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: 5
51
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
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."




Ok so you admit that although speculative, this could have happened.

And if it any group is possible of this type of speculative attack, wouldnt the russian government, who we are told are some of the most sophisticated hackers in the work, be just about as likely as any?

So why not remove all doubt by checking the physical server?

If intel admits attacks like this could be possible, surely the FBI knows that as well. And yet they for no reason decide to not look at the physical server.

And the DNC for some reason isnt interested in making sure all possible angles are covered to make sure this happens again.
edit on 30-8-2018 by Grambler because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: whargoul
Platters are definitively NOT written in a spiral.


I wrote writes in spiral, that´s facutal incorrect but it ilustrates my point. I give you that.
What movement does the arm make if you project it on a spinning disk when it changes the tracks?


A NON-LINEAR SPIRAL GOD DAMNIT.
edit on 30-8-2018 by verschickter because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: whargoul

originally posted by: Sahasrara
a reply to: introvert

No, as always, you are assuming that the people doing this copying and providing were being honest. It seems to always be the assumption from people defending these guys that they were operating according to law. It seems clear to me that these people are/were not operating according to the law, and so your premise, in my mind, is false. At this point I think it is naive to assume that these people were being lawful, and so, I think it's naive to trust that the DNC/Crowdstrike actually provided a complete copy of the server.

IMO


Veracity is built into the process. We don't have to assume people are honest, trust but verify.


How can you verify a copy is complete without having access to the original?

Two points on this I addressed in the OP.

1. James comey states that the FBI prefers to have access to the physical server themselves.

If what you are saying is true, why would that be the FBI preference? They would never need to physically see the server and make a copy themselves, because any person who digital records were being investigated could just use their own firm to do that copying for them.

2. If the copy is an absolute exact replica of the original server, then why would the DNC not leave the FBI look at the server when requested?





Well, the copy produces a checksum, it's like a digital fingerprint. The algorithm used to create this checksum is proven, there wouldn't be a way to fake it.

To answer the bullet-ed question.

1. I don't think Comey knows *snip about digital forensics. I think he shot his mouth off, then his digital guys told him they didn't need it. He's old school "physical evidence is the king" kind of guy. That's just not the world we live in anymore.

2. Time and effort. It would have been a waste of both of them and both drive business. (does that make sense?) If someone asked you for something stupid, would you be willing to relent?

Edit to add: If Comey keeps saying he needs the physical devices, then he is just doubling down on his own stupidity. Either trying to score political points or honestly not understanding the process.
edit on 8/30/2018 by whargoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Martin75

originally posted by: whargoul

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.

OK

Do you really think I sent them my ENTIRE data center? I sent them one infected physical device.

Next: Do you people think Hillary had a data center? She had a server. Most likely the server was the size of the desktop computer you got back in the 90s in the "cow box".
I have some servers that are small enough to fit on my visor and some that I can't lift with my server lifts.


We're not talking about Hillary's dumb server, we're talking about the hacked DNC server farm!

You wanna talk about Hillary's server start a new thread, you might be surprised how much we agree.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I would have assumed most would have accepted by now that the DNC was not hacked.
Over 2 years and still not a shred of evidence that is was.
The FBI, as the OP says could not get the server.
A respected ex British politician says he was personally handed the files. Named the place and time. The FBI have never even got in touch with him.
The FBI actions make it clear they were never really interested in who leaked the information / how wikileaks got it. They were corrupt from the start, doing the bidding of Barrack Obama's henchmen to build the Russia story.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: whargoul

originally posted by: Martin75

originally posted by: whargoul

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.

OK

Do you really think I sent them my ENTIRE data center? I sent them one infected physical device.

Next: Do you people think Hillary had a data center? She had a server. Most likely the server was the size of the desktop computer you got back in the 90s in the "cow box".
I have some servers that are small enough to fit on my visor and some that I can't lift with my server lifts.


We're not talking about Hillary's dumb server, we're talking about the hacked DNC server farm!

You wanna talk about Hillary's server start a new thread, you might be surprised how much we agree.

Then I'm doubly confused. Since this is discussing the ENTIRE DNC network then they only had to hand over ANY device that had a positive inclusion. It could have been a desktop.
And yes, that is exactly how forensics is done. Using any and all physical evidence at your disposal.
I'm pretty sure withholding evidence is a crime.
edit on 8/30/2018 by Martin75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: whargoul
You seem to overlook the fact that the "empty" sectors of the vhd could have been zeroed before a "bit-by-bit" copy.(which is the incorrect nomenclature, correct is sector by sector)

Hell, the vhd could have been easily "compacted" after zeroing the unutilized sectors.
(If you know as much as u think, you would know what that means)


edit on 8/30/2018 by efabian because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: whargoul

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: whargoul

originally posted by: Sahasrara
a reply to: introvert

No, as always, you are assuming that the people doing this copying and providing were being honest. It seems to always be the assumption from people defending these guys that they were operating according to law. It seems clear to me that these people are/were not operating according to the law, and so your premise, in my mind, is false. At this point I think it is naive to assume that these people were being lawful, and so, I think it's naive to trust that the DNC/Crowdstrike actually provided a complete copy of the server.

IMO


Veracity is built into the process. We don't have to assume people are honest, trust but verify.


How can you verify a copy is complete without having access to the original?

Two points on this I addressed in the OP.

1. James comey states that the FBI prefers to have access to the physical server themselves.

If what you are saying is true, why would that be the FBI preference? They would never need to physically see the server and make a copy themselves, because any person who digital records were being investigated could just use their own firm to do that copying for them.

2. If the copy is an absolute exact replica of the original server, then why would the DNC not leave the FBI look at the server when requested?





Well, the copy produces a checksum, it's like a digital fingerprint. The algorithm used to create this checksum is proven, there wouldn't be a way to fake it.

To answer the bullet-ed question.

1. I don't think Comey knows *snip about digital forensics. I think he shot his mouth off, then his digital guys told him they didn't need it. He's old school "physical evidence is the king" kind of guy. That's just not the world we live in anymore.

2. Time and effort. It would have been a waste of both of them and both drive business. (does that make sense?) If someone asked you for something stupid, would you be willing to relent?



If thats the case, why physically raid cohens office in the middle of the night? Why ever raid anyone electronics? Shouldn't everyone be able to save the FBI time and money by submitting copies of their servers (if thats whit is being investigated) themselves?

On the points.

1. Oh so now comey is ignorant on these matters? Hahaha! And I suppose none of the people "in the know" at the fbi had any input when comey says that the fbi filed multiple requests for the physical drive?

I find it hard to believe that multiple times the fbi requested this without asking their tech guys that would know that they were wasting time and energy on this.

It is law enforcement preference to collect evidence on their own because they know that is the only ful proof way to know that the evidence collected was up to their standard.

2. Time and effort?

"Hey sorry america, we know that it doesnt look good that we relied on a hillary paid for firm that has been incorrect of its blame of russians committing hacks before to send us a copy of the server as opposed to viewing the actual server ourselves. But you know, we didnt want to impose on the DNC's time and effort on this, even though we have said this is case is incredibly important"

No that makes no sense whatsoever.

What time and effort to the dnc would it be for them to just let the FBI take the server?

In fact, it seems like it would be far more time and effort to rebut the fbis request multiple times.

The only rational explanation is that there was something on that server that the dnc didnt want the fbi to see. This proves that the copy wasnt complete; if it was, the dnc would have saved the time and effort for paying a private company to make the copy instead of just letting the fbi see the server.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Great post Grambler


This needs to be addressed. Especially since so many Clinton allies/MSM flunkies are relying on the public's short memory, manufactured outrage and the next invented crisis-of-the-week to distract from this and other important events (read: things that actually matter, unlike 95% of BS on the news)

The real problem is dishonest, profit driven, corporate shill, biased partisan hack MSM. If we still had real journalists (vs. entertainment news pundits) things would be very different.
edit on 8/30/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 12:13 PM
link   
And another point.

Look at all the tech knowledgeable people on gthis thread disagreeing.

Even if those saying the copy is withourt a doubt 100% perfect, its clear to see many people, even techinically knowldegable people would have doubts.

So why would the FBI leave any room for doubt at all?

And so far the only answer given is :well it would have been time and effort for them to actually get the server"

That is not acceptable.

The fbi and IG have both admitted that because this case is so political, the FBI should do their best to not have even the appearance of bias or negligence.

And yet they couldnt look at this server because it would be time and effort, and so it was worth acting in a way that was not only against the FBI's usual preference, but that they know would appear by many to be bias or negligent?

It makes no sense.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




The only rational explanation is that there was something on that server that the dnc didnt want the fbi to see. This proves that the copy wasnt complete; if it was, the dnc would have saved the time and effort for paying a private company to make the copy instead of just letting the fbi see the server.


Exactly, one has to read between the tracks ahem I mean lines to get to the truth here.

This alone is questionable. I can´t fathom what "experts" the FBI seem to have... I´m inclined to think they know better and try to sweep that annoying fact that an image is not the same as a full recovery under the rug.


edit on 30-8-2018 by verschickter because: messed up the strike tag



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

CrowdStrike was most likely the "clean-up" crew to hide the fact that the drives were tampered.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Martin75

originally posted by: whargoul

originally posted by: Martin75

originally posted by: whargoul

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.

OK

Do you really think I sent them my ENTIRE data center? I sent them one infected physical device.

Next: Do you people think Hillary had a data center? She had a server. Most likely the server was the size of the desktop computer you got back in the 90s in the "cow box".
I have some servers that are small enough to fit on my visor and some that I can't lift with my server lifts.


We're not talking about Hillary's dumb server, we're talking about the hacked DNC server farm!

You wanna talk about Hillary's server start a new thread, you might be surprised how much we agree.

Then I'm doubly confused. Since this is discussing the ENTIRE DNC network then they only had to hand over ANY device that had a positive inclusion. It could have been a desktop.
And yes, that is exactly how forensics is done. Using any and all physical evidence at your disposal.
I'm pretty sure withholding evidence is a crime.


Yup, you are confused. That server was in a bathroom (supposedly) by itself somewhere and on Hillary's network, not the DNC's.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: efabian
a reply to: whargoul
You seem to overlook the fact that the "empty" sectors of the vhd could have been zeroed before a "bit-by-bit" copy.(which is the incorrect nomenclature, correct is sector by sector)

Hell, the vhd could have been easily "compacted" after zeroing the unutilized sectors.
(If you know as much as u think, you would know what that means)



I do know what that means, and as I have said over and over that would have been blatantly obvious if they had done that.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: efabian
a reply to: Grambler

CrowdStrike was most likely the "clean-up" crew to hide the fact that the drives were tampered.


I agree.

And even if I didnt agree, I could see that given Crowdstrike was hired by the DNC, a reasonable person could think that.

Which means the FBI could have either had that suspicion, or at least known other people would have.

Meaning that it makes no sense whatsoever for them not to demand access to the physical server.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: whargoul

Actually it wouldn't without the physical drive to verify.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker



I'm sure a copy would be enough for investigators to get what they need, but often times they need more.


Considering what the FBI were investigating at the time, in regards to this topic and the extent at which it had taken place, do you think they were provided enough info?



Sure, sometimes a copy is enough. Ok, I understand that is your opinion, but illustrating how it may not be is not illogical.


Ok. I agree. Illustrating how it may not be enough is not illogical in and of itself. How you chose to do so was illogical.



We're all speculating, none of us have inside knowledge of this investigation, we do not know all the facts.


True, which is why I find it funny that so many speak in absolutes and that they become ultra defensive for just pointing out simple things.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: whargoul

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: whargoul

originally posted by: Sahasrara
a reply to: introvert

No, as always, you are assuming that the people doing this copying and providing were being honest. It seems to always be the assumption from people defending these guys that they were operating according to law. It seems clear to me that these people are/were not operating according to the law, and so your premise, in my mind, is false. At this point I think it is naive to assume that these people were being lawful, and so, I think it's naive to trust that the DNC/Crowdstrike actually provided a complete copy of the server.

IMO


Veracity is built into the process. We don't have to assume people are honest, trust but verify.


How can you verify a copy is complete without having access to the original?

Two points on this I addressed in the OP.

1. James comey states that the FBI prefers to have access to the physical server themselves.

If what you are saying is true, why would that be the FBI preference? They would never need to physically see the server and make a copy themselves, because any person who digital records were being investigated could just use their own firm to do that copying for them.

2. If the copy is an absolute exact replica of the original server, then why would the DNC not leave the FBI look at the server when requested?





Well, the copy produces a checksum, it's like a digital fingerprint. The algorithm used to create this checksum is proven, there wouldn't be a way to fake it.

To answer the bullet-ed question.

1. I don't think Comey knows *snip about digital forensics. I think he shot his mouth off, then his digital guys told him they didn't need it. He's old school "physical evidence is the king" kind of guy. That's just not the world we live in anymore.

2. Time and effort. It would have been a waste of both of them and both drive business. (does that make sense?) If someone asked you for something stupid, would you be willing to relent?



If thats the case, why physically raid cohens office in the middle of the night? Why ever raid anyone electronics? Shouldn't everyone be able to save the FBI time and money by submitting copies of their servers (if thats whit is being investigated) themselves?

On the points.

1. Oh so now comey is ignorant on these matters? Hahaha! And I suppose none of the people "in the know" at the fbi had any input when comey says that the fbi filed multiple requests for the physical drive?

I find it hard to believe that multiple times the fbi requested this without asking their tech guys that would know that they were wasting time and energy on this.

It is law enforcement preference to collect evidence on their own because they know that is the only ful proof way to know that the evidence collected was up to their standard.

2. Time and effort?

"Hey sorry america, we know that it doesnt look good that we relied on a hillary paid for firm that has been incorrect of its blame of russians committing hacks before to send us a copy of the server as opposed to viewing the actual server ourselves. But you know, we didnt want to impose on the DNC's time and effort on this, even though we have said this is case is incredibly important"

No that makes no sense whatsoever.

What time and effort to the dnc would it be for them to just let the FBI take the server?

In fact, it seems like it would be far more time and effort to rebut the fbis request multiple times.

The only rational explanation is that there was something on that server that the dnc didnt want the fbi to see. This proves that the copy wasnt complete; if it was, the dnc would have saved the time and effort for paying a private company to make the copy instead of just letting the fbi see the server.


Shock and Awe, that's the way we do things. You take things from people you are investigating, you don't take things from the victims in an investigation. Remember, the DNC are supposed to be the victims here.

Time and effort yes. I do not know how many servers they had, but I have heard upwards of 400. Take away even one server and productivity would fall. They were trying to win an election, if the FBI had taken their servers that would have been a direct hindrance to their bottom line. It would look 100% like political bias (just like Comey "reopening" the Hillary investigation days before the election).



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Sahasrara



No, as always, you are assuming that the people doing this copying and providing were being honest. It seems to always be the assumption from people defending these guys that they were operating according to law.


To state otherwise would be an assumption.

What I am doing is giving them the benefit of the doubt, considering I have no reason to believe what they gave the FBI was falsified or incomplete in any manner.



It seems clear to me that these people are/were not operating according to the law, and so your premise, in my mind, is false. At this point I think it is naive to assume that these people were being lawful, and so, I think it's naive to trust that the DNC/Crowdstrike actually provided a complete copy of the server.


So you are assuming.

Imagine that.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Obviously, I would go as far as to say that if they did not seize the drives immediately the data is non-reliable. There are just too many ways to tamper the physical disks to hide deleted data. (much of them untraceable)




top topics



 
51
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join