Mueller probing Russia contacts at Republican convention

You assume Crowdstike's report is unimpeachable. Just like the FBI assumed Crowdstrike's report was unimpeachable. Just like, for example, the moron Adam Schiff thought the Crowdstrike report was unimpeachable.

Guess the world is flat if one asks the flat earther. Guess too much CO2 in the atmosphere causes imminent climate change catastrophe if one asks someone biased on the subject. Guess there is no god if one asks the atheist. Guess a leader like the tyrant Trudeau cares about Canadian public safety by proposing to ban all guns not registered with the Canadian government while Trudeau legalizes Fentanyl.

 

Non sequitur, rabbit hole.

 

The non sequitur is that the Crowdstrike report is unimpeachable.

 

He doesn't understand that forensic evidence is unimpeachable. But then, people who refuse to accept the truth can't be made to do so.

“With regards to our investigation of the DNC hack in 2016, we provided all forensic evidence and analysis to the FBI,” the firm said in an emailed statement to The Associated Press. “As we’ve stated before, we stand by our findings and conclusions that have been fully supported by the US intelligence community.”
https://apnews.com/article/archive-fact-checking-7657130451

 

If you can't make your case, that means your case has been debunked.

Clearly you attempted to make an argument about something you know nothing about. Which is fine... but then you have to do research before you try to do that. Read my sig!

One last time: NOBODY can't TOUCH a virtual server. This is why they're called "virtual"

 

Not even crowdstrike according to you. How silly to think the FBI dare try either..

it was the Democratic National Committee computer network,

per the crowdstrike website "We have never had physical possession of the DNC servers."

https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

 

You're saying that Crowdstrike never had sole possession of the servers...Meaning Crowdstrike never had the ability to investigate anything they wanted to investigate concerning the alleged DNC email hack...Meaning the DNC offered data for Crowdstrike to investigate that only the DNC wanted Crowdstrike to investigate.

Me thinks that the DNC didn't want to, for example, reveal from their servers how they forced Bernie Sanders out as possible presidential hopeful in 2016 (and 2020 if the hack occurred in 2020). Surely, the DNC didn't offer that data from their servers for Crowdstrike to investigate, for example.

 

The only silly thing here is you not understanding what a virtual server is. Which many people don't. But you have had ample time to investigate before continuing to make absurd statements like these.

Thanks for playing.

 

President Trump’s alternate reality on Ukraine

“There was a server — the DNC server — that never went to the FBI. The FBI didn’t take it. It was taken by somebody that, I guess, it’s CrowdStrike — that’s what I’ve heard. And referring to that, that’s not for an election that’s going into the future, that’s for a past election that was a catastrophe.” (Interview with Sean Hannity of Fox News, Oct. 21)

Trump is fixated on the idea that Ukrainians might have hacked the Democratic National Committee’s network in 2016 and framed Russia for the cyber intrusion.

It’s a debunked conspiracy theory that Trump’s own advisers have dismissed, flying in the face of detailed assessments from the U.S. intelligence community, special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and the congressional committees that have investigated Russia’s election interference.

The Internet security firm CrowdStrike, based in California, first investigated the DNC hack in June 2016 and traced it to two groups of hackers that “engage in extensive political and economic espionage for the benefit of the government of the Russian Federation and are believed to be closely linked to the Russian government’s powerful and highly capable intelligence services.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/29/president-trumps-alternative-reality-ukraine/

Trump's Ukraine Server Delusion Is Spreading
Even secretary of state Mike Pompeo has given credence to Trump's demonstrably wrong theory that Ukraine hacked the DNC.
https://www.wired.com/story/trump-ukraine-server-delusion-spreading/

 

Please…. Explain what this virtual server means to you and why it is pertinent to the DNC hack.

 

Because the DNC server in question was a virtual server. It was in a Datacenter, and this means it wasn't a physical server. It was MANY physical servers. And these servers are SHARED. Which means other clients, besides the DNC, were also using the same physical servers to host THEIR virtual servers. So taking them down for days or weeks... just to make double triple sure that the emails had been exfiltrated would have cost... not millions, but billions of dollars.

To analyze a virtual server hosted in a datacenter, it makes no difference if you analyze it in the original machines, which are dozens of machines, as I said, and would come at a cost of billions of dollars to the datacenter and to their clients) or with a copy. They are just bits and bytes.

But the most relevant part here is WHO CARES? The server was hacked. And this is proven by the fact that they were in the hands of WikiLeaks.

Whether they were exfiltrated or not is ONLY relevant to technical people. And the evidence that they were is more than enough for any technical purpose. Of course, you have to be careful to say that when you are under oath. If they ask you, you have to explain all the caveats.

 

what part from their own website do you not understand
per the crowdstrike website "We have never had physical possession of the DNC servers."
https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/

Your virtualizing servers involves converting one physical server into multiple virtual machines. It exists transparently to users as a partitioned space inside a physical server. A "hypervisor" program runs directly on the server hardware, so each virtual server can then run its own OS on top of the hypervisor. A virtual server infrastructure needs only one hardware server. A hypervisor creates software-based counterparts of the resources (e.g., RAM) of the underlying hardware.

Please tell us if you think there are servers you can literally put your hands on.

The FBI was handed what the Crowdstrike wanted them to have in a draft...
FBI requested DNC servers multiple times, and denied - James Comey... We prefer hands on if that's possible.

 

Exactly! Nor would the Datacenter EVER give them access. Nor would they NEED to have any access. Nor would having such access give them any additional information. Because they are not physical servers.

 

I have heard that story that the DNC had virtual servers before, but I've never seen any factual basis for it. As far as I can tell from the reporting I've seen, the virtual servers the DNC had where employed after the "hack." Do you have any evidence that it was these "virtual servers" that were the ones hacked?

 

Virtualizing servers involves converting one physical server into multiple virtual machines.

 

Please answer the question... Please tell us if you think there are servers you can literally put your hands on?

 

Yes. They have repeatedly stated that it was an image hosted by AWS.

But that's irrelevant to this discussion because this is about whether or not the data was "exfiltrated". Which makes no difference

 

"Converting"? Who said anything about converting. A server created as a virtual server is NEVER a physical server.

In any case, what does this have to do with exfiltration?

 

OK I meant did you have a link. I've not had much luck getting valid links when requested when it comes to Russian Collusion.

 

Please answer the question... Please tell us if you think there are servers you can literally put your hands on?

exfiltration...
Henry testified that 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,"

Funny how you did not put ALL of Henry's testimony...

(Transcript CrowdStrike President Shawn Henry) reiterated his claim on multiple occasions:

"There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left."

"There’s not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated."

"There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network. … We didn't have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data left based on the circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made."

"Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn't see the data leave, but we believe it left, based on what we saw."

Asked directly if he could "unequivocally say" whether "it was or was not exfiltrated out of DNC," Henry told the committee: "I can't say based on that."

Hidden Over 2 Years: Dem Cyber-Firm's Sworn Testimony It Had No Proof of Russian Hack of DNC
https://iotwreport.com/declassified...uldnt-say-for-sure-russians-stole-dnc-emails/

https://www.realclearinvestigations...d_no_proof_of_russian_hack_of_dnc_123596.html

https://justthenews.com/government/...-crowdstrike-unsure-if-fbi-confirmed-russians

transcript here......
https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/sh21.pdf

 

Really? I have tons of links about the Russian Collusion.

 

"Literally"? I don't even know what that means...

One last time:: who cares if they were moved, copied, screen-shot,... We KNOW hey were HACKED.

Of course they were exfiltrated. Why bother taking screen shots? But one or the other makes NO difference.

 

mr Henry did not say that…

No one disputes the email content….. just folks like you who put big words to deflect that they were hacked. It would have been an inside job as the rate it was copied was far greater than an internet rate could obtain online. But as your knowledge of a virtual server is not correct I’m assuming that rate means nothing to you.

 

Well I'm glad to hear it!

So you should have no problem providing one! As far as I can tell from the reporting I've seen, the virtual servers the DNC had where employed after the "hack." Do you have any evidence that it was these "virtual servers" that were the ones hacked?

 

Oh God! You have been arguing for pages and pages in this thread that the emails might not have been exfiltrated, and now that you have been debunked you bring up nonsense about the RATE at which they were exfiltrated.

Well this conspiracy theory is also absurd for many reasons. But the most obvious is that the rate they CLAIM was 20 to 25 MB per second. At the time, that would have corresponded to a fast for a home connection, but average for business internet. Difference is how much you pay. But Putin, for one, could definitely afford it.

This is just ONE hole in that conspiracy theory. And there are many. But it's obvious that you are going to jump from one conspiracy theory to the next, even if they contradict each other. So I'm not wasting any more time.

Thanks for playing...