Mueller probing Russia contacts at Republican convention

The poster I responded to offered some evidence when he said that CrowdStrike didn't have access to the physical server. Clearly that would happen if this were a virtual server which is part of a datacenter. Because the physical servers involved would be shared by multiple clients, and no datacenter would give access to anybody to data owned by clients who have nothing to do with the hack.

The technical details about the server configuration are still classified (as far as I know). But EVERYTHING we know could only happen if the server was part of a datacenter.

 

You are rambling again... it wasn't a hack.. it was a leak..it was a copy of DNC data put onto an external storage device."

CrowdStrike, was a cybersecurity company retained by Sussmann.. where have I heard that name?

An FBI investigation from the start would have put this to bed.. instead of a third rate... er... I mean third party investigation with only a draft provided to the FBI..
Crowdstrike refused Roger Stone request for their report
https://archive.org/details/6145613-CrowdStrike-Re-Roger-Stone-Request/mode/2up?view=theater


Mr Henry under oath 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,"

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity says Crowdstrike is a bunch of idiots...
""The Nation‘s Patrick Lawrence wrote a lengthy review of the findings made by various computer experts formerly with the NSA. Published this week, the left-wing magazine’s report notes two bases for their conclusion: (1) hard science shows that a remote hack of the DNC servers resulting in the breach that actually occurred would have been technologically impossible; (2) forensic review of the initial Guccifer 2.0 documents proves that they are poorly-disguised cut-and-paste jobs–forgeries–intended to finger Russia.""

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...-dnc-hack-was-actually-a-leak-and-inside-job/
https://spectator.org/john-durham-and-the-mysterious-dnc-email-hack/
https://spectator.org/mr-mueller-was-the-dnc-server-actually-hacked-by-the-russians/
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/
https://nypost.com/2017/08/15/new-report-claims-dnc-hack-was-an-inside-job-not-russia/
https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2-ngp-van-metadata-analysis/

 

Ah, so even though you've been saying, as if it's a fact, that prior to the "Russian hack" the DNC had a virtual server, you didn't really know, and never had any facts.

Thank you for your service.

 

I most definitely DO know. I have worked in computer forensics. Maybe not at this level, but enough to understand the process.

 

So you don't actually know, you simply believe.

 

How about links about Russian collusion based on fact?

 

Obviously you were terrible at it…. You don’t have a clue….
Please tell us if you think there are servers you can literally put your hands on.…..
Please…. Explain what this virtual server means to you and why it is pertinent to the DNC hack.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...was-obstruction-and-surprise-surprise.554415/

 

Well dude, as I've pointed out to others, one must believe in the infallibility of the Crowdstrike report to believe such nonsense.

 

From the......Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution........report issued by the DNI's office.


Cyber Espionage Against US Political Organizations. Russia’s intelligence services conducted cyber operations against targets associated with the 2016 US presidential election, including targets associated with both major US political parties.
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.
Public Disclosures of Russian-Collected Data. We assess with high confidence that the GRU used the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com, and WikiLeaks to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets.
 Guccifer 2.0, who claimed to be an independent Romanian hacker, made multiple contradictory statements and false claims about his likely Russian identity throughout the election. Press reporting suggests more than one person claiming to be Guccifer 2.0 interacted with journalists.
 Content that we assess was taken from e-mail accounts targeted by the GRU in March 2016 appeared on DCLeaks.com starting in June. 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 self-proclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries.

Disclaimer: I post this with the full understanding no mountain of evidence is large enough for you to acknowledge your attempts to inject doubt in this matter are in error. I understand you will always maintain a "yeah, but" approach since not admitting Russia was behind the hack is essential to perpetuating right wing media lies about Trump and Russia's efforts to aid his campaign. Lies designed to create doubt, but not offer a counter explanation, where there is no doubt.