Former NSA Experts: It Wasn't Russia. It Wasn't Even A Hack. It Was A Leak.

a reply to: andrew778

Even without this new information, the old was never proved or contested.

Someone who knows what they are talking about answer me this:

How were these speeds possible over a remote connection, THROUGH TOR, and how is a TOR exit node in Russia evidence of ANYTHING?

Nothing was contested regarding wikileaks stance on the non hack /leak.

Also, why wasnt the ORIGINAL DNC server given to the FBI?

Wouldnt this meta-data be lost if the server was only cloned and then given to the FBI?

ISNT that evidence of a crime being covered up by a perp?

The DNC mainly.....

These things are ignored by people looking with a confirmation bias.

This comes down to plain old true or not info. Not sentiment.

Show me the technical specifications making this remote download /local upload speed possible.

Show me how a single exit node on TOR is evidence of origin when the basis of the TOR network is to randomize users and bounce around information several times around the world before delivering it somewhere.

Is the transaction documented from point A to point B? So people jumped to conclusions of absurd "expert" opinion....which is not backed by the industry they supposedly specialize in.

Wouldnt TOR make the large files being hacked go at snail speed? I think there was even video and other media included.

Anyone? No?

But we deserve to be called idiots. Right.

a reply to: JinMI

Ah, you mean the court can't mandate the perceptions and preferences of DNC employees?

Did we really need a court to tell us that?

Now, let's see the evidence that the DNC altered the primary elections as administered by the various State governments.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Now, let's see the evidence that the DNC altered the primary elections as administered by the various State governments.

I'm not arguing nor claiming as such. Who is?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Gryphon66

Now, let's see the evidence that the DNC altered the primary elections as administered by the various State governments.

I'm not arguing nor claiming as such. Who is?

The matter arose from a spurious claim that the DNC rigged the Primary Elections against Sanders. It's off-topic and of no moment ... except to further denigrate the DNC.

Its not off topic to mention the DNC rigging the primaries.

That is the main MO for Seth Richs' leak. He was the origin to the "hacked" DNC info.

That would be a valid reason for him to flip his flag and for the DNC to kill him.

Good point bringing that up if anyone did.

EDIT TO ADD:
There is the other issue of who released this info first.

If Russia hacked this DNC data, what did Seth leak? If Seth already leaked this data what did Russia hack?

What came first, the leak or the supposed "hack"?

You cant have both.

a reply to: tadaman

The speeds wouldn't be. TOR is notoriously slow. I believe the files being referenced are the leak files from the release not whatever the FBI has or from the server itself. The FBI never got to see the server. TOR hides your location and the one it shows are from anywhere in the world. I've used TOR Im well versed in it. I doubt they ever found where it actually went. It really depends on the IP its giving you at that time but more than likely yes.

a reply to: andrew778

Exactly. So this new information being offered is supporting evidence. That is how far the actual counter argument is against the Russia hack.

The basis of everything is that you cant do what cant be done. Its a technological impossibility.

This Russia hack nonsense is freaking absurd.

Its like saying Russia can break the laws of physics and do the impossible.

Have a good one.

originally posted by: andrew778
Pulling original meta data even after deletion can be done by those who are very good with code and computers. It can be done so accuracy and if any of it is true is what matters.

I'm not questioning the accuracy of the metadata. I'm questioning whether the timestamps can be used to accurately calculate transfer speed.

For example, if you download two large files and it takes a couple of hours but they finish downloading within seconds of each other, using the timestamps the way forensicator used them would make it seem like the second file downloaded super fast while in fact they both took hours to download.

The reason I bring this up is because in the article published by forensicator there are files in the zip file that are small and their timestamps are significantly far apart. transfer rates to a usb drive would not be that slow for files that size.
Specifically:
finance.rar 333,733 9:55:06
May FEC.rar 6,795,495 9:55:34
HolidayCards.rar 19,919,247 9:55:38

so the 6.79MB file took 28 seconds while the 19.9MB file took 4 seconds and both are slower than the 22mb/s and the former way slow for a usb drive.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Ah, so it's a verbiage issue then. One would equate rigging to the physical tampering of votes. Another would use the term to describe giving unfair advantages and preference in what should be an unbiased facilitator.

Point being, the DNC favored HRC and actively attempted to use whatever influence they had to propel her over Bernie. That evidence exists. Some would call that rigging.

Putting this rambling back on topic, given what I've read, the metadata transfer speeds are a strong indication that this was done local to the host machine. Someone didn't like the DNC playing puppet master. IMO of course.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Yeah I'm Google.
Rolls eyes.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Russia today.
????

Come on.

a reply to: JinMI

Verbiage or semantics?

Sanders was an Independent before he ran as a Democrat; he has been an Independent since he ran as a Democrat.

Is it surprising that the national party "preferred" a candidate that has been a life-long Democrat?

And again, as your previous quote alluded to in a sort of ... sideways fashion ... are you saying that individuals in the DNC shouldn't have personal preferences? It's off-topic here, but ... Democrats in each state of the union voted, many in Primaries administered by State governments. There was no meddling, no alteration of votes, and nothing meaningful to note.

Getting back to the topic? Well, since you chimed in on a small clarification to previous misrepresentations, perhaps thats a good thing. At least you aren't perpetuating the debunked Fox News/Trump inspired hoax that Seth Rich was "murdered by the DNC."

A great deal of opinions are at work here, predicated on the OP which is, at best, an opinion piece.

originally posted by: mkultra11

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: DanteGaland
From the article:

These statistics are matters of record and essential to disproving the hack theory. No Internet service provider, such as a hacker would have had to use in mid-2016, was capable of downloading data at this speed.

YES. Yes they would.

22.7 MEGABYTES per second? Get real. In 2016 that's NOT an unheard of speed. At ALL.

That's a 181.6 megabit DL connection. Easily doable on a RESIDENTIAL ISP.

WEAK SAUCE.

you don't have a clue how the internet works. What was the upload speed? That is the limiting factor. It's a really easy thing to check. If it was the astronomical LAN speed recorded, then super, they had the greatest internet months before it was a reality. But it's a big deal and something that's a deal breaker unless it was magic.............. magic.

That person clearly didn't read the article.

Exactly.

What is the maximum achievable speed? Forensicator recently ran a test download of a comparable data volume (and using a server speed not available in 2016) 40 miles from his computer via a server 20 miles away and came up with a speed of 11.8 megabytes per second—half what the DNC operation would need were it a hack. Other investigators have built on this finding. Folden and Edward Loomis say a survey published August 3, 2016, by www.speedtest.net/reports is highly reliable and use it as their thumbnail index. It indicated that the highest average ISP speeds of first-half 2016 were achieved by Xfinity and Cox Communications. These speeds averaged 15.6 megabytes per second and 14.7 megabytes per second, respectively. Peak speeds at higher rates were recorded intermittently but still did not reach the required 22.7 megabytes per second. “A speed of 22.7 megabytes is simply unobtainable, especially if we are talking about a transoceanic data transfer,” Folden said. “Based on the data we now have, what we’ve been calling a hack is impossible.” Last week Forensicator reported on a speed test he conducted more recently. It tightens the case considerably. “Transfer rates of 23 MB/s (Mega Bytes per second) are not just highly unlikely, but effectively impossible to accomplish when communicating over the Internet at any significant distance,” he wrote. “Further, local copy speeds are measured, demonstrating that 23 MB/s is a typical transfer rate when using a USB–2 flash device (thumb drive).”

"Personal" testing, national averages, etc.

Yep, still nothing here.

a reply to: mkultra11

It's Russia today. It doesn't reinforce anything but a fairy tale. Because it was Russia and the investigation is not crumbling it's expanding and they've only just started. You're going to have months possibly years to deal with this.
Are we going to hear how the investigation is crumbling every day for the next eighteen months or so?
Probably. Since Benghazi was in 2011 and you guys are still holding out for some sanction against Clinton for that.
I guess we'll just have to keep peeking into those threads and say Ut uhh. Not crumbling.
Ut uhh not over yet.
When the Orange one is the first president removed from office by impeachment you'll all still be saying it's a hoax.
And we'll still be saying "told ya so".
Lol.

a reply to: Sillyolme

May I say, while I don't always agree with you in every detail, you are relentless.

Here is a helpful post from redit that explains how USB can have varying speeds for different files.

u/qou • Apr 6, 2014, 2:00 AM
I think I can do this justice. I'm going to explain a few concepts that won't make much sense individually, but I will link them together at the end. Obviously a lot of this has been simplified.

Alright so for USB there's 4 methods of transfer files, CONTROL, ISOCHRONOUS, INTERRUPT, and BULK.

Control - Generally speaking, these take care of the USB administration, such as letting the OS know what the purpose of this USB device is. Enumeration essentially.

Isochronous - Data being transferred doesn't rely on accuracy. Think of this as streaming video or music. If a few pixels from a frame are inaccurate it doesn't bother to let the sender know it was invalid data.

Interrupt - Somewhat synonymous to the purpose of the hardware interrupts of traditional peripheral systems. This type of data has high priority if the USB bus reaches capacity. This type of transfer is typically used when you do what accuracy in your data.

Bulk - As the name suggests, this type of transfer is for large amounts of data. This type has a low priority and is what is being used for the Tom's article you linked.

Metadata - A small piece of data that contains information about what the file type is. This information is still stored on the HDD, but it generally doesn't impact the size that much. However, every piece of data, no matter how small, requires some metadata. Think of it as the ID3 tag for everything.

Paging - When you format any storage device, you have to specify the smallest addressable piece. For most devices, the default value is 4 kB. This means that a text file, which may only have 1 character on it which is 1 byte, will still be 4 kB. The higher the page file size, the faster transferring will occur, but it's easier for space to be taken up. Small page file will result in slower transferring times, but you won't fill it up as fast. This can been seen on the size properties box of files, SIZE and SIZE ON DISK. Size on disk usually refers to the size the file takes up and is divisible by the page size (although not always).

Now the fun part: When you go to copy a file, you have to copy the data of the actual file and the metadata. The recipient now has to take this information and store it somewhere, following the rules of how it was setup to page information. If you are copying thousands of files, that's thousands of data, thousands of metadata, and thousands of instances where new pages had to be allocated. All of this takes a lot of overhead and is not something you see on the transfer dialog box. The transfer dialog box only shows you the speed of transfer for the actual data, not the metadata or time spent waiting on the firmware to allocate the space. This is why transferring small pieces of information is always shown in a benchmark test. It's always going to be the slowest.

On the flip side, when you transfer something like an ISO file, which contains a large amount, but despite that large amount of data, you only have 1 metadata tag to worry about. In addition, while new pages have to be allocated to write it, it can do this all in sequence. The firmware on the device knows that it has to write 65 MB somewhere so it finds a section in memory that has 65 MB of free pages and just batch writes it all at once. For large, bulk transfers such as this, there's very little overhead that has to be done.

Additionally, I think for both types of files, these would all fall under BULK transfers. However, I think there might be some additional overhead with the way the USB protocol builds the packets (topic for another day). For the ISO file, a BULK transfer has a maximum size of 1024 bytes (I think this is right). So it basically loads up 1024 bytes worth of data and sends it. For the small data size, it does this the same way, but instead of being able to use the full 1024 bytes of each packet, it might have to break it off short (remember, we're sending multiple files). So instead of sending 1024 bytes, it might only get out 980 bytes. So again, there's some speed loss here as well.

www.reddit.com...

I am posting this in response to the claim that time stamp logging explains discrepancies in USB transfer speed. That if one large file transfer is followed by another that is smaller that both would seem faster based on elapsed time between them.

They do not. This is not the case.

There is also the fact that the flat out maximum file upload speed is limited, no matter how fast the other end can download.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Like a pit bull.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: andrew778

Even without this new information, the old was never proved or contested.

Someone who knows what they are talking about answer me this:

How were these speeds possible over a remote connection, THROUGH TOR, and how is a TOR exit node in Russia evidence of ANYTHING?

Nothing was contested regarding wikileaks stance on the non hack /leak.

Also, why wasnt the ORIGINAL DNC server given to the FBI?

Wouldnt this meta-data be lost if the server was only cloned and then given to the FBI?

ISNT that evidence of a crime being covered up by a perp?

The DNC mainly.....

These things are ignored by people looking with a confirmation bias.

This comes down to plain old true or not info. Not sentiment.

Show me the technical specifications making this remote download /local upload speed possible.

Show me how a single exit node on TOR is evidence of origin when the basis of the TOR network is to randomize users and bounce around information several times around the world before delivering it somewhere.

Is the transaction documented from point A to point B? So people jumped to conclusions of absurd "expert" opinion....which is not backed by the industry they supposedly specialize in.

Wouldnt TOR make the large files being hacked go at snail speed? I think there was even video and other media included.

Anyone? No?

But we deserve to be called idiots. Right.

Great points! Confirmation bias indeed!

They count on the American People being too stupid to know that the story they're trying to sell is all bullspit. Don't they realize yet that people like you can shred their lies and innuendo to shreds in a heartbeat using common sense and brains.

a reply to: queenofswords

They count on the American People being too stupid to know that the story they're trying to sell is all bullspit. Don't they realize yet that people like you can shred their lies and innuendo to shreds in a heartbeat using common sense and brains.

They didn't count on losing to begin with so they have nothing but bs to back the "russia narrative".
Well bs and stupid facebook/onion internet stories. Probably because they all actually believe what is on facebook.