If the Trump/Putin Press Conference Shocked You, You're Not Paying Attention

The Hill ^ | July 17, 2018 | Mark Davis

[gogeo]

I’m hoping we see the list.

[Sam Gamgee]

China is a great point. Their human rights are deplorable.

[Sam Gamgee]

I guess it will be a frozen day in hell, before DJT makes that assumption public? They would go nuts.

[Sam Gamgee]

Trump hasn’t be nuanced enough to separate general interference, which we all know the Russians always do, and the actual event whereby Clinton’s emails were hacked.

I agree that he doesn’t believe they were behind the Clinton emails.

[Sam Gamgee]

Oh I would love for him to twitter about that. The globalists would be foaming at the mouths.

[Sam Gamgee]

The OSS. Operated on US soil to spy on and sometimes eliminate would be NAZI operatives.

[Garth Tater]

"And to all the doubters, this is my world, data movement etc on a global scale."

LOL

Your errors:

1. Your assumption that the date/time stamps on the files could not have been created due to the slow speed of the internet connection is meaningless. The date/time stamps on the files could have been created when the hacker copied the files to a common location (while they were still inside the DNC network) in preparation for compressing them into a single file or in preparation for hiding them inside of another file (image file perhaps) in order to evade the network's intrusion detection system. An IDS keeps an eye on exfiltrations as well as intrusions and copying and manipulating the data files locally before sending them out the door may have been part of the hacker's plan.

2. Your assumption that the date/time stamps on the files are the actual dates and times that the files were created is. to put it nicely, uninformed. Timestamps can be dummied up easily and a hacker will often do so in order to add a bit of confusion as to how and when he did what he did. Who knows, maybe he was a regular visitor and didn't want to come back later and find his entry port closed.

3. "the forensics on the data taken from the server prove tecnically the impossibility" LOLOLOL You have NO forensics on the data. You have some data files that went through who knows how many hands, each of which were able to do who knows what to them, before they were presented as the original files that were copied off the DNC network. You have a very strange idea of what data forensics means.

4. You say Administrator rights would be needed to access the data and no others would be able to access the "vault" - but you know NOTHING about the setup of the DNC network and ignore the fact that it was managed by non-professionals who were themselves hired by political hacks. It is more likely the data security on that network was a slap-dash, thrown together mishmash of locations and access rights than it was a well designed system with Administrator rights being necessary to access the "vault" as you (with no knowledge of the system) tell us.

________________________________________

You profess knowledge that you don't have and then assure us that you yourself are a professional and that we should believe you. Okay, I guess we'll have to take your word for it since you are an expert.

[100American]

https://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017/08/944692-bombshell-report-dnc-hack-forensic-experts-claims-inside-job-not-russians

[Garth Tater]

So you not only want us to believe you because you are an expert but you also want us to believe you because other "experts" agree with you? Is that because you are unable to refute any of the points I made in my post to you?

Logical Fallacy: Argument from Authority

"An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam is a form of defeasible[1] argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy"

[Political Junkie Too]

Okay, I guess we'll have to take your word for it since you are an expert.

It's not my word. Why don't you read the article in The Nation that I linked up-thread and see the CV's of the people who actually did the analysis.

There is a reason I cited The Nation, because they are an extreme left-wing media that isn't buying the story.

-PJ

[Garth Tater]

I made four points in my first post to 100American. Instead of relying on the word of “experts” why don’t you try refuting any one of them? Or not. Arguing from Authority is so much easier.

[100American]

Look Garth, yes I have expertise in this area having worked in Data storage at an enterprise level for years well as all attributes

The bottom line of the DNC “hack” is the ability of the Russians to move that much data across the Internet at the rate that it could be and in the time frame provided. I did not provide all of the baselines, others did

Am I the final arbiter of truth, no, but you seem to have placed yourself in that role. In closing I maintain that Seth Rich provided the data capsule that is the root of the issue and not remote hacking as has been purported

You can believe whatever you like and that is your right

Otherwise promote your own theories and beliefs

[Political Junkie Too]

I'm not refuting your points, I'm relying on the experts in the article to have already considered your points.

Read the article for yourself. You are the one who is putting the word "experts" in scare quotes without even knowing who they are or what their CVs are.

Read the article, cite some text from the article, and refute that text. Cite the experts and their backgrounds, and dispute their credibility.

Going after me for posting the article does nothing to address the points made in the article.

-PJ

[Garth Tater]

"The bottom line of the DNC “hack” is the ability of the Russians to move that much data across the Internet at the rate that it could be and in the time frame provided. I did not provide all of the baselines, others did"

There is no proof as to how long the data took to move across the wire. It could have taken 82 seconds, or it could have taken 82 days. All of your information comes from files that are purported to be the original files copied off the DNC network servers - but those files are of an unknown origination and could have easily passed through any number of hackers and/or state intelligence agencies - each of which could have put dummied up timestamps on them.

Telling me that those files' timestamps prove that they were copied locally and were not created by a hacker in some faraway location tells me that you don't know what you're talking about.

[Garth Tater]

"Read the article, cite some text from the article, and refute that text."

LOL For every expert you can cite I can find another that thinks differently. That is why I prefer to stick with facts and logical reasoning. You have not attempted to refute any of the four points I made in my first post. Until you at least attempt to make your case without resorting to an Argument From Authority I'm just going to have to assume you are incapable of arguing your case yourself and we have nothing further to discuss.

Have a nice day.

[Political Junkie Too]

There is no proof as to how long the data took to move across the wire. It could have taken 82 seconds...

If you read the article, you would see that they discussed that the benchmark sources in early 2016 showed that the fastest internet download speeds were reported by xfinity and Cox internet providers, and that those speeds do not support transfer of the file sizes in 82 seconds, even when transferred 20 miles, let alone across the Atlantic Ocean.

Maybe you're suggesting that this was a drip-by-drip hack done slowly, but undetected, over a period of days or weeks, instead of a single download burst? Has anybody suggested that this was a possibility? Would there have been safeguards that would recognize and alert to a continuous unauthorized data stream that persisted over a long period of time?

Given that the timestamps suggest this was done in the early evening around 6:45PM, is it possible that Occam's Razor suggests it was done by someone who waited for everyone to go home for the evening before sneaking a flash drive into the server for a few minutes over someone maintaining a surreptitious data stream over a period of days or weeks and then masking the metadata?

The article, if you read it, also talks about Guccifer 2.0 and the masking of some of files to make it look Russian.

-PJ

p.s. I apologize in advance if we end up cross-posting each other.

[piasa]

What’s amazing is how swiftly it was determined who did it and that it was state sponsored, when we still have no idea who sent the ricin to Bush in his administration, what state was behind 9/11, or which 5 nations were involved in the Qadeer Khan network...they didn’t identify all of them... and who was behind a score of terrorist attacks, including Benghazi. They argued abut who all was involved in the USS Cole and so on.

Still don’t know who killed our top cybersecurity guy nd tossed him in a dumpster.

[piasa]

And Brennan claimed not to know who supplied and paid for the dossier when it’s been established they did know about a year before he said that...

If a president’s [any president’s] getting briefings from someone like Brennan how can a president have confidence in the information or know when critical info has been omitted by a biased briefer?

[Political Junkie Too]

LOL For every expert you can cite I can find another that thinks differently. That is why I prefer to stick with facts and logical reasoning...

Then do it, but I'll take that as a "no."

We seem to be at cross purposes here.

Why do you expect me to refute your technical posts when I never suggested that I'm a technical authority?

Why are you directing your technical posts to me when you should be directing them to the technical experts in the article I posted (although acceptable to post the questions in reply to my post)?

We don't challenge the person who posted an article to take on the role of the author of the article to defend the points made in the article. We post an article to attract discussion of the article. If you have technical disputes with the conclusions, point out the conclusions in the article and why you're experience suggests a different conclusion, but don't expect me to be the other side of the technical debate; that's why I posted the article in the first place -- because those experts already laid out their side of the debate.

I'll gladly debate my own conclusions when I post them. In this case, I only repeated the conclusions in the article, and then questioned the silence afterwards.

The author also questions the silence that came from the analysis. The author (and the publisher) questioned why the MSM was willing to take the DNC explanations at face value with no corroborating evidence being provided. The author was pointing out the gap in investigable data, but the willingness of everyone to accept the offered conclusions.

That's why they put out this report. That's you should direct your doubts to the points made in the report, not to me for calling out the points made in the report.

-PJ

[Garth Tater]

"Maybe you're suggesting that this was a drip-by-drip hack done slowly, but undetected, over a period of days or weeks, instead of a single download burst? Has anybody suggested that this was a possibility?"

Maybe I'm suggesting? Come on now, that's clearly what I said. And yes, not only has it been suggested, it is the most likely way a hacker would have exfiltrated his stolen data. Large data files are routinely blocked by the network's IDS so stolen data has to be disguised and mixed in with the normal traffic to make it out the door.

"Would there have been safeguards that would recognize and alert to a continuous unauthorized data stream that persisted over a long period of time?"

Of course there would be safeguards put in place to watch the outbound traffic which is exactly why the hacker may have, and in fact probably would have, worked on the data while it was still inside the DNC network to disguise it before sending it out - and this manipulation could easily have resulted in the short timeframe in which all the files' timestamps fall.

My point is that the timestamps on the files could have been created when they were being created and/or manipulated locally -or- they could have been falsified by unknown persons after the files left the DNC network. In either case, the timestamps DO NOT prove that the hack was done locally and do not point either towards or away from Seth Rich being the data thief.