It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No evidence supporting theory Russia hacked DNC says NSA whistleblower

page: 1
29
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+3 more 
posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Sorry for the long quote, but the preceding paragraphs support the conclusion:


NSA whistleblower William Binney spoke to RT about his recent meeting with CIA director Mike Pompeo, where they discussed accusations that Russia meddled in 2016 US presidential election by hacking the Democrats.
The meeting discussed the analysis by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) that the DNC documents were leaked in an ‘inside job,’ Binney told RT. Analysis of data transfer simply does not support the claim the documents were hacked by Russian agents, as leaders of the US intelligence community claimed in a January report.

“It was very clear it was a local download, because of the speeds and all,” Binney said, explaining how his colleagues set up a test between a data center in New Jersey and another in the UK, and could not reproduce the download that took place on July 5, 2016.

The approximately 16 GB of data was downloaded in two bursts, totaling 87 seconds, with a 12-minute pause between them.

“It had to be done locally,” Binney told RT.

The data logs and the speed test were the only concrete evidence available for examination, he pointed out. “Everything else is speculation, and agenda- and emotionally-driven assertions.”


Binney concludes (as have other IT pros) that the amount of data exfiltrated (16GB total) only took a total of 87 seconds - providing strong and probable conclusion that they were taken via local downloads (insider leak).

In connection to other incidents, they also tried linking the Guccifer2 hacker erroneously to Russian intelligence. He also mentions how a key agency was excluded from the hasty conclusion drawn by Former DNI Clapper.

In short, he (along with many others) is not impressed with their findings which lack any factual backing whatsoever. It has been theorized by many that Seth Rich was responsible for the leaks (in part or in whole) though it is unsubstantiated. It has also been suggested that proof of this assertion is contained in the Wikileaks insurance file, but again that is unsubstantiated.

Interesting though, this opens up many possibilities.


“They need to put up or shut up,” said Binney. He said he does not buy into such claims without any factual evidence, “and that’s basically what their situation is. They have zero evidence.”

“To me, it basically shows the shallow weakness of [their] argument, when you have to throw labels at people” instead of looking at the evidence, Binney told RT.


source: RT news

I intentionally posted this is in the Dissecting Disinfo forum in order to avoid partisan political arguments. Please avoid heated political arguments, unless it specifically involves the conspiracy theory surrounding the DNC hack and/or their unsubstantiated linkage to Russia. I love politics as much as the next person, but this doesn't have anything to do with partisanship or taking digs at either party. Hopefully we can have a courteous and objective look at the claims behind the leak. Thanks!! JB




posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

I love this guy!

Binney has been trying to expose the corrupt nature of the deep state for years and is a voice to be heard!

Keep on fighting the fight, the absurdity of the Rah Rah Russian narrative has been exposed for what it is... a manifestation of Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals!

Nuff Said.




posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns


I've heard many times over the past 10 months that the DNC was "hacked". But WHAT was downloaded? Is it a "hack" if an employee or volunteer uses a thumb-drive to copy files?



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Except if you can see the data was downloaded, you can see to where. This is complete nonsense.


+1 more 
posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5
Except if you can see the data was downloaded, you can see to where. This is complete nonsense.


Your comment is complete nonsense.
Ever hear of a USB thumb drive?



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Dudemo5
Except if you can see the data was downloaded, you can see to where. This is complete nonsense.


Your comment is complete nonsense.
Ever hear of a USB thumb drive?


Yes. I have.

Your response to me is complete nonsense.


+1 more 
posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Dudemo5

And no law enforcement agency has ever examined the severs but rather have only relied on Crowdstrike's assessment.

Crowdstrike, who has made errors in similar assessments before, does not have the type of reputation that engenders trust.



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Dudemo5
Except if you can see the data was downloaded, you can see to where. This is complete nonsense.


Your comment is complete nonsense.
Ever hear of a USB thumb drive?


Yes. I have.

Your response to me is complete nonsense.


How do you figure?
Tell me how you can trace where the files were copied to if it was a thumb drive?



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Technically I believe it *could* fall under that very vague CFAA umbrella by exceeding the scope of access (copying files off sensitive servers) or sharing them in violation with their NDA - but that's more of a tort than anything. I suppose they could consider it a "hack" since it resulted in some damage caused by activity that constitutes a security breach. They probably used the term due to its ubiquitous nature instead of technical specificity. Just my 2c though

I would classify it more as a "leak" conducted by an insider threat. Whether it was a "hack" I guess would depend on whether or not he had to escalate his privileges technically, or just exceeded the scope of his access agreement. I am unsure if the distinction matters, but that is my understanding of the computer fraud and abuse act (which I believe defines hacking).



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: elementalgrove

Agreed! Binney is a true expert in his field, and I followed him closely during the Snowden revelations. I found him to be quite personable yet highly knowledgeable on the subjects at hand.

He certainly represents the best of us, and has sacrificed a consider amount personally to provide his insight.



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Donna Brazile said the reason they never gave the server to the FBI was because they were still using it.

She actually said that.



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 10:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Dudemo5
Except if you can see the data was downloaded, you can see to where. This is complete nonsense.


Your comment is complete nonsense.
Ever hear of a USB thumb drive?


Yes. I have.

Your response to me is complete nonsense.


How do you figure?
Tell me how you can trace where the files were copied to if it was a thumb drive?


My point is that they have the destination IP address. They can see that it was NOT copied to a thumb drive. Furthermore, it could be traced TO the USB port if it was a local breach.
edit on 8-11-2017 by Dudemo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Agreed completely. Especially for matters involving political nominees who posses Top Secret security clearance during their campaigns. Any suspected breach should've been reported to their security officer for evaluation/post-actions not a private contractor. Just my opinion but I would've expected FBI or DISA to conduct the investigation.



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 10:45 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

That is what she told Tucker ...she was a mess on his show ...too many curves when all she wanted to do was sell the book and go rah rah DEM's



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 10:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Dudemo5
Except if you can see the data was downloaded, you can see to where. This is complete nonsense.


Your comment is complete nonsense.
Ever hear of a USB thumb drive?


Yes. I have.

Your response to me is complete nonsense.


How do you figure?
Tell me how you can trace where the files were copied to if it was a thumb drive?


My point is that they have the destination IP address. They can see that it was NOT copied to a thumb drive. Furthermore, it could be traced TO the USB port if it was a local breach.


According to who? Crowdstrike?
Nice try....the DNC paid them to say it.



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Dudemo5
Except if you can see the data was downloaded, you can see to where. This is complete nonsense.


Your comment is complete nonsense.
Ever hear of a USB thumb drive?


Yes. I have.

Your response to me is complete nonsense.


How do you figure?
Tell me how you can trace where the files were copied to if it was a thumb drive?


My point is that they have the destination IP address. They can see that it was NOT copied to a thumb drive. Furthermore, it could be traced TO the USB port if it was a local breach.


According to who? Crowdstrike?
Nice try....the DNC paid them to say it.


The download times espoused by this whistleblower had to have originated with Crowd-strike, if they are indeed the only ones to examine the server and if it indeed was all local. You get that, right?

So you might want to decide now whether the Crowdstrike info is good.



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Dudemo5

But he didn't say anything about a destination or source IP. What he does say is that data was copied in two separate bursts, 12 minutes apart totaling 87 seconds. 16GB is a lot of data to copy in such a short time, and it is unlikely they would do so with such speed over the network/WAN. Doing so would certainly raise red flags, so it would've been split into much smaller chunks and possibly transmitted as another type of data (for instance, HTTP requests/responses).

By "it" what do you mean? The Windows event log? Or /var/log? My point is that USB file transfer wouldn't be documented the same way as data going across a network. Anything having to do with an IP address would be separate from local file transfer disk I/O stuff. You might have a hardware address that is specific to that USB device, but it wouldn't have an assigned IP in any way.



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 10:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Dudemo5

And no law enforcement agency has ever examined the severs but rather have only relied on Crowdstrike's assessment.

Crowdstrike, who has made errors in similar assessments before, does not have the type of reputation that engenders trust.


So the download times touted by this whistle-blower came from Crowd-Strike?



posted on Nov, 8 2017 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: RazorV66

Wow 31 sealed so far



new topics

top topics



 
29
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join