No evidence supporting theory Russia hacked DNC says NSA whistleblower

It was an inside job that was covered up so they could extend the Russia theory to keep the Trump collusion theory alive.a reply to: JBurns

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Dudemo5

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Dudemo5

But he didn't say anything about a destination or source IP. What he does say is that data was copied in two separate bursts, 12 minutes apart totaling 87 seconds. 16GB is a lot of data to copy in such a short time, and it is unlikely they would do so with such speed over the network/WAN. Doing so would certainly raise red flags, so it would've been split into much smaller chunks and possibly transmitted as another type of data (for instance, HTTP requests/responses).

By "it" what do you mean? The Windows event log? Or /var/log? My point is that USB file transfer wouldn't be documented the same way as data going across a network. Anything having to do with an IP address would be separate from local file transfer disk I/O stuff. You might have a hardware address that is specific to that USB device, but it wouldn't have an assigned IP in any way.

Right. The disk I/O stuff is separate from the network activity. However, we have the destination IP address, so clearly there was an IP address associated with the breach through which logs show significant outbound traffic.

No, the USB drive does not have an IP address.

Where did you get your facts from? If there was an IP associated with this "hack" then it's location will be easy to pinpoint. I had not heard of any of that information being released. I guess when you post your link to the data, I will have learned something new. Thanks in advance for proving your statement.

From: time.com...


Fancy Bear... was sending command and control instructions from a server with an Internet Protocol (IP) address of 176.31.112.10.

I see London I see France

Feel free to actually read the article. Or just spew nonsense, per usual. Either way I don't care.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: JBurns

Oh yeah he's an expert, the FBI and the CIA are just fly by night pretenders.

Okay....

LOL

When it comes to who to believe, in this age of Snowden and universal deception, I will go with the whistleblower prosecuted by the government any day. Every day.

Truth is the enemy of government, and that is why it prosecutes whistleblowers like Binney.

a reply to: Dudemo5

they were able to achieve those amazingly fast data transfer rates from the other side of the globe? Jesus, was there gig fiber links to everyone way back then? I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that it's really, really amazing to get those speeds, across that many hops, over that distance.

a reply to: Salander

Well that's your problem.
Have a nice life...

a reply to: Salander


Same here, given the government's propensity to lie about any and every matter they can. A policy of denial.

It is like those who doubt the government would engage in false flags, yet ignore proven examples like OPERATION NORTHWOODS.

a reply to: gimcrackery


I had the same suspicions jimcrackery

We have seen this overarching and totally unproven Russian narrative used more than once, and thus far there has been no evidence presented whatsoever. We have plenty of statements and conclusions, but no actual information/evidence.

Not even Crowdstrike, a private company, will release data they would've undoubtedly obtained at the DNC last summer.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Dudemo5

they were able to achieve those amazingly fast data transfer rates from the other side of the globe? Jesus, was there gig fiber links to everyone way back then? I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that it's really, really amazing to get those speeds, across that many hops, over that distance.

Ante already did a very good job of explaining where those "amazingly fast data speeds" came from.

I also addressed it early in the thread.

Short answer: Those "amazing fast data transfer speeds" did not happen.

Whoever said they'll believe the CIA/FBI whoever is laughable. They need to produce evidence, they're known liars.

Look at the brand new Vault8 release from WikiLeaks

New WikiLeaks publication reveals CIA wrote code to impersonate Kaspersky Labs anti-virus company (WL Vault8)

You were saying about the intelligence community's reliability? Trustworthiness? They're trade liars, no thanks.

a reply to: Dudemo5


Assuming your analysis were accurate (I trust Binney, but each is their own), how can you be sure the CIA didn't use their proven technology to frame the Russians? Since you relied on the CIA in part for your belief in this conspiracy theory, how can you be sure they're telling the truth? Why won't private firm Crowdstrike release ANY of its non-classified data?

No evidence has been presented - only opinions from talking heads, which are trained/paid to lie.

Look at the new Vault8 release by WL, CIA was impersonating Kaspersky anti-virus company. If they can impersonate an SSL certificate, think of what other capabilities they have regarding false-attribution. Do you really think it'd be a challenge for them (or any other sophisticated group) to falsify their IP/MAC/identifying info? Or even to cover up this information? Why leave anything behind for that matter? 16GB in 87 seconds. That is going to draw some attention, so why leave tons of evidence behind you know will be found?

We're allegedly talking about a sophisticated state actor not some Tee'd off leaker.

No way to know without seeing real, raw evidence. Not everything either, anything will do as long as it is hard evidence and not just a talking head.