It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: rickymouse
The Russians could easily have political operatives in the DNC. It is also very possible they have assets in the GOP. We have assets in theirs as well. Such action is a common part of intelligence gathering, as political intelligence is important to decision makers up the chain. Given the nature of intelligence missions, this information would not be leaked because it was certain to trigger tightened security/reprisals (therefore cutting off the flow of info - opposite of what intelligence agencies desire/spend lots of money on).
For this reason, even if the Russians had standard intelligence personnel in place (turned employee, mole, whatever the means) they wouldn't blow their cover over some potentially damaging data. It is far more likely a disgruntled insider wanted to deliver a blow against the DNC over a perceived sleight/personal vendetta of some kind, and conclusions from experts like Binney appear to support that assessment.
Just my take on it though rickymouse
Did they? I will see if I can dig that up from anywhere!
On Thursday, CrowdStrike walked back key parts of its Ukraine report.
The company removed language that said Ukraine's artillery lost 80 percent of the Soviet-era D-30 howitzers, which used aiming software that purportedly was hacked. Instead, the revised report cites figures of 15 to 20 percent losses in combat operations, attributing the figures to IISS.
The original CrowdStrike report was dated Dec. 22, 2016, and the updated report was dated March 23, 2017.
After CrowdStrike released its Ukraine report, company co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch claimed it provided added evidence of Russian election interference. In both hacks, he said, the company found malware used by "Fancy Bear," a group with ties to Russian intelligence agencies.
originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Dudemo5
What you're not getting is the analysis done by the Forensicator is confirmed by Binny's statements.
There are two separate and unconnected entities (the Forensicator and Binny) that have come to the same conclusion.
originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: theantediluvian
No one is doubting the transfer speeds can be done over a reasonably fast WAN connection. The problem is that such activity would throw up major red flags to IPDS systems and security guys keeping an eye on those systems. There is a good likelihood that would've caused them to lose their access, which is a primary goal of an alleged APT: "persistence"
Why not break into smaller chunks and transmit more slowly to avoid detection? Wouldn't you want to maintain access?
Binney is no quack - he is widely respected in his field, and should be taken seriously.
Why is the conclusion of an insider job so difficult for you to consider? It appears to challenge some deeply held world view or something. If it were me, I wouldn't put too many chips on the table if you're betting for this Russia stuff to ever be actually proven.
All we have so far is innuendo, suggestion, accusation and summary judgment supporting that belief.
One piece of substantial evidence is all it would take.... ?