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.

 

DNC Russian Hack Exposed: False

page: 3
33
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2018 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Whether they were zipped and moved locally doesn't matter. The 23MB/s speed is the speed at which the zipped files were transferred off the system (as far as I've read). It would have been even slower to transfer a whole host of files to a USB due to latency caused by seeking in both the random reads and the random writes.

The 23MB/s speed is wholly consistent with transferring large files to a USB flash drive. Do you have evidence that they were transferred over to russia at a different speed? Or are you conflating two separate things?
edit on 24-7-2018 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 24 2018 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Why are you so obsessed with pushing the narrative of one party?



posted on Jul, 24 2018 @ 08:36 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 24 2018 @ 08:58 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 24 2018 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Remote Desktop, but malware.

In order to do a remote desktop operation, there must be software running on the remote machine. That indicates a serious breach of security right there. The software would have had to be installed locally, which opens up a huge security hole, and any password then discovered. I'm quite familiar with remote control apps; I use them here, and watch that security hole like a hawk. I need the convenience, but I also understand the consequences.

The 23 MB/s transfer rate is also concerning. This rate is possible with something like fiber-to-server, but then the files were supposedly zipped on a LAN machine. That's a lot of switching to go through to maintain that kind of rate. I'm not saying it's impossible as I do not know how the DNC/DCCC LAN is set up, but I am saying it would be unusual from a security sense to have a secondary machine connected through that kind of pipe.

Also, compressing that much data would be pretty obvious to anyone even remotely concerned with monitoring the computer. That would be a lot of CPU usage/disk access for quite a long time. Even watching the operating temperature would indicate something strange was happening. Ditto with free space on the drives; unless the machine that was being used simply had a massive amount of free disk space, those compressed files would eat up free space like a pig eating fresh slop.

Bottom line is that either someone was looking the other way (or actively helping) or the security on the servers was practically nil.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 24 2018 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

What do you make of the analysis that the transfer rate indicates the files were copied to a USB locally?



posted on Jul, 24 2018 @ 10:03 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 24 2018 @ 10:06 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 24 2018 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

The maximum theoretical transfer rate to USB 2.0 is 60 MB.s, not 23. USB 3.0 has a maximum transfer rate of 640 MB/s, and USB 3.0 is becoming pretty common now. I would expect to see higher transfer rates if a USB was used. That does not mean USB was not used for the transfer, only that it wasn't used to maximum efficiency.

It actually sounds to me like a background transfer to another point in the LAN, probably to a server link closer to the router/switch. There again, one would think that in an organization as large as the DNC, someone would be watching data transfer rates. That kind of transfer for the amount of time it would have taken, not to mention the HDD usage, would have been like a flashing neon sign saying "HACKERS HERE!"

Someone wasn't looking, at the very least.

That brings up another issue... Phage showed where a remote access app was used to do the transfers... if more than one machine were used, more than one such app would be needed. We're not getting the whole story yet.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 24 2018 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

It's not in the "lies" basket.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 24 2018 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: face23785

The maximum theoretical transfer rate to USB 2.0 is 60 MB.s, not 23. USB 3.0 has a maximum transfer rate of 640 MB/s, and USB 3.0 is becoming pretty common now. I would expect to see higher transfer rates if a USB was used. That does not mean USB was not used for the transfer, only that it wasn't used to maximum efficiency.

It actually sounds to me like a background transfer to another point in the LAN, probably to a server link closer to the router/switch. There again, one would think that in an organization as large as the DNC, someone would be watching data transfer rates. That kind of transfer for the amount of time it would have taken, not to mention the HDD usage, would have been like a flashing neon sign saying "HACKERS HERE!"

Someone wasn't looking, at the very least.

That brings up another issue... Phage showed where a remote access app was used to do the transfers... if more than one machine were used, more than one such app would be needed. We're not getting the whole story yet.

TheRedneck


Maximum theoretical rate sure, but does that speed not lie within the range you'd see if you were copying files from one system on the LAN to a USB connected to another system on the LAN? The chart I posted on the previous page seems to think so, and they know a lot more about this than me. That same chart seems to indicate if it was just a system to system transfer over the LAN, the speeds should've been higher.



posted on Jul, 24 2018 @ 11:13 AM
link   
It's cute that multiple intelligence agencies have said there is, without a shadow of a doubt, proof that the Russian government was involved in hacking, people still deny it as if they actually know better. It happened.. get over it. The question is if Trump's campaign was involved. I still don't think he was.. NO one is so stupid as to ask the Russian to hack the election during a televised event.. right? hmmm..

Oh wait I forgot.. ALL our intelligence agencies are part of the "deep state" that are ALL trying to undermine Trump. Also the earth is flat.



posted on Jul, 24 2018 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: fleabit
It's cute that multiple intelligence agencies have said there is, without a shadow of a doubt, proof that the Russian government was involved in hacking


Apparently you missed this part


Astonishingly and often overlooked, the authors of the declassified ICA themselves admit that their “judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.”


Also, this?

originally posted by: fleabit
NO one is so stupid as to ask the Russian to hack the election during a televised event.. right? hmmm..


He said he hopes they can find her 30,000 deleted emails, which she said were all personal and about stuff like her yoga routine, Chelsea's wedding, etc. If the Russians recovered those, how exactly would that be "hacking the election"? Do you think she was lying about what was in those emails she deleted?
edit on 24 7 18 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2018 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Also, the server that those emails were on had been decommissioned for months.



posted on Jul, 24 2018 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

I was just going by general observations and posted comments when I wrote that... reading this link now...

Looks like someone did a lot of unnecessary work...

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 24 2018 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: face23785

I was just going by general observations and posted comments when I wrote that... reading this link now...

Looks like someone did a lot of unnecessary work...

TheRedneck


Amateurs maybe?



posted on Jul, 24 2018 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

That's what it's looking like to me.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 24 2018 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


In order to do a remote desktop operation, there must be software running on the remote machine. That indicates a serious breach of security right there.
Yes, I know. I've pointed out several times that malware was involved.



That would be a lot of CPU usage/disk access for quite a long time.


Conclusion 4: The overall time to obtain the DNC files found in the 7z file was 14 minutes; a significant part of that time (13 minutes) is allocated to time gaps that appear between several of the top-level files and directories.



Ditto with free space on the drives; unless the machine that was being used simply had a massive amount of free disk space, those compressed files would eat up free space like a pig eating fresh slop.
Surely you could have come up with a more colorful colloquialism, but the zipped files were not all that large. Less than a gig.

Technical note: the size of the 7zip file is 711,396,436 bytes
theforensicator.wordpress.com...



Bottom line is that either someone was looking the other way (or actively helping) or the security on the servers was practically nil.
Read the indictment, a lot is explained. But yes, the breach was discovered, too late.

32. Despite the Conspirators’ efforts to hide their activity , beginning in or around May 2016, both the DCCC and DNC became aware that they had been hacked and hired a security company (“Company 1”) to identify the extent of the intrusions. By in or around June 2016, Company 1 took steps to exclude intruders from the networks. Despite these efforts, a Linux- based version of X- Agent , programmed to communicate with the GRU -registered domain linuxkrnl.net, remained on the DNC network until in or around October 2016. 33. In response to Company 1’s efforts, the Conspirators took countermeasures to maintain access to the DCCC and DNC networks.
www.justice.gov...


edit on 7/24/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2018 @ 12:41 PM
link   
They must have been using Kaspersky Total Security.

BwaaaHaHaHa
😃😵



posted on Jul, 24 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite


The 23MB/s speed is the speed at which the zipped files were transferred off the system (as far as I've read).

You are mistaken. The Forensicator's analysis was based on metadata contained within the zipped file. There is no way to determine from that file how long it took to transfer the file across the internet.


Conclusion 7. A transfer rate of 23 MB/s is estimated for this initial file collection operation. This transfer rate can be achieved when files are copied over a LAN or when copying directly from the host computer’s hard drive.


theforensicator.wordpress.com...
edit on 7/24/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
33
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join