Mueller Indicts 12 For Russian Hacking

a reply to: toysforadults

I think it's important to remember how far back this was. Today, I can have a dedicated fiber link that I can upgrade to gigabit with a phone call. Back then, not a chance in hell. But then, I'm in Dunn, not DC. So wven with Quality of Service enabled and the server getting full bandwidth, the question remains as to if that ammount of bandwidth was even capable of existing.

It's pretty cut and dry, if it was, you have to assume it could have happened just like they say. If it wasn't, then somebody is full of sh!t and it needs to be addressed loudly.

a reply to: network dude

oh I totally get what you're saying and agree. Just playing devils advocate

I wonder who the congressional candidate is who asked for and received stolen documents.

any guesses?

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: theantediluvian

So, let me get this straight. If Russian's (who aren't citizens of our country) meddle with elections to get a favorable result, they are indicted, but if Democrats rig the ballot boxes to where Hillary would be selected by default, as well as, letting illegal immigrants from Mexico vote as well as dead people....it's ok?

I agree with you.

How is it the DEMOCRATIC primary wasn't decided DEMOCRATICALLY by the voters and was instead chosen dictatorially by the party?

how th ehell is that not a bigger issue?

originally posted by: toysforadults

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: theantediluvian

So, let me get this straight. If Russian's (who aren't citizens of our country) meddle with elections to get a favorable result, they are indicted, but if Democrats rig the ballot boxes to where Hillary would be selected by default, as well as, letting illegal immigrants from Mexico vote as well as dead people....it's ok?

I agree with you.

How is it the DEMOCRATIC primary wasn't decided DEMOCRATICALLY by the voters and was instead chosen dictatorially by the party?

how th ehell is that not a bigger issue?

According to the DNC lawyers in that fraud case they told the court there is nothing in the DNC bylaws that requires the nominee to be selected by vote. They actually told the judge they could use a backroom and pick the candidate regardless of who democratic primary voters choose.

originally posted by: matafuchs
According to Rosenstein...

There is no allegation in the indictment that any American was a knowing participant in the alleged unlawful activity or knew they were communicating with Russian intelligence officers. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the vote count or changed the outcome of the 2016 election.

16 pages in folks. 16 pages. Russians were indicted for hacking. It happens all the time but had NOTHING to do with Trump. NO collusion and no vote hacking.

There is no allegation in the indictment that any American was a knowing participant in the alleged unlawful activity or knew they were communicating with Russian intelligence officers. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the vote count or changed the outcome of the 2016 election.

You didnt read it did you? Notice how those statements are only referring to the indictments today? He didnt say that collusion or vote hacking didnt happen. He just said that the indictments are NOT saying anything about those topics.

a reply to: carewemust


As well as using an non secure email account to send
messages to Barack Obama from Russia.

These people ARE sttupid!!

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: theantediluvian

GRU right to the Kremlin's door.
Let's hear how it was Seth Rich again boys and girls.

For those of us that understand transfer speeds, can you point out how the Russian hackers transferred the contents of a thumb drive to the Kremlin?

Just wondering, because math is important in the real world...

Also makes you wonder how they can issue indictments for allegedly hacking servers that the DNC flat out refused to hand over to the FBI and DOJ for analysis. Whose word are we taking here?

a reply to: Pyle

Oh I read it for what it is. Spin it if you like to fit your fake "Russia won the election" for Trump narrative.

Why is Mueller handing down indictments about things that had NOTHING to do with what he is investigating? This is about the DNC hacks and has already be investigated and sanctions put forth..by Obama.

On April 4th Mueller said that Trump is not currently a criminal target.

So WTF is Mueller wasting our tax dollars on?

Points 43 and 44 are pretty crazy.

US congressional candidate

Lobbyist/online political new source

Reporter wanting Black lives matter dirt

Person in regular contact with senior Trump campaign officials

Wonder when we will see indictments or other information about these people. I know a lot of rumors already floating around about who those people are.

a reply to: matafuchs

covering up criminals actions and seeking leverage against people with information against the hidden cabal

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Pyle

Oh I read it for what it is. Spin it if you like to fit your fake "Russia won the election" for Trump narrative.

Why is Mueller handing down indictments about things that had NOTHING to do with what he is investigating? This is about the DNC hacks and has already be investigated and sanctions put forth..by Obama.

On April 4th Mueller said that Trump is not currently a criminal target.

So WTF is Mueller wasting our tax dollars on?

Um... Mueller is investigating russian interference in to the election among a few other things. How is indicting 12 Russian Military Intelligence officers and showing evidence that they did interfere not part of this investigation?

I love how he said that the indictments will stand "until they are apprehended". He knows full well these individuals will never come to trial. Although it would be funny see them show up and call the bluff.

Already has his hands full with that one case which I believe it will rather quietly be dismissed now they have this new group to target. Good use of umteen millions so far.

a reply to: DJMSN

we can probably look up their case status online, at least you can do it at a state level usually every update is added

www.uscourts.gov...

a reply to: toysforadults

Most likely will have too, as I seriously doubt they will have a press conference to announce it if they do drop it. They sure as heck are balking at the discovery process. It should be another epic trial if it continues.

originally posted by: DJMSN
I love how he said that the indictments will stand "until they are apprehended". He knows full well these individuals will never come to trial. Although it would be funny see them show up and call the bluff.

Already has his hands full with that one case which I believe it will rather quietly be dismissed now they have this new group to target. Good use of umpteen millions so far.

17 million and counting for Mueller probe to tell us that Russians hacked the DNC. And that they used fishing meaning the idiots had to fall for the email that said type in your password here, Even the stupidest network admin knows how to stop this but I guess the DNC was running their server out of someone's bathroom?

a reply to: theantediluvian

Again, there's all sorts of forensic data coming from primarily ISPs that we the FBI would have gotten which isn't public knowledge.

on page 14 you said,

we the FBI

what does that mean?

a reply to: network dude

Actually, I'm not a news person. I'm director of IT for medium-sized business and chief dev for their in-house software. I've got professional experience programming (in a few languages), networking, *nix/Windows administration, virtualization (primarily XenServer, VMware in the past), storage systems, some database administration, etc. I'm also a former (like 20+ years ago) teenage hacker.

Unless you're going to get down to something really esoteric like the physics of the media involved or routing protocols that I haven't had any occasion to deal with, you're probably not going to lose me in a networking conversation. I've got a decent amount of networking experience.

He was trying to explain that it's entirely possible for the hack to have occurred. I disagree, UNLESS the DNC way back then, had an amazing (the most awesome evah) ISP. I don't think they did, but if they did, then all the people explaining how this can't happen were and are wrong. I don't know how to find the information of who the ISP was, and what their network speeds were, but I would think that an investigator could.

Here's where you're wrong. First off, you need to understand how this 22 MB/s number was arrived at. (as briefly as possible).

The author used an archive of files stolen from the DCCC. Basically, what he did was to look at the mod times on the files, organizing them first to lat to establish a range. That range was something like 14 minutes between the oldest and newest.

Now one possibility here is that a user was copying files one at a time. Another possibility is that the files were copied in a batch.

However, the times didn't make sense for a batch. So the author hypothesized that perhaps there were missing files. So then the author summed up all the "gap times" between files (I do think he allowed for a small gap between end of transfer and start of the next between files) and subtracted that from the 14 minutes or whatever in the range from newest to oldest. The "gap time" he reported was like 13 minutes.

Now let's pause here to consider this. The assumption that there even was a batch copy is far from conclusive. In fact, for it to make sense, those gaps have to be filled with missing files and not just a little bit. He's basically hypothesizing that 90%+ of the files originally transferred are not present in the archive.

So anyway, he then posited that the remaining time (1-2 minutes) was the time it took to transfer the files that were present. He then totaled up the size of all the files and divided it by the aforementioned 1-2 minutes. That's how he arrived at I think it was actually 22.6 MB/s.

That's not great to say the least.

He then breaks out a table (I don't remember where it was from) that showed some average transfer speeds for I think it was SSDs, USB-2 and USB-3 which was odd because there was nothing for non-SSD internal drives, single or in RAID. And it was in a matrix with like local (direct attached) copy, over LAN and over the Internet.

Screw this, I'm hunting down this whacky table. Here we go:



So then looking at this table, he makes a bunch of wild assumptions. First off, where are the internal mechanical drives? Secondly, it's assumed that's a good number to use for scp'ing over the Internet. Using this really rather random table that omits the most likely hard drives, he concludes that his estimated transfer speed from a hypothetical transfer best matches copying files across a LAN to a USB-2 drive.

I'm here to tell you that between a couple random generic office boxes on gigabit ethernet, 22.6 MB/s is perfectly reasonable for a sustained transfer rate.

I'll also tell you that I regularly get around 20 MB/s transferring files between my person VPS and one I have for work which are 1200-1500 miles apart at two different ISPs — neither of which are anything special.

Not only do we not even know if there even was a batch copy to talk about, we have absolutely no idea where it took place if it did. It could have been on the DCCC LAN. It could have been from the DCCC network to the C&C server (a VPS at an ISP). It could have been between a colo'd server/VPS of the DCCC's at their ISP. It could have been between the C&C server and an intermediary server. It could have been between two computers on the hacker's office LAN. It could have been the hacker somewhere putting it on a USB-2 drive. Or it could have been somebody at the DCCC copying the file from a computer or off the network to a USB-2 drive.

You seem to be going the other direction with this, that the alternative to the USB-2 drive is straight from the DCCC to Moscow which is perhaps the LEAST plausible of all.

And I'm not quite done yet. Do you want to know the date of the mod times? 7/5/2016. Let that sink in. Do you by any chance remember when the DNC hack was announced? I do. It was on 6/14/2016, nearly a month earlier.

So now we'd have to also believe that almost a month after the initial hack was revealed, after documents had already started showing up from the DCCC — coming from "Guccifer 2.0" — that somebody, locally copied another batch of files to a USB drive and then gave them to "Guccifer 2.0" to publish?

How does that make any sense? None of that # jibes. The "analysis" is atrocious on its face. If I'm wrong, please by all means tell me how I am.

And yet, on the strength of this nonsense and the weakness of their own willingness/ability to consider it, people are running around like this is some sort of a mic dropper that "proves" no hack. It's frustratingly that people are so self-satisfied when they repeat this garbage. You can clearly see it in this thread coming from multiple people. You yourself have been sucked in by it to some degree.

It's bull#. If you think I'm wrong and if you want to argue in favor of it, by all means, let's hear it.

a reply to: DJMSN

without discovery it'll get dismissed LOL

From 'Murica with love!

Deep down we all know Trump haters just LOVE Russia.

Pergruzka comrades!