Author Topic: DNC leak?  (Read 629 times)

gentmach

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 81
DNC leak?
« on: July 27, 2017, 11:29:52 AM »
Hello,

Would anyone mind critiquing these? I only know enough about computer's to get in trouble.

Here is an over view: https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/25/was-the-russian-hack-an-inside-job/

Guccifer 2.0 Analysis: http://g-2.space

Forensicator Meta Data Analysis: https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2-ngp-van-metadata-analysis/

Just posting these because something bugs me about them.
Financial Independence Blog and Project Blog
www.gentlemanmachinist.com

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2094
Re: DNC leak?
« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2017, 01:58:12 PM »
While interesting, their conclusions have a lot of "likely" and "unlikely" words sprinkled around. It's not conclusive.

From a quick read,

Conclusion 9 sticks out because the author doesn't know (?) about the "cp -p" command on linux, which preserves the timestamp (et al) of the original file(s).

The transfer rate is easily solved because the original transfer could have been between 2 DNC computers, which is not an uncommon method -- break into the easy computer and use it to get the juicy bits. Likewise, the east coast time issue isn't very interesting at all. So what? It could've been an intermediate computer en route to the DNC.

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 589
Re: DNC leak?
« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2017, 03:05:50 PM »
I only skimmed the first link but I think I got enough of what they are trying to say to make some comments.

First no news agency big or small has access to anywhere near the level of detail necessary to make strong conclusions about the nature of the hacks or who carried them out.

We basically have to go on the word of our intelligence community which has all the information we don't. While the main stream media peppers in speculation for its viewers the crux of their reporting that Russia is the culprit is purely based off of statements from the intelligence community who are the only people qualified or capable of making such a judgment.

Have they been wrong in the past? Of course, but they are still our only experts and no one of any note is doubting their core claim even among the congressional intelligence committees. I know it can be hard to no be completely cynical and assume all the elites in politics and intelligence are just lying assholes. But I don't think the reality is that bad yet. There are still mostly good people doing the best they can in these groups. The US system isn't perfect but unlike the fully corrupt and dishonest system in Russia that has grown out of the wreckage of the collapse of communism, the US is still filled with leaders who think they are trying to do the right thing most of the time and a media still largely independent and reliable in their presentation of facts.

The article is basically speculating that the DNC somehow colluded with the intelligence community in order to leak damaging information about themselves to implicate Russia, to gain something?

Doesn't that sound like a huge stretch? That is an incredible complicated and risky plan. Just look at the DNCs arrogance, up until the final votes were tallied they had no reason to believe Trump had any chance of winning. Why go through the trouble of leaking damaging information about their own candidate to increase the odds of winning an election everyone believed they already had in the bag?

First we don't need a reason to turn popular opinion against Russia further. No one, except for Trump, see's Russia as anything but a dangerous adversary on either side of the aisle.

Second the leaks were some of the only major dirt on Clinton in the campaign. No campaign would risk releasing such damaging information. In fact it is highly probable those leaks and the manner in which the FBI handled them play a role in Clinton's loss given the narrow margin by which she lost key states.

Third, look at how the FBI handled this. They did great public harm to Hillary's campaign. When this article is implying something that basically would require the FBI to be working with the DNC to hide the fact that the evidence doesn't point to Russia hacking the DNC. In that case you would think they would keep their mouth shut and not directly harm Hillary's campaign.

Finally even if the evidence the article discusses were 100% conclusive that a DNC computer on US soil was directly accessed to obtain the information, the most logical conclusion wouldn't be that the DNC manufactured this crazy scheme to hurt Russia and Trump. The most likely explanation would be that someone unwittingly allowed their computer to be directly accessed and hacked or inadvertently transferred the information in a more direct fashion than over the internet. Its also possible that someone was flipped and coerced in some way for the information.

Most hacks involve some form of social engineering so it wouldn't be surprise if this didn't necessarily involve remote access and download like we always see in the movies. Real hacking isn't always so quick and sexy.

There is no doubt the mainstream media and Democrats are putting spin on this whole thing to try to counter all the damage done. And the mainstream media is doubling down because their viewers and their new casters hate Trump. But that doesn't mean that this incredibly unlikely and illogical scenario went down.


RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 589
Re: DNC leak?
« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2017, 03:11:44 PM »
Also I would try listening to some NPR political reporting on the Russia hacking/ potential collusion.

The commentators going over new stories and information as it emerges are actually pretty balanced and inquisitive. They don't waste time needlessly bashing Trump and they are not assuming guilt.

They genuinely spend time trying to distill information and discuss possibilities. At this point very few in those news groups think any of this will lead to real legal action against Trump or any kind of impeachment.


gentmach

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 81
Re: DNC leak?
« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2017, 03:38:46 PM »
I only skimmed the first link but I think I got enough of what they are trying to say to make some comments.

First no news agency big or small has access to anywhere near the level of detail necessary to make strong conclusions about the nature of the hacks or who carried them out.

We basically have to go on the word of our intelligence community which has all the information we don't. While the main stream media peppers in speculation for its viewers the crux of their reporting that Russia is the culprit is purely based off of statements from the intelligence community who are the only people qualified or capable of making such a judgment.

Have they been wrong in the past? Of course, but they are still our only experts and no one of any note is doubting their core claim even among the congressional intelligence committees. I know it can be hard to no be completely cynical and assume all the elites in politics and intelligence are just lying assholes. But I don't think the reality is that bad yet. There are still mostly good people doing the best they can in these groups. The US system isn't perfect but unlike the fully corrupt and dishonest system in Russia that has grown out of the wreckage of the collapse of communism, the US is still filled with leaders who think they are trying to do the right thing most of the time and a media still largely independent and reliable in their presentation of facts.

The article is basically speculating that the DNC somehow colluded with the intelligence community in order to leak damaging information about themselves to implicate Russia, to gain something?

Doesn't that sound like a huge stretch? That is an incredible complicated and risky plan. Just look at the DNCs arrogance, up until the final votes were tallied they had no reason to believe Trump had any chance of winning. Why go through the trouble of leaking damaging information about their own candidate to increase the odds of winning an election everyone believed they already had in the bag?

First we don't need a reason to turn popular opinion against Russia further. No one, except for Trump, see's Russia as anything but a dangerous adversary on either side of the aisle.

Second the leaks were some of the only major dirt on Clinton in the campaign. No campaign would risk releasing such damaging information. In fact it is highly probable those leaks and the manner in which the FBI handled them play a role in Clinton's loss given the narrow margin by which she lost key states.

Third, look at how the FBI handled this. They did great public harm to Hillary's campaign. When this article is implying something that basically would require the FBI to be working with the DNC to hide the fact that the evidence doesn't point to Russia hacking the DNC. In that case you would think they would keep their mouth shut and not directly harm Hillary's campaign.

Finally even if the evidence the article discusses were 100% conclusive that a DNC computer on US soil was directly accessed to obtain the information, the most logical conclusion wouldn't be that the DNC manufactured this crazy scheme to hurt Russia and Trump. The most likely explanation would be that someone unwittingly allowed their computer to be directly accessed and hacked or inadvertently transferred the information in a more direct fashion than over the internet. Its also possible that someone was flipped and coerced in some way for the information.

Most hacks involve some form of social engineering so it wouldn't be surprise if this didn't necessarily involve remote access and download like we always see in the movies. Real hacking isn't always so quick and sexy.

There is no doubt the mainstream media and Democrats are putting spin on this whole thing to try to counter all the damage done. And the mainstream media is doubling down because their viewers and their new casters hate Trump. But that doesn't mean that this incredibly unlikely and illogical scenario went down.

Umm... I am completely confounded by how you reached that conclusion. I am pretty sure they meant a single insider decided to leak the emails.

Edit: There were two attacks. The original was a leak. The second was to throw Russian fingerprints on it.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2017, 02:04:04 PM by gentmach »
Financial Independence Blog and Project Blog
www.gentlemanmachinist.com

gentmach

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 81
Re: DNC leak?
« Reply #5 on: July 27, 2017, 05:38:06 PM »
While interesting, their conclusions have a lot of "likely" and "unlikely" words sprinkled around. It's not conclusive.

From a quick read,

Conclusion 9 sticks out because the author doesn't know (?) about the "cp -p" command on linux, which preserves the timestamp (et al) of the original file(s).

The transfer rate is easily solved because the original transfer could have been between 2 DNC computers, which is not an uncommon method -- break into the easy computer and use it to get the juicy bits. Likewise, the east coast time issue isn't very interesting at all. So what? It could've been an intermediate computer en route to the DNC.

I think he is talking about two different dates.

"
Conclusion 9:  The final copy (on 9/1/2016) from the initial file collection to working directories was likely done with a conventional drag-and-drop style of copy.  This conclusion is based on the observation that the file last modified times were preserved when copying from the initial collection to the working copies, unlike the first copy operation on 7/5/2016 (which is attributed to the use of the cp command).
"

Somebody used a bot to get to the DNC emails? It would still have to be in the building though wouldn't it? Isn't the overall point of the article that the data transfer was too fast to be done over the internet? That it had to be a USB?
Financial Independence Blog and Project Blog
www.gentlemanmachinist.com