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.

 

FBI never looked at the server REDUX

page: 2
51
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Remember what FBI officials said themselves:

“In a statement to WIRED, a senior FBI law enforcement official wrote in an email Thursday that " The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated.

www.wired.com...

The bureau made “multiple requests at different levels,” according to Comey, but ultimately struck an agreement with the DNC that a “highly respected private company” would get access and share what it found with investigators.

“We’d always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves if that’s possible
,” Comey said, noting that he didn’t know why the DNC rebuffed the FBI’s request.

thehill.com...

*******

Nothing about copies, disc images etc. They wanted direct access and got rebuffed.
edit on 30-8-2018 by NiNjABackflip because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 09:56 AM
link   
This is all partisan politics, period.... that has flowed over into the justice department.

Imagine... just imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and this was Trump's server... THE OUTRAGE the left would have because the integrity of the investigation was comprised day one. Just imagine!

The Russian Collusion investigation is political, period. Both sides of the aisle repeatedly acknowledged that Russia tries to influence our elections every single year BUT NOW they want to actually investigate. An idiot can see why they want to investigate NOW.

People need to quit being willfully ignorant and disingenuous.

COME ON PEOPLE! (you know who you are!)

ABRE LOS OJOS!!!!

Politics - pure and simple



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker



I doubt it, depending on the chipset it's running, the Intel chip security flaw could have hidden code that would raise a red flag. Assuming something is hacked, examining just the computing hardware, or a copy of it could leave some stones un turned.


From your own source:


Speculative execution attacks tend to be convoluted and difficult to carry out in practice, and Intel emphasizes that none have been seen in the real world.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

You know this is a conspiracy site right? You don't have a democracy, despite what you may believe. Honest politicians could go a long way to solving these wrongs. Keep on voting though, that always works!



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Martin75



Because every time you copy a file it copies? Perfectly, every time. If everything else is perfect. There isn't some other code to do something else with it? You know how this works.... Come on now.


That has nothing to do with your absurd example.

You cannot remove malware, etc, from a copy and have it apply to the original system.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Does a server copy include deleted files?



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: six67seven

While I agree with some of your sentiment, all the ones speaking the loudest on Russia and China don't really care about Russia or China.

Those who are adamant about the Russia investigation only care that Trump is implicated. Don't believe me? Ask them what they want to do about Russia, on a good day you'll hear them say they want sanction, most of the time I don't get an answer though.

Now the tables have turned, we have a story that implicates China infiltrated Hillary's server. So now we have many people demanding Hillary be brought to justice (which I think anyone who puts the nation at risk should be).

My point is, either way you look at it, people are using it for politics. These nations probing into our sensitive data have been doing so forever, I could give you a long list on both Russia and China, and we could go further and talk about other countries too.

How often do we see people demand our security apparatus be improved?



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Intel covers their ass by showing there is a security flaw but goes on to say they haven't seen a real world instance of it being exploited.

I'm sure we can trust them, it's not like their stock could take a dive or contracts could be at stake should that prove to be inaccurate.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: six67seven

Not only that, but some commentators have said this was the worst attack since 9/11 but say nothing about the FBI not being allowed to examine the crime scene.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: introvert

No, I'm talking forensic. Which is what the FBI should be doing.


Then your example is ridiculous.

All of the info the FBI would need is in those copies they were provided.


Lmao. You're funny.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zarniwoop
Does a server copy include deleted files?


Bingo.




posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: introvert

Intel covers their ass by showing there is a security flaw but goes on to say they haven't seen a real world instance of it being exploited.

I'm sure we can trust them, it's not like their stock could take a dive or contracts could be at stake should that prove to be inaccurate.


You quote an article, which is recent and I'm not sure how it applies to a "hack" that occurred a couple years ago, that also affected hundreds if not thousands of systems according to the FBI, to show how something could have been done, but then dismiss the article and claim "conspiracy" on Intel's part when the same article says that this has never occurred in the real world.

Ok. Do you see how unreasonable your position is?

edit on 30-8-2018 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I didn't imply that the Intel flaw had anything to do with this particular instance, I was merely pointing out there could be multiple variables as to why a copy of a server isn't the end all be all in an investigation as it could be missing critical information.
edit on 30-8-2018 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: introvert

I didn't implicate that the Intel flaw had anything to do with this particular instance, I was merely pointing out there could be multiple variables as to why a copy of a server isn't the end all be all in an investigation as it could be missing critical information.


It wasn't the end all-be all of an investigation. The DNC server stuff was just a small part of a hack that was, according to the FBI, part of a much larger effort that affected hundreds to possibly thousands of systems.

So playing "what-if", while it may be fun for speculative reasons, does not really change the context of this current issue.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I'll put it pretty simple for you, since you like to play the game of words to deflect from the questions people ask you.

You're saying, in other words, manners and grammar, that the FBI requested direct access to the server, got denied by the DNC, which then hired a third-part firm to look at the server and provide only a copy of the results found, which, by the way, do not show everything that could be discovered if the FBI had direct access.

And that there's no way this company, lead by an ex-FBI agent, was working with a bias in favor of the DNC, and that the American public should blindly believe in the results provided by some private and independent company?

Yes or no question. Unless you want to deflect...



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I love it how you uncover the so called "left liberal hypocrisy" thread after thread and shove it in their faces. So reasonable and polite, they do not even notice.

Or do they but use selective amnesia?

Keep going



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert


It wasn't the end all-be all of an investigation. The DNC server stuff was just a small part of a hack that was, according to the FBI, part of a much larger effort that affected hundreds to possibly thousands of systems.


Yup.


So playing "what-if", while it may be fun for speculative reasons, does not really change the context of this current issue.


Considering I was responding to your remark that the copy to the FBI should have sufficed, I think it fits into context. I was illustrating that a copy might possibly not be enough by including a hypothetical.

Truth is, we don't know all the facts, so the best we can do is speculate.

But continue with your mental gymnastics, move the goal posts, change the parameters, it's in your MO.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: vinifalou



I'll put it pretty simple for you, since you like to play the game of words to deflect from the questions people ask you.


Words are how we communicate. Communication only works if people understand the context in which the words are used.



You're saying, in other words, manners and grammar, that the FBI requested direct access to the server, got denied by the DNC, which then hired a third-part firm to look at the server and provide only a copy of the results found, which, by the way, do not show everything that could be discovered if the FBI had direct access.

And that there's no way this company, lead by an ex-FBI agent, was working with a bias in favor of the DNC, and that the American public should blindly believe in the results provided by some private and independent company?

Yes or no question. Unless you want to deflect...


No. What you posted is not what I am saying.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker



Considering I was responding to your remark that the copy to the FBI should have sufficed, I think it fits into context. I was illustrating that a copy might possibly not be enough by including a hypothetical.


Well, that creates a slippery slope fallacy when you start talking about possibilities.



But continue with your mental gymnastics, move the goal posts, change the parameters, it's in your MO.


I've done no such thing.

Instead of addressing the topic, are you now resorting to another logical fallacy...ad hom?


edit on 30-8-2018 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Martin75

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: introvert

No, I'm talking forensic. Which is what the FBI should be doing.


Then your example is ridiculous.

All of the info the FBI would need is in those copies they were provided.

Because every time you copy a file it copies? Perfectly, every time. If everything else is perfect. There isn't some other code to do something else with it? You know how this works....
Come on now.


Yes. Every time. It's a digital copy, not a file transfer, bit by bit, with a checksum at the end to prove the veracity. This is how digital forensics works. Nobody would turn over their physical devices, that's not how the world works now, nobody can do without their server farm for any amount of time. Crowdstrike got there first, their data was then the truest data, why would the FBI want degraded evidence? Why would you want the FBI to have degraded evidence?

Do you think Crowdstrike manipulated the data somehow? Because any manipulation would be apparent in the data. You can't just erase data, there would be a pattern in slack space. You can't erase data and change the signature in slack space without leaving artifacts that would show that that happened. And, there is no way in the world you could manipulate the checksum to deliver faked data.

Lastly, do you think Cohen knows how this works? Is he a digital forensics tech? Have you never had a boss talk out of his @$$ with assumptions? If digital forensics were not a thing, I am sure the FBI would have had those servers if they wanted them.




top topics



 
51
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join