BOMBSHELL: New Report Shows Guccifer 2.0-DNC Files Were Copied Locally—Not Hacked

a reply to: roadgravel

Right, it could have been a breach with a fast download connection or it might just be reflecting the organization of the info from the first breach with folders being created and info being put into them at a fast pace. Neither of those things proves a copy made by an insider using a usb drive.

a reply to: Xcathdra

If proven that the DNC was not hacked by Russia, then that is a bombshell piece of news. Further, if it was Seth Rich and it appears that he was murdered for it, then that's even more explosive and enough to keep Hillary ensconced in her hole.

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Xcathdra

The most important aspect about the report is the “estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s)” at which the documents were copied. It’s inconceivable DNC documents could have been copied at such speed from a remote location.

My internet connection is at 54 MB/s right now.

So...

I think yours is actually 54 Mb ,,, (MB is bytes) most of us at home have a Megabits Mb. Speed test will help you see what you have and my really fast home PC 4.2 Ghz is doing 100 Mb upload and 11 Mb download. I have Sprectrum which is faster than AT&T in my area.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Apollumi

A quick look and veracrypt is blamed for slow performance. Sorry but unless someone can say for sure that is what they were using your anecdote is neither here nor there.

Also, why encrypt something you are going to leak? Seems to me people are trying to make the "facts" fit the conclusion.

Anecdotal, such a fine word. I can think of many examples that by way of encryption will limit an access switch of 100 Mbytes (1,000 Mbit) to around 30 megs a sec. But, I'm picturing somebody that doesn't want to be caught during a packet capture, netflow analysis, etc what might be getting transferred. That would probably involve exactly what the article mentioned. A USB drive with an OS on it (not necessarily though), preferably Linux because most admins are Windows admins and go cross eyed when thinking about Linux.

In relation to your second comment. If whatever device they were using got confiscated before they were able to leave with it they might have wanted an encryption on it that would have taken longer than their lifetime to crack.

But, let's say you are the person. You are going to risk your life to hang out the Democratic Party's dirty laundry. What kind of encryption are you going to trust? Microsoft's? Me, I'd think Bill and Co. have a back door it. Maybe not but no way to verify the code. Veracrypt's code (Truecrypt) was vetted and there were no back doors. 7zip I don't know about but I'd sure use it and Linux before I'd ever place my trust in Microsoft's software.

And that is my Anecdotal response.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I think you're confused. There's a massive difference when you're talking about Megabytes and Megabits. There's 8 bits in a byte so if you're connection is 50 Megabit then you'll downloading at around 6.25 Megabytes/second.

Copying at 25MB/sec requires a connection of about 200Megabit. Not massively fast - it's the same as my connection at home.

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Xcathdra

The most important aspect about the report is the “estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s)” at which the documents were copied. It’s inconceivable DNC documents could have been copied at such speed from a remote location.

My internet connection is at 54 MB/s right now.

So...

Yours is likely in MegaBits not MegaBytes 54 would equal a 432 Megabit Connection, 500 is faster than most cable providers and still under gigabit fiber speed, and would require gigabit LAN, not common ,23 would match the transfer rate of a USB drive though 180 mbps and is common

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Xcathdra

OMG I just read the article...


"A mysterious IT guy has told us...."


Really?!?


Not even an unnamed official ... lmao..


"Mysterious IT guy..."

Credible ... real credible.. lmao man that is funny..

right!!!.....because as you know, "if it is on the internet it has to be true"......the right here on ATS has become comical

a reply to: jimmyx

and the left has become unhinged, deranged and sad.

a reply to: Apollumi

Actually your reply is not anecdotal. It is speculative.

Do you have proof that they even used Veracrypt? Of course not all you have is an "if" and the fact that the time-stamps don't all show this telltale 23MB/s transfer rate makes it even more "iffy".

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

While it's always "nice" to have "proof" to support my beliefs when faced with an incredulous news story this simply goes to prove to myself how strong my intuition is. From the very beginning of this story I have 100% known it was 100% BS.

Thanks OP for posting the story.

a reply to: Outlier13

Fair enough... If its bs can you explain why the DNC refused, and still refuses, to allow a forensic analysis of their servers by law enforcement?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but it seems to me outlier is agreeing with the OP and is saying that the russian hack story was 100% BS.

As for the DNC not allowing forensic analysis by law enforcement. The obvious reason is private info becoming public. I don't think you can tie law enforcement's hands with a non-disclosure agreement.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Outlier13

Fair enough... If its bs can you explain why the DNC refused, and still refuses, to allow a forensic analysis of their servers by law enforcement?

Um, because no domestic crime has been committed? It's their private property, and unless the DNC themselves are being charged, as an organization, with wrongdoing, they can deny anything they wish to....you want them to be forced to? Get a warrant.

From a link in the referenced article

Metadata suggests it took only 30 minutes to go from a DNC tech/data strategy consultant creating documents to Guccifer2.0 tainting them

- all occurring on a date that Guccifer2.0 claimed to be after he was locked out of the DNC Network - occurring on the same day that Guccifer2.0 emerged.

Data found deeper in files now also demonstrates there was a misdirection effort, that, in its larger scope - seems to have been intended to discredit leaks by having leaks blamed on Russian hackers

g-2.space...

The article attempts to show that the information seems to point to an effort to make it look Russian.

Another story for the mainstream media to cover up...and dems can say it never happened. Seems lie a recurring theme with our current CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS and Fox propaganda machines.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Xcathdra

My internet connection is at 54 MB/s right now.

So...

Mine is around 50 however when you try to download something you wont hit 50mbs. It will drop way down to around 1mbs to about 4mbs, depending on type of connection. You wont be getting anything near 23mbs.

Anecdotal at best. My download speed on a slow day is 8-10mbs. On a slow day with a 200MB connection.
on a good day I get 23MBS down.
I was getting 8MB down at once back in 09.

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: Xcathdra

With high probability, you are talking about 50MBit, not 50MByte. There is a difference of the factor 8 (8 bits = 1 byte).

My 50Mbits gives me 5.8MByte/sec.

Exactly, 200Mbits isnt' uncoomon either

200Mbits = around 23Mbyte/s

But the OP claims it's not possible.

Deny ignorance.

June 21st

You can download the archive with all files using any of the links:

Don’t forget the pass: #GucCi2/0

Enjoy it!!!

June 21st

So, first of all, what can you tell me about yourself? Who are you?

i'm a hacker, manager, philosopher, women lover. I also like Gucci! I bring the light to people. I'm a freedom fighter! So u can choose what u like!

And where are you from?

From Romania.

...

Tell me about the DNC hack. How did you get in?

I hacked that server through the NGP VAN soft, if u understand what I'm talking about.

So that was your entry point, what happened next?

I used 0-day exploit of NGP VAN soft then I installed shell-code into the DNC server. it allowed me to intrude into DNC network. They have Windows-based domain architecture. then I installed my Trojans on several PCs. I had to go from one PC to another every week so CrowdStrike couldn't catch me for a long time. I know that they have cool intrusion detection system. But my heuristic algorithms are better.

When did you first hack them?

Last summer.

And when did you get kicked out?

June 12, when they rebooted their system.

g-2.space...

So how could the analysis of the download be done with data that has dates of July 5?

If the dates are correct then it was done by another party, maybe an insider. This is after CrowdStrike has secured their network which has removed his (or who ever) entry point. I would think being inside would be more reasonable then another intrusion from the internet.

He does mention NGP VAN so is it his data from earlier or a complete new capture of data, actually on 7-5?

If someone here gotten the original data? If the data was checked and it matches the forensic article then forensic article is flawed from the start.

Someone is not telling the truth...

edit

Either

Some else acquired data on 7-5 and is using G 2.0 as a scapegoat (no comment from G 2.0)

or

The whole forensics article is flawed

edit2

I suppose the June 12 date could have been misdirection to keep access. Someone with the original release of data could probably determine if the data was released earlier.

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Xcathdra

The most important aspect about the report is the “estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s)” at which the documents were copied. It’s inconceivable DNC documents could have been copied at such speed from a remote location.

My internet connection is at 54 MB/s right now.

So...

Mine too, and I never hit 23 MB/s or even close to it when I download stuff.