in #1.

#19 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 01:07 AM | Reply

"every time they are read the meta-data changes."

I'm so sure!

"It took 87 seconds to transfer a copy of the orginals"

A copy? Was it compressed and encrypted?

In the interest of brevity, it was Marc Rich, right?

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-12 01:30 AM | Reply

You know what? The NSA guy knows how to read meta-data, and if they where sent through a compression algorithm, it would have the read and write times of the files being opened and closed in there.The files where first opened at 6:45 pm on East Coast, and the last file was written 87 seconds later. And remember, that twice the reliable speed of the fastest networks at the time. And the claim is they where sent to Romania or Russia. That means he used a single copy command to copy *.* the entire directory to a thumb drive, which speed it does match.

And how do you explain the documents obtained from Guccifer 2.0 being fake? That's in the article too - they where cut and pasted.

And Seymour Hersh believes it was Seth Rich, but it could have been any Bernie Bro.

#21 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 01:43 AM | Reply

Also, the data was written on the East Coast, according to the timestamps. That's in #1. That means the whole copy, the reads and the write operations, had to take place on the East Coast. The where not written in Romania or Russia or anywhere else - they went into a thumb drive on the East Coast.

#22 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 02:33 AM | Reply

It's what I've been saying for 5 months.

#23 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-08-12 02:58 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Like WMD in Iraq, I knew it the Trump Russia Collusion conspiracy Theory was fake, because have any evidence. Also, if 2 GIG was somehow transferred from the DNC headquarters to Russia, I'm pretty sure the NSA would have known, since all meta-data of data sent to Russia is recorded, and probably the contents as well.

#24 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 03:05 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Damn it's been a long night. *because they didn't provide any evidence. Just accusations based on some malware from a phishing operation, and malware doesn't seek out your secure e-mail directory and download, it's not smart enough. Malware doesn't work like that. And they never identified how they determined it was Russian.

Also, I read an Isreali said that CrowdStrike said the malware they found was almost entirely written in English with a hand full of cut&pasted Russian lines of code. That doesn't sound like a Russian operation, it sounds like a random phishing attack.

#25 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 03:15 AM | Reply

I'm not sure what the NSA's true capabilities are, but I can't a file transfer that large from the DNC headquarters to Russia going unnoticed. I thought we had Russia under total electronic surveillance, though.

#26 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 03:18 AM | Reply

According to a January 2017 ICA report:

"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."

icontherecord.tumblr.com

It seems like Russian hackers would have taken the DNC data long before July 5, 2016 if they got into the system in July 2015. It also seems like they may not have taken the data out all at one time if they were in they system for nearly a year.

#27 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-12 06:31 AM | Reply

"And Seymour Hersh believes it was Seth Rich, but it could have been any Bernie Bro."

Some have said it could have been the Pakistani brothers who worked for the DNC and DWS, and Seth Rich found out about that, which is why he was murdered. Conspiracy theories abound. We won't know until we know, but I think it is possible folks are conflating more than one breach.

#28 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-12 06:37 AM | Reply

#27 Read the time-line in the article. Here:

On June 12 last year, Julian Assange announced that WikiLeaks had and would publish documents pertinent to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
On June 14, CrowdStrike, a cyber-security firm hired by the DNC, announced, without providing evidence, that it had found malware on DNC servers and had evidence that Russians were responsible for planting it.
On June 15, Guccifer 2.0 first appeared, took responsibility for the "hack" reported on June 14 and claimed to be a WikiLeaks source. It then posted the adulterated documents just described.
On July 5, Guccifer again claimed he had remotely hacked DNC servers, and the operation was instantly described as another intrusion attributable to Russia. Virtually no media questioned this account.

It does not require too much thought to read into this sequence. With his June 12 announcement, Assange effectively put the DNC on notice that it had a little time, probably not much, to act preemptively against the imminent publication of damaging documents.

And Guccifer 2.0 and the Russian where born.

#29 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 06:52 AM | Reply

*And Guccifer 2.0 and the Russian conspiracy theory where born.

#30 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 06:54 AM | Reply

"The president's ability to conduct foreign policy, notably but not only with regard to Russia, is now crippled. Forced into a corner and having no choice, Trump just signed legislation imposing severe new sanctions on Russia and European companies working with it on pipeline projects vital to Russia's energy sector. Striking this close to the core of another nation's economy is customarily considered an act of war, we must not forget. "

Oh blow it out your ass! Russia invaded and annexed part of Ukraine. What don't you understand about that? If they can do it there they can do it anywhere. Our sanctions are really the least of the consequences Russia should feel.

#31 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-12 06:57 AM | Reply

#28 Doesn't buy the murder theory, he thinks Seth Rich died in a botched robbery, but was the leaker. He said he got the information from a high level FBI source.

I always though it a Bernie Bro, though.

#32 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 06:58 AM | Reply

#31 I think the Russian Conspiracy theory was cooked by Hillary and the DNC, and she had powerful deep state allies in the State Department and intelligence. Remember, only 3 intelligence agencies (17 was a bald faced lie, as you now know) have "moderate confidence", that is, no proof, that it was the Russians because of what CrowdStrike told them. The weren't even given access to the servers to do proper forensics. So ultimately, we have CrowsStrikes word on it.

#33 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 07:04 AM | Reply

WikiLeaks Moves Two Servers to Russia

Buildin' on the work of Louise Mensch, Tea Pain was able to confirm two of WikiLeaks servers are now hosted inside the Russian Federation.

teapainusa.wordpress.com

He says Mensch's work, but I think he means this article published on her website:

Wikileaks is Connected to Russia – Despite Their Claims

By Laurelai Bailey

patribotics.blog

Can't vouch for the validity of any of this work. Do know Tea Pain claims to have been contacted by Congressional committees to help brief them on what questions to ask during interviews/hearings with regard to the Alpha Bank/Spectrum Health server connection. Don't know if the DNC hack will be debunked, and I don't think we know enough to say it will be at this time. Even if it should be though, from what I can tell the Russian meddling in the election goes way beyond the DNC and Podesta hack subsequent leaks.

#34 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-12 07:05 AM | Reply

That whole wordpress article sounds like disinformation, and it doesn't even make sense. Since when did the Russians get our voter roles, and since they don't contain our e-mail addresses (have you ever registered to vote? They don't ask you your e-mail address) the whole Tea Pain conspiracy falls apart.

#35 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 07:14 AM | Reply

"Remember, only 3 intelligence agencies (17 was a bald faced lie, as you now know) have "moderate confidence", that is, no proof, that it was the Russians because of what CrowdStrike told them. The weren't even given access to the servers to do proper forensics. So ultimately, we have CrowsStrikes word on it."

No, it wasn't a bald faced lie, as you know. Did the folks in the article you link to have access to the DNC server, or do we just have to take their word for it? Why should we trust them anymore or less than CrowdStrike and the US IC?

#36 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-12 07:15 AM | Reply

Hmmm. They seem to be saying the Russians have the name and address of everybody in the US by hacking the voter rolls, but then used that to get our e-mails from DeVos? Uh huh.

To what end?

#37 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 07:16 AM | Reply

Um, even the Democrats have admitted it was only three intelligence agencies, not 17. They got caught red-handed with that one. I'll find a good article for on it.

#38 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 07:18 AM | Reply

Also, my insurance company doesn't have my e-mail. Does yours?

#39 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 07:19 AM | Reply

"Since when did the Russians get our voter roles, and since they don't contain our e-mail addresses (have you ever registered to vote? They don't ask you your e-mail address) the whole Tea Pain conspiracy falls apart."

Since they hacked a number of state voter data bases. The exact number has not been released. The Trump campaign got the email addresses from facebook, which is also were the micro-targeting of voters occurred.

#40 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-12 07:20 AM | Reply

Okay, the article about the lie is in the corrections page of the NY Times. from June 29 of 2017.

"A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump's deflections and denials about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year's presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community."

Other sources said 3, not 4.

#41 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 07:23 AM | Reply

#40 Considering what else has been said, how do we even know that's true?

#43 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 07:28 AM | Reply

"Um, even the Democrats have admitted it was only three intelligence agencies, not 17. They got caught red-handed with that one. I'll find a good article for on it."

Four agencies did the work but 17 signed off on it:

17 intelligence organizations or 4? Either way, Russia conclusion still valid

www.politifact.com

Trump Misleads on Russian Meddling: Why 17 Intelligence Agencies Don't Need to Agree

www.nytimes.com

Trump and you are playing semantic games.

#44 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-12 07:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Also, did you ever run into any of these Russian Facebook trolls, or is that smoke and mirrors too? Or was is it supposed to only be people DeVos had data on? Isn't that too convenient? It really sounds like another conspiracy theory. Which I guess is why it never made it off wordpress.

#45 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 07:34 AM | Reply

#44 Um, but you do recognize that what Hillary said was a lie, right? It was three intelligence agencies and one office, being briefed by CrowdStrike.

#46 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 07:38 AM | Reply

I'm sorry but I will forever discount any threat that features Heliumrat, he is a conspiracy theory nut and I just can't take anything he says seriously. Every point he makes in his argumenets can be easily googled and disproven, he is crazy! Gal has much more patience than I do and I applaud her for it.

#47 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-12 07:42 AM | Reply

And where is the evidence that the Malware was Russian? Because there isn't any. Podesta fell for an ordinary, random phishing attack on his AOL account.

#48 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 07:43 AM | Reply

#47 You actually buy into that wordpress nonsense?

#49 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 07:44 AM | Reply

"And where is the evidence that the Malware was Russian? Because there isn't any. Podesta fell for an ordinary, random phishing attack on his AOL account."

Sensible people don't make wild accusations, instead they wait for Mueller's report. In the mean time don't make wild, unsubstantiated accusations.

#50 | Posted by danni at 2017-08-12 07:46 AM | Reply

And I'm sorry, but RussiaGate makes as much sense to me as the WMD's in Iraq story.

#51 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 07:47 AM | Reply

The fact that the Trump campaign used micro-targeting on facebook and consider it the secret to their success is not a secret:

At first Kushner dabbled, engaging in what amounted to a beta test using Trump merchandise. "I called somebody who works for one of the technology companies that I work with, and I had them give me a tutorial on how to use Facebook micro-targeting," Kushner says. Synched with Trump's blunt, simple messaging, it worked.

www.forbes.com

#52 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-12 07:48 AM | Reply

Why was the NSA and FBI not given access to the DNC servers? That's the only thing that would have proven Hillary's allegations, not CrowdStrike and some phishing software. And where is the data trail of the 2 gigs through the NSA from the DNC headquarters to Russia? The knew all about a few Russian pings to a bank....

#53 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 07:51 AM | Reply

"Also, my insurance company doesn't have my e-mail. Does yours?"

Insurance company, no, but many doctors offices, clinics, hospitals, etc. do.

#54 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-12 07:51 AM | Reply

So your saying Trump gave every-bodies e-mail address to the Russians for micro-targeting? Because he micro-targeted people by e-mail? And he got those e-mail addresses from DeVos? That's too far fetched for me. But I'll read your Forbes article.

#55 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 07:55 AM | Reply

Kushner is the one who take credit for the facebook micro-targeting:

Below are the never-before-published quotes from Kushner, on the Trump campaign and its data strategy.

We found that Facebook and digital targeting were the most effective ways to reach the audiences. After the primary, we started ramping up because we knew that doing a national campaign is different than doing a primary campaign. That was when we formalized the system because we had to ramp up for digital fundraising. We brought in Cambridge Analytica. I called some of my friends from Silicon Valley who were some of the best digital marketers in the world. And I asked them how to scale this stuff. Doing it state by state is not that hard. But scaling is a very, very hard thing. They gave me a lot of their subcontractors and I built in Austin a data hub that would complement the RNC's data hub. We had about 100 people in that office, which nobody knew about, until towards the end. We used that as the nerve center that drove a lot of the deployment of our ground game resources.

www.forbes.com

#56 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-12 07:55 AM | Reply

Nope, the article only mentions the e-mail in one place, when it says Trump barely uses his.

#57 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 07:59 AM | Reply

Oh, that quote says he got the data from the RNC's database, not DeVos. The DNC has my e-mail because I wrote a letter to them in support of Obama a long time ago. The used it to hit me for donations.

#58 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 08:01 AM | Reply

So Forbes blows the wordpress conspiracy out of the water. Trumps micro-messaging came from the RNC database, not DeVos. DeVos is never mentioned by Forbes.

#59 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 08:05 AM | Reply

Your first article only mentions the word e-mail in place, talking about Trumps, and the second says his targeting data comes from the RNC.

#60 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 08:05 AM | Reply

*in one place

#61 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 08:06 AM | Reply

The theory is they got the DNC database from Russia who stole it from the DNC.

#62 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-12 08:09 AM | Reply

Did someone say conspiracy theory:

Alfa Bank, Trump Tower and a Social Media Impeachment

patribotics.blog

#63 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-12 08:11 AM | Reply

"Your first article only mentions the word e-mail in place, talking about Trumps, and the second says his targeting data comes from the RNC."

It would depend on who they were targeting. If targeting Republicans, then, yes, the RNC.

#64 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-12 08:14 AM | Reply

I found your second Forbes quote and that's all there is about e-mail. It doesn't mention DeVos at all. Or that Trump had an a source of e-mail addresses outside of the RNC's, other than his private donors and well-wishers, to be sure.

#65 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 08:15 AM | Reply

"Sensible people don't make wild accusations, instead they wait for Mueller's report. In the mean time don't make wild, unsubstantiated accusations."

But wild, unsubstantiated accusations are so fun! Yeah, got to wait for Mueller's report. Don't know how helpful any of the Congressional committees' reports will be.

#66 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-12 08:17 AM | Reply

All Forbes seems to be saying is that it was Kushners idea to go from Trumps private donor list to the whole RNC donor list, and they needed to scale up. Then they micro-targeted Republicans. Not people on DeVos's insurance list.

#67 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 08:19 AM | Reply

Regarding the hacked state voter rolls:

Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security

www.dhs.gov

#68 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-12 08:21 AM | Reply

Alfa Bank, Trump Tower and a Social Media Impeachment

If the NSA knew about a few Russian pings on a bank, why didn't they know data flowed from the DNC Headquarters to Russia? Russia is under total electronic surveillance, right? But I'll read your article.

#69 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 08:22 AM | Reply

Yeah, the Alfa bank conspiracy falls apart because no data was ever sent from Alpha bank. It just received a few pings. That's why this guy's theory also didn't make the news.

Now let me read your last article.

#70 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 08:27 AM | Reply

Email was only one facet of a multi-pronged approach:

In the report, Steele spoke of an "established operational liaison between the TRUMP team and the Kremlin ... an intelligence exchange had been running between them for at least 8 years."

Members of the Obama administration believe, based on analysis they saw from the intelligence community, that the information exchange claimed by Steele continued into the election.

"This is a three-headed operation," said one former official, setting out the case, based on the intelligence: Firstly, hackers steal damaging emails from senior Democrats. Secondly, the stories based on this hacked information appear on Twitter and Facebook, posted by thousands of automated "bots", then on Russia's English-language outlets, RT and Sputnik, then right-wing US "news" sites such as Infowars and Breitbart, then Fox and the mainstream media. Thirdly, Russia downloads the online voter rolls.

The voter rolls are said to fit into this because of "microtargeting". Using email, Facebook and Twitter, political advertising can be tailored very precisely: individual messaging for individual voters.

"You are stealing the stuff and pushing it back into the US body politic," said the former official, "you know where to target that stuff when you're pushing it back."
This would take co-operation with the Trump campaign, it is claimed.

www.bbc.com

#71 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-12 08:28 AM | Reply

Release Date:
October 7, 2016

But I can't find where it says Russia hacked our voting machines. The statement never mentions voting machines once.... how did you get voting machines out of that?

#72 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 08:33 AM | Reply

"But I can't find where it says Russia hacked our voting machines. The statement never mentions voting machines once.... how did you get voting machines out of that?"

Not voting machines. State voter data bases.

#73 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-12 08:38 AM | Reply

It doesn't mention state voter databases either. And the BBC story is wild speculation based on the Steele "Trump dossier", which even the BBC says is really dodgy right up front.

#74 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 08:41 AM | Reply

From your NSA statement: The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.

Really, so it wasn't Trump selling e-mails from DeVos it was Russia stealing everyone's data, and putting it on DCLeaks and Wikileaks? And not generic hackers? It doesn't say how they came to that conclusion either. And why would the Russian government put the e-mails on Wikileaks and DCLeaks?

#75 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 08:52 AM | Reply

"However, we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government." the NSA statement says. Seriously.

#76 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 08:54 AM | Reply

Russia hacked voting systems in 39 states before the 2016 presidential election

Voter data wasn't all the information the hackers were after, though. In a different, unidentified US state, the Russians were able to get information from a campaign finance database, which would give them insight into the financial connections between certain voters and candidates.

www.vox.com

#77 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-12 08:58 AM | Reply

All I can find about "some states voting infrastructure" is it was probed from a point in Russia the NSA says is a single company. But never says hacked. Just scanned and probed. In the next sentence it says that hacking them would be extremely difficult (so it found no evidence of a successful intrusion).

#78 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 08:59 AM | Reply

You are conflating two types of emails: emails that were hacked and emails that were used to help identify and micro-target voters:

"Firstly, hackers steal damaging emails from senior Democrats."

and:

"The voter rolls are said to fit into this because of 'microtargeting'. Using email, Facebook and Twitter, political advertising can be tailored very precisely: individual messaging for individual voters."

#79 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-12 09:03 AM | Reply

#78 Again, you are conflating two different things:

Scanned and probed aka hacked voter rolls, yes.

Hacked voting machines totals/results, no.

#80 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-12 09:06 AM | Reply

The Vox story sounds like hackers looking for SSN's and stuff. Not the Russian government. And the NSA statement says they can't show it was Russian hackers at all. And also, this is the first I've heard of successful penetration of voter databases. The NSA statement doesn't mention it either. How much do you trust Vox? Or is this just another rumor, which based it's hacking report off what an Illinois subcontractor claimed he saw?

#81 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 09:10 AM | Reply

I'm sorry, but if the Vox story is true it doesn't even point to the Russians, it points to someone looking for names, addresses, and partial SSN's (ordinary hackers) and their where no e-mail addresses in those voter roll computers.

So the Russians don't have our e-mails at all, do they?

#82 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 09:14 AM | Reply

Where did the legend that Russia has our e-mails come from again? Oh yeah, some dude that was never taken seriously by the media had a theory.

#83 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 09:16 AM | Reply

Hillary lost the EC.

Trump won the election.

There was no Russian meddling.

There was not Trump/Russia collusion.

Seth Rich stole the DNC data and gave to WikiLeaks, for which he was murdered.

Trump, who has criticized members of his own party but never Putin, loves Putin because they are both billionaires and political soul mates.

End of story.

#84 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-12 09:20 AM | Reply

Poor libbies. Anyone with even a modest understanding of computing knew the Russia hacking story didn't make much sense. But the Left clung to anything they could, like a drowning man in a storm. And now the Nation, of all things, blows up their little piece of driftwood.

#85 | Posted by WhiteDevil at 2017-08-12 09:20 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Seth Rich may have been the DNC leaker, that's what Seymour Hersh says his FBI informant told him. I'm not sure I believe him. And even Seymour Hersh says he doesn't believe Seth Rich was murdered at all, that it was just a botched robbery that was suspiciously timed.

It could have been any Bernie Bro if you ask me, as long he lived on the East Coast and had access to the computer at 6:45.

#86 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 09:24 AM | Reply

"Trump, who has criticized members of his own party but never Putin, loves Putin because they are both billionaires and political soul mates."

Trump only said he thought he could do business with Putin. That doesn't make him Pooty-poot to Trump.

#87 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 09:27 AM | Reply

"Yeah, the Alfa bank conspiracy falls apart because no data was ever sent from Alpha bank. It just received a few pings."

Really?

Debunking Trump Tower's Alfa Bank Server Scandal "Explanation"

New Analysis Supports Database Replication Theory Between Trump Tower and Alfa Bank

Data Patterns Reveal Trump Tower/Spectrum Health Ran a "Stealth Data Machine" With Russia

teapainusa.wordpress.com

You're right about his theories not making the news. We haven't heard much about the Alpha Bank/Trump Tower/Spectrum Health server at all. But you are probably right: just a series of very weird coincidences that don't amount to anything.

#88 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-12 09:35 AM | Reply

Correction:

Someone on the inside (Seth Rich, Bernie Bro, Pakistani hacker, Russian mole) stole the DNC data and gave to WikiLeaks.

#89 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-12 09:37 AM | Reply

"Building on the data analysis by @Conspirator0 on Twitter" is what Tea Pain is doing. Personally, I wouldn't trust the data analysis of a "@Conspirator0 on Twitter", and I doubt anyone else other than Tea Pain does either.

How did you find this guy?

#90 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 09:42 AM | Reply

A History of Donald Trump's Bromance With Vladimir Putin
To Russia with love -- and lots of tweets

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump

Do you think Putin will be going to The Miss Universe Pageant in November in Moscow - if so, will he become my new best friend?

11:17 PM - Jun 18, 2013

March 2014: At the Conservative Political Action Conference, Trump boasts, "I was in Moscow a couple of months ago, I own the Miss Universe Pageant and they treated me so great. Putin even sent me a present, a beautiful present."

www.motherjones.com

#91 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-12 09:46 AM | Reply

Not to worry about the Alpha/Trump/Spectrum servers. I'm sure you are right: it was just a few pings No data was transferred.

#92 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-12 09:54 AM | Reply

"Trump only said he thought he could do business with Putin. That doesn't make him Pooty-poot to Trump."

Of course, you are right again.

#93 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-12 09:55 AM | Reply

In 2013, did anyone know Trump was going to run in 2016? So he's guilty of staging a beauty pageant in Moscow. And he sounds like regular old Trump bragging that Putin sent him a present.

That doesn't really add anything to the conspiracy at all.

#94 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 09:55 AM | Reply

Correction: "a beautiful present" :)

#95 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-12 09:57 AM | Reply

Look, it all sounds horribly contrived to me. Know we know the data was downloaded onto a thumb drive in 87 seconds, and didn't use the internet to Guccifer 2.0 at all. The transfer began and ended on the East Coast. The NSA said it couldn't confirm that Russians where behind theft of voter ID's. And it really sounds like ordinary hackers would have done that for fraud use.

And the Tea Pain articles where just bad conspiracy stuff.

#96 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 10:02 AM | Reply

I stand by what I said in #27:

According to a January 2017 ICA report:

"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."

It seems like Russian hackers would have taken the DNC data long before July 5, 2016 if they got into the system in July 2015. It also seems like they may not have taken the data out all at one time if they were in they system for nearly a year.

and #34:

Don't know if the DNC hack will be debunked, and I don't think we know enough to say it will be at this time. Even if it should be though, from what I can tell the Russian meddling in the election goes way beyond the DNC and Podesta hack subsequent leaks.

and what Danni said about waiting for Mueller's report.

#98 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-12 10:11 AM | Reply

Have a nice day, HRat. Never really interacted much with you before. It was fun.

#99 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-12 10:13 AM | Reply

"from what I can tell the Russian meddling in the election goes way beyond the DNC and Podesta hack subsequent leaks."

And the NSA says it has no evidence of that in the NSA statement you linked to. "However, we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Government." the NSA statement says. Seriously.

#100 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2017-08-12 10:15 AM | Reply

#100 Not to the Russian government, per se:

"For instance, the US intelligence agencies said last October that the voter rolls had been "scanned and probed" from a server in Russia.

But the Russian government was never shown to have been responsible."

So, you think there's some freelancing hacker in Russia who is working without Putin's consent? Seems more likely working with his consent in order to provide plausible deniability for the Kremlin. Also, that article is from March, 2017. Maybe they know more now.

#102 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-12 10:51 AM | Reply

Who are these guys:

"Folden is effectively the VIPS group's liaison to Forensicator, Adam Carter, and other investigators, but neither Folden nor anyone else knows the identity of either Forensicator or Adam Carter. This bears brief explanation.

The Forensicator's July 9 document indicates he lives in the Pacific Time Zone, which puts him on the West Coast. His notes describing his investigative procedures support this. But little else is known of him. Adam Carter, in turn, is located in England, but the name is a coy pseudonym: It derives from a character in a BBC espionage series called ------. It is protocol in this community, Elizabeth Vos told me in a telephone conversation this week, to respect this degree of anonymity."

Will they be willing to testify before Congress and to Mueller and the FBI? Seems like they might need to. We're in ------ world now. I'll see your Chris Steele and raise you an Adam Carter.

#103 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2017-08-12 11:22 AM | Reply

The Nation Article About the DNC Hack Is Too Incoherent to Even Debunk
By Brian Feldman NY Mag

But this article is neither conclusive proof nor strong evidence. It's the extremely long-winded product of a crank, and it's been getting attention only because it appears in a respected left-wing publication like The Nation. Anyone hoping to read it for careful reporting and clear explanation is going to come away disappointed, however.

If you want to get to the actual claims being made, you'll have to skip the first 1,000 or so words, which mostly consist of breathtakingly elaborate throat-clearing.

("[H]ouses built on sand and made of cards are bound to collapse, and there can be no surprise that the one resting atop the ‘hack theory,' as we can call the prevailing wisdom on the DNC events, appears to be in the process of doing so.")

About halfway through, you get to the crux of the article: A report, made by an anonymous analyst calling himself "Forensicator," on the "metadata" of "locked files" leaked by the hacker Guccifer 2.0.

This should, already, set off alarm bells: An anonymous analyst is claiming to have analyzed the "metadata" of "locked files" that only this analyst had access to?

The crux of the whole thing -- the opening argument -- rests on the fact that, according to "metadata," the data was transferred at about 22 megabytes per second, which Lawrence and Forensicator claim is much too fast to have been undertaken over an internet connection.

(Most connection speeds are measured at megabits per second, not megabytes; 22 megabytes per second is 176 megabits per second.) Most households don't get internet speeds that high, but enterprise operations, like the DNC -- or, uh, the FSB -- would have access to a higher but certainly not unattainable speed like that.

If that's your strongest evidence, your argument is already in trouble.

But the real problem isn't that there's a bizarre claim about internet speed that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It's that Lawrence is writing in techno-gibberish that falls apart under even the slightest scrutiny.

You could try to go on, but to what end? As an example: Lawrence writes that "researchers penetrated what Folden calls Guccifer's top layer of metadata and analyzed what was in the layers beneath."

What on earth is that supposed to mean? We don't know what "metadata" we're talking about, or why it comes in "layers," and all I'm left with is the distinct impression that Lawrence doesn't either.

Even if you wanted to take this seriously enough to engage with, you can't, because it only intermittently makes sense. There may be evidence out there, somewhere, that a vast conspiracy theory has taken place to cover up a leak and blame Russia. But it's going to need to be at least comprehensible.

excerpts more at the link

nymag.com

Much ado about nada.

#105 | Posted by Corky at 2017-08-12 11:39 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"We observe that the last modified times are clustered together in a 14 minute time period on 2016-07-05. If the DNC files were copied in the usual way to a computer running a Windows operating system (e.g., using drag-and-drop in the File Explorer) the last modified times would typically not change (from the original) -- the create time would change instead (to the time of the copy)."

So then, this wasn't as simple as someone walking up with a thumb drive and dragging and dropping a bunch of files onto it.

#106 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-08-12 11:49 AM | Reply

The Nation Article About the DNC Hack Is Too Incoherent to Even Debunk

I thought the same thing. The Nation embarrassed itself by running this technically illiterate nonsense.

#107 | Posted by rcade at 2017-08-12 01:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Posted by HeliumRat

You seem to be wasting an inordinate amount of defending this hogwash article.

#108 | Posted by Angrydad at 2017-08-12 01:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What on earth is that supposed to mean? We don't know what "metadata" we're talking about, or why it comes in "layers," and all I'm left with is the distinct impression that Lawrence doesn't either.

Even if you wanted to take this seriously enough to engage with, you can't, because it only intermittently makes sense. There may be evidence out there, somewhere, that a vast conspiracy theory has taken place to cover up a leak and blame Russia. But it's going to need to be at least comprehensible.

That's what I thought at first, but showed the article to my nephew, who works in forensic data support for a consulting firm in Mountain View and he said it totally made sense to him. He started talking about "packets" and "transfer rates" and that's when I tuned out.

#109 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2017-08-12 02:16 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort