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.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut
More statements you are unable to back up.....
So suprised
So all they asked for was the server?
originally posted by: tanstaafl
originally posted by: chr0naut
What you don't seem to get is that in order to remove the control boards, the drive must be disassembled in a clean environment.
Does anyone know what kind of hard drives were running in said server?
This entire thread is assuming they were old mechanical drives. What if they were SSDs (SATA, M.2, etc), or hybrids?
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: xuenchen
Here is a photo of the DNC server in this New York Times article. Seems to be powered on, but it's hard to tell:
The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S.
Also, the FBI were given images of the drives quite early on, by Crowdstrike, the cyber security company who were doing the audit.
The server itself was not given to the FBI because they would have to turn it off and disconnect it to do so. Interrupting the analysis and security remediation.
Let me tell you a little secret....it was a inside job. The speed of the data transfer was way too fast for a offsite hack.
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut
Whether the theory is correct or not, your personal filse size is a logical fallacy. It's impossible for these files to be transferred the way you suggest. The speed was over 20 megabytes per second, faster than anyone in the US could have done it without direct access.
Well the FBI didn't seem to have a problem with it so I guess we shouldn't either.
In any event no one should be denying that Russia was responsible.
Our people say it and intelligence agencies around the globe say it too.
Is the whole world in this giant cabal?
originally posted by: chr0naut
You are also aware that this contradicts the conclusions of the Mueller report?
I'll have to research this and check all the sources. Again, thanks.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
That is a man with an opinion. He was not on the investigative team that looked at this.
An educated guess is still just conjecture.
The whole thing is laid out in the Mueller report.
originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
originally posted by: chr0naut
...
Also, the FBI were given images of the drives quite early on, by Crowdstrike, the cyber security company who were doing the audit.
Oh, you mean the same Crowdstrike that made up another FALSE claim that "the same Russians that hacked the DNC hacked Ukraine's artillery units and decimated them?...
...
A cybersecurity firm has uncovered strong proof of the tie between the group that hacked the Democratic National Committee and Russia’s military intelligence arm – the primary agency behind the Kremlin’s interference in the 2016 election.
The firm CrowdStrike linked malware used in the DNC intrusion to malware used to hack and track an Android phone app used by the Ukrainian army in its battle against pro-Russia separatists in eastern Ukraine from late 2014 through 2016.
While CrowdStrike, which was hired by the DNC to investigate the intrusions and whose findings are described in a new report, had always suspected that one of the two hacker groups that struck the DNC was the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence agency, it had only medium confidence.
Now, said CrowdStrike co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch, “we have high confidence” it was a unit of the GRU. CrowdStrike had dubbed that unit “Fancy Bear.”
...
The Russians who hacked the DNC found to have also hacked Ukraine’s antiquated howitzers
Except for the FACT that both Ukraine, and the intelligence agency that Crowdstrike used as a source ( IISS) have reiterated that this never happened... Crowdstrike made it all up...
CrowdStrike Revises Russian Hack Into Ukrainian Artillery
...
But the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) told VOA that CrowdStrike erroneously used IISS data as proof of the intrusion. IISS disavowed any connection to the CrowdStrike report. Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense also has claimed combat losses and hacking never happened.
...
“The CrowdStrike report uses our data, but the inferences and analysis drawn from that data belong solely to the report’s authors,” the IISS said. “The inference they make that reductions in Ukrainian D-30 artillery holdings between 2013 and 2016 were primarily the result of combat losses is not a conclusion that we have ever suggested ourselves, nor one we believe to be accurate.”
One of the IISS researchers who produced the data said that while the think tank had dramatically lowered its estimates of Ukrainian artillery assets and howitzers in 2013, it did so as part of a “reassessment” and reallocation of units to airborne forces.
“No, we have never attributed this reduction to combat losses,” the IISS researcher said, explaining that most of the reallocation occurred prior to the two-year period that CrowdStrike cites in its report.
“The vast majority of the reduction actually occurs … before Crimea/Donbass,” he added, referring to the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
...
Think Tank: Cyber Firm at Center of Russian Hacking Charges Misread Data
First, Crowdstrike CLAIMED, without evidence, that the same Russians that hacked the DNC also hacked Ukraine's artillery units and decimated them. When Ukraine officials and IISS responded by claiming that this is a lie Crowdstrike changed their "report" to still claim that some artillery units were lost because of the hack that never really happened... Crowdstrike NEVER even admitted to be lying... Instead they revised their report to claim there were some loses from the fake hack...
originally posted by: chr0naut
The server itself was not given to the FBI because they would have to turn it off and disconnect it to do so. Interrupting the analysis and security remediation.
AAAAAHHH--BU11$#EET-CHUUUUU...
When there is a REAL hack to any government group/agency it is the job of the FBI to investigate it... It isn't the job of the people making the claim to contract a civilian security firm and deny the FBI access to the servers... This denial, which happened several times, is obstruction of justice... But since Comey/McCabe were working with the Obama/Hillary administration to follow their plans, the FBI under Comey/McCabe did not pursue the matter anymore...
Let's reiterate again what the actual truth is about "Crowdstrike's reports..."
...
But the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) told VOA that CrowdStrike erroneously used IISS data as proof of the intrusion. IISS disavowed any connection to the CrowdStrike report. Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense also has claimed combat losses and hacking never happened.
...
Think Tank: Cyber Firm at Center of Russian Hacking Charges Misread Data
originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
BTW, let's not forget the following...
By Patrick LawrenceTwitter
August 9, 2017
...
That is why The Nation published Patrick Lawrence’s article “A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack.” The article largely reported on a recently published memo prepared by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), which argued, based on their own investigation, that the theft of the DNC e-mails was not a hack, but some kind of inside leak that did not involve Russia.
...
A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year’s DNC Hack
If you don't know whom VIPS are, here.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) is a group of former officers of the United States Intelligence Community. It was formed in January 2003 when the group issued a statement accusing the Bush Administration of misrepresenting U.S. national intelligence information in order to push the US and its allies toward that year's US-led invasion of Iraq. The group issued a letter stating that intelligence analysts were not being heeded by policy makers. The group initially numbered 25, mostly retired analysts.
...
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
What's more William Binney, former NSA’s technical leader who designed the programs still being used to this day by the NSA has stated that after he took a look at the evidence, he concluded that the hack was local and was done with a portable thumb drive. The hack did not come from Russia. The hack was a "leak."
People wonder why the DNC denied the FBI access to their servers?... This is why...
William Binney is part of the group VIPS, but we are talking about who is considered the top expert in NSA who designed many of the programs that are still used to this day by the NSA.
CIA Director Met Advocate of Disputed DNC Hack Theory — at Trump’s Request
Duncan Campbell, James Risen
November 7 2017, 7:11 a.m.
CIA Director Mike Pompeo met late last month with a former U.S. intelligence official who has become an advocate for a disputed theory that the theft of the Democratic National Committee’s emails during the 2016 presidential campaign was an inside job, rather than a hack by Russian intelligence.
Pompeo met on October 24 with William Binney, a former National Security Agency official-turned-whistleblower who co-authored an analysis published by a group of former intelligence officials that challenges the U.S. intelligence community’s official assessment that Russian intelligence was behind last year’s theft of data from DNC computers. Binney and the other former officials argue that the DNC data was “leaked,” not hacked, “by a person with physical access”1 to the DNC’s computer system.
...
CIA Director Met Advocate of Disputed DNC Hack Theory — at Trump’s Request
Anyone remembers a person who had access to the DNC servers and was claimed to have been murdered in a failed robbery?...
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: yuppa
originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: xuenchen
Here is a photo of the DNC server in this New York Times article. Seems to be powered on, but it's hard to tell:
The Perfect Weapon: How Russian Cyberpower Invaded the U.S.
Also, the FBI were given images of the drives quite early on, by Crowdstrike, the cyber security company who were doing the audit.
The server itself was not given to the FBI because they would have to turn it off and disconnect it to do so. Interrupting the analysis and security remediation.
Let me tell you a little secret....it was a inside job. The speed of the data transfer was way too fast for a offsite hack.
The files in question were .pst files. It was in the news.
My personal .pst archive file is currently 827,841 kilobytes which in real terms would fully transfer in about 23 seconds over a standard gigabit link and just a little slower (perhaps twice as long at worst) over an average link between Russia and the US.
It could have been an inside job but the Mueller report clearly identifies that it wasn't.
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut
What you say is meaningless, the experts all agree the speed in question is impossible. The fact you don't understand, well, the facts, is nor surprising. They all agree the speed in question is what would be expected with a local transfer. The actual reason why it's not important is because it's possible the speed was attained by a transfer later on down the road, not the original theft.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: tanstaafl
Why?
They wanted to know who hacked them.
Why would they mess with the data necessary to learn that?
Or are you suggesting they hacked themselves and this is all just another part of the deep state trying to get to trump?