So adultswim has gone full earl, that analysis is nonsense

8/10/2017 8:36:27 PM

everyone i don't agree with is earl

8/10/2017 9:19:19 PM

bruh, you said:

Quote :

"Mueller is only involved because Trump is a threat to existing power structures. That, or he's been offered some reward, which is similar enough"

that is some massively retarded nonsense

8/10/2017 9:32:56 PM

cool. i'm willing to reconsider it if you want to tell me why i'm wrong. same for the DNC hack analysis.

i know you've gotten pretty deep into this russia narrative, but it's really okay to change your mind.

8/10/2017 9:42:23 PM

do you believe that all of the Russia stuff is sheer coincidence?

8/10/2017 10:10:34 PM

^^ you really need me to explain why Mueller is investigating?

Okay.

It's because he's a well respected former FBI director and was asked.

8/10/2017 10:46:25 PM

well i don't think you're retarded for thinking that. just naive. we'll see!

8/10/2017 11:28:38 PM

do you believe that all of the Russia stuff is sheer coincidence?

8/10/2017 11:38:44 PM

which stuff? honestly can't keep track of what's conjecture, proven fact, or overblown nonsense

[Edited on August 10, 2017 at 11:55 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2017 11:53:48 PM

do you any of it?

8/11/2017 12:02:42 AM

members of the trump team were definitely in communication with people in russia. possibly some of them were involved in fraudulent activities.

i think the DNC knew about these communications and tried to attach as much baggage to it as possible, including the DNC leaks.

and i think there's so much disinformation flying around on both sides that any real conclusions are impossible so far. i lean toward not believing it because if the case against Trump was actually strong enough, why would they need to lie about it?


[Edited on August 11, 2017 at 12:12 AM. Reason : .]

8/11/2017 12:10:15 AM

as someone who has dipped their toe into 9/11-was-an-inside-job-ism, which do you think is more likely?

8/11/2017 1:57:59 AM

A lot of BIGLY assumptions (not all of them necessarily bad) are the foundation of that Forensicator analysis

Things like:

-The files the author downloaded are untampered with and as they were downloaded
-The files weren't zipped before downloading
-That the files were never transferred via LAN or thumb drive while Guccifer was curating them. Isn't it just as likely that Guccifer hacked on one computer, browsed files, then transferred them to a thumb drive in order to get them on another computer where he could curate or package them. This could have produced the exact same time stamp signatures forensicator shows us.
(I'm sure I'm missing some other assumptions)


But for the life of me, what bothers me most is the use of "Time Gaps." (please help if this makes more sense to you). I don't exactly follow how they are calculated, by subtracting the last mod time from the chronologically previous files last mod time???

but the author tells us the assumption is that this was time used as "Think Time" or, the assumption they ultimately go with, that other files were downloading during this time.

Both of those seem like huge assumptions to me, we don't know what was going on during those periods, Files could have been finishing downloading and I'm not understanding why they aren't included in the total download time. The biggest problem here is that this assumption allows the author to dismiss 90% of the total elapsed time between time stamps in the data given. If you credit this time to downloads occurring, suddenly the transfer rate is only 2.3 MB/s.

8/11/2017 6:08:58 AM

^^
Misinterpreting my posts from 7 years ago to try to discredit me...lol. Yeah, done responding to you.

8/11/2017 9:55:35 AM

^^
It is really complicated and I can't really dig in deep atm (at work). But what would you say to this other conclusion?

Quote :

"In addition, there is the adulteration of the documents Guccifer 2.0 posted on June 15, when he made his first appearance. This came to light when researchers penetrated what Folden calls Guccifer’s top layer of metadata and analyzed what was in the layers beneath. They found that the first five files Guccifer made public had each been run, via ordinary cut-and-paste, through a single template that effectively immersed them in what could plausibly be cast as Russian fingerprints. They were not: The Russian markings were artificially inserted prior to posting. “It’s clear,” another forensics investigator self-identified as HET, wrote in a report on this question, “that metadata was deliberately altered and documents were deliberately pasted into a Russianified [W]ord document with Russian language settings and style headings.”"

8/11/2017 12:05:54 PM

None of the evidence in that paragraph (or I think the article, but I'll have to go back and re-read) suggests to me that changing the metadata was intentional. Could it have been intentional? Yes. But Gussifer may also have been copying and pasting across documents to aid in CTRL-F searches or even google translate.

If they have a detailed explanation of that point I'd look at it with an open mind, although I'm sure much of it would be over my head.

8/11/2017 12:16:55 PM

I'm sure we'll see more over the next few weeks. It's definitely over my head, but I'm lending it some credibility because it's being referenced by VIPS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veteran_Intelligence_Professionals_for_Sanity)

edit: more on the metadata http://g-2.space/#6

[Edited on August 11, 2017 at 12:39 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2017 12:27:31 PM

Let's back up a second here. So the theory is that someone (Seth Rich!!!!!) from inside the DNC intentionally "leaked" a bunch of office gossip for ...... reasons? ....... and then tried to mask it as a Russian hack? Why would the leaker want it to look Russian when that would do nothing but undermine the credibility of the leaks? Or did the DNC/Clinton campaign intentionally leak this stuff to create the Russian hack narrative in the first place (which would be even dumber considering the state of the race at the time)? Forgetting how flimsy the evidence is in that analysis in the first place, why would the would be leaker want it to look Russian?

[Edited on August 11, 2017 at 12:54 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2017 12:49:34 PM

The theory is that someone leaked a bunch of DNC files (the first DNC leaks), then the DNC created Guccifer 2.0, leaked a second set of files, and pinned both of them on Russia.

I think the original idea was to discredit the authenticity of the contents. They could say that Russia doctored certain things.

[Edited on August 11, 2017 at 1:05 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2017 1:02:46 PM

I'm trying to remember the timeline of events. I know Wikileaks dropped the first set of DNC emails right before the convention. Then Guccifer 2.0 posted a huge set of files with stupid folder names like "Pay to Play" that was basically a rerelease of the original emails, publically available information like campaign donations, along with a bunch of shit that was obviously fake. Meanwhile, private internet security companies and government intelligence agencies pinned the original Wikileaks release on Russia without ever considering the Guccifer 2.0 shit. Am I remembering this right? If I am than this entire analysis is attempting to prove something we already knew, that Guccifer 2.0 was just some troll piggybacking off the original DNC emails released by Wikileaks.

[Edited on August 11, 2017 at 1:18 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2017 1:11:36 PM

Here's the timeline that VIPS referenced in their memo:

Quote :

"On June 12 last year, Julian Assange announced that WikiLeaks had and would publish documents pertinent to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. On June 14, CrowdStrike, a cyber-security firm hired by the DNC, announced, without providing evidence, that it had found malware on DNC servers and had evidence that Russians were responsible for planting it. On June 15, Guccifer 2.0 first appeared, took responsibility for the “hack” reported on June 14 and claimed to be a WikiLeaks source. It then posted the adulterated documents just described. On July 5, Guccifer again claimed he had remotely hacked DNC servers, and the operation was instantly described as another intrusion attributable to Russia. Virtually no media questioned this account."

The Wikileaks release was July 22.

[Edited on August 11, 2017 at 1:58 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2017 1:55:58 PM

No, that's wrong. Guccifer didn't post anything on June 15. He claimed to be the source of the hacks, a claim that was never actually corroborated by anyone, but he didn't actually release anything until months later. All the Russian attribution was based purely on forensics done on DNC systems and the stuff Wikileaks put out.

8/11/2017 2:06:37 PM

Here's the first set he published, June 15:

https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/06/15/dnc/

8/11/2017 2:07:55 PM

Yeah, he didn't post any emails I meant to say. Just a bunch of doctored docs that may or may not have come from the DNC. What I'm saying is the only person claiming Guccifer was the source of the actual damaging content, the emails, is Guccifer himself. There's no other evidence of it and no one else making that claim.

8/11/2017 2:14:08 PM

Well yeah, that's exactly the point. What he chose to release, and when, is pretty suspicious when lined up with Wikileaks' statements and releases.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0#Computer_hacking_claims

The "pay to play" document is particularly bizarre, and came right before the Podesta email release.

So who is behind Guccifer 2.0 and what were their motivations? Because it all seems like a ploy to discredit the email releases, or at least distract from the contents.

[Edited on August 11, 2017 at 2:27 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2017 2:25:24 PM

was Seth Rich a deep cover Russian operative?

8/11/2017 2:34:31 PM

If the ploy was to discredit the emails, it completely blew up in their faces. Every drip, even rehashed shit we'd all seen before, got the media's attention immediately.

Also, this is a friendly reminder that multiple Trump associates were in contact with Guccifer during the campaign. Seems like, maybe the FBI should subpoena they asses.

8/11/2017 2:35:13 PM

Quote :

"Also, this is a friendly reminder that multiple Trump associates were in contact with Guccifer during the campaign. Seems like, maybe the FBI should subpoena they asses."

Guccifer, not Guccifer 2.0

Guccifer was the one who hacked Sid Blumenthal's emails, and claimed to have hacked Clinton's email server.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer

Quote :

"If the ploy was to discredit the emails, it completely blew up in their faces. Every drip, even rehashed shit we'd all seen before, got the media's attention immediately."

Well they tried to say they were fake/doctored for a while, but then Wikileaks released the Google metadata proving their authenticity...oops.


[Edited on August 11, 2017 at 2:39 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2017 2:36:40 PM

Quote :

"So who is behind Guccifer 2.0 and what were their motivations? Because it all seems like a ploy to discredit the email releases, or at least distract from the contents. "

That doesn't make any sense though, Guccifer showed up after the DNC announced its systems had been compromised by Russian malware and claimed to be the one actually behind it. His releases were generated specifically to take credit for the hacks away from Russia. So he's either just a troll or a pawn of Russian intelligence being used to spread disinformation about the hacks. It's a ploy alright, one that these VIPS folks fell for hook, line, and sinker.

[Edited on August 11, 2017 at 2:43 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2017 2:41:37 PM

^^Roger stone and that Florida guy were both in contact Guccifer 2.0.

8/11/2017 2:44:24 PM

Quote :

"Guccifer showed up after the DNC announced its systems had been compromised by Russian malware and claimed to be the source."

Kinda missing the point here. Guccifer 2.0 (possibly) was created to link more evidence to Russia (Russian metadata inserted into the word docs, claimed to be Romanian, but could barely speak the language, etc), and to make people question the contents (ie. the doctored "pay to play" document).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guccifer_2.0#Identity

Quote :

"^^Roger stone and that Florida guy were both in contact Guccifer 2.0."

gotcha, then yeah subpoena their asses. why haven't they been already? hmm....

[Edited on August 11, 2017 at 2:48 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2017 2:45:57 PM

Quote :

"Kinda missing the point here. Guccifer 2.0 (possibly) was created to link more evidence to Russia (Russian metadata inserted into the word docs, claimed to be Romanian, but could barely speak the language, etc), and to make people question the contents (ie. the doctored "pay to play" document)."

Even if this was the case, which as TerdFerguson noted would have been an incredibly stupid move since all it did was perpetuate the email story, it does absolutely nothing to discredit the attribution of hacks to Russia. Guccifer 2.0's releases, or any of the metadata in them, weren't used by government agencies or private security firms to draw their conclusions. Why? Because they could have been and obviously were doctored.

[Edited on August 11, 2017 at 3:00 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2017 2:51:37 PM

^^Roger Stone has definitely been required to turn over documents to the Senate Intel Cmte, I have no idea about the Florida guy. I'm not sure we could know the FBI's interaction with them unless there was a leak.

[Edited on August 11, 2017 at 2:58 PM. Reason : ^yes, we have rapidly approached 11th dimensional chess. ]

[Edited on August 11, 2017 at 2:59 PM. Reason : But given the way some things have played out, 11 dimensions might be scratching the surface]

8/11/2017 2:57:44 PM

^^
Guccifer 2.0 was the basis for all of these investigations. See the sourced news articles in this section on Wikipedia, regarding private cybersecurity analysis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak#Cybersecurity_analysis

And here's the IC report, which also directly mentions Guccifer 2.0:

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

It's not "4D chess" at all. It's pretty basic manipulation. Without Guccifer 2.0, any analysis would have fallen flat in the public's eye.

[Edited on August 11, 2017 at 3:04 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2017 3:01:01 PM

Uh, Guccifer 2.0 wasn't the basis for shit lol, you are crumbling man. The basis was forensics done on DNC computer systems and intelligence intercepts of Russian government officials. The only thing using Guccifer 2.0 as their lynchpin is that laughable analysis trying to discredit the Russian attribution. That DNI document specifically references Guccifer 2.0 as a fabricated persona by Russian intelligence, not an actual hacker.

8/11/2017 3:12:01 PM

Quote :

"The basis was forensics done on DNC computer systems and intelligence intercepts of Russian government officials."

Crowdstrike is the only organization who supposedly performed forensics, and they were previously employed by the DNC. Obama also appointed Crowdstrike's Chief Risk Officer to his administration in April 2016.

ThreatConnect's analysis was based solely on Guccifer 2.0: https://www.scmagazine.com/threatconnect-guccifer-20-likely-persona-for-russian-linked-propagandists-pr-operatives-leaking-info-to-media/article/529917/

And the DNI document doesn't mention Crowdstrike's analysis, or any network forensics whatsoever.

Quote :

"That DNI document specifically references Guccifer 2.0 as a fabricated persona by Russian intelligence, not an actual hacker."

Well yeah, that was the point.

[Edited on August 11, 2017 at 3:30 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2017 3:27:16 PM

Come on man, you have to admit there is reason to be a little suspicious. You don't have to buy in completely.

8/11/2017 3:32:31 PM

ThreatConnect's analysis only looked at com logs to prove that Guccifer 2.0 wasn't who he said he was (a Romanian hacker), it wasn't used to attribute the DNC hack to Russians. The only person who actually used his releases as evidence for Russian hacking was a random twitter user,

https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/743179750064037888

So again, cyber security firms and government intelligence agencies attributing the hacks to Russia had nothing to do with Guccifer 2.0s releases. The only people using those documents as the basis of their conclusions are your anonymous online "researchers". It's fucking laughable that you're asking me to be suspicious while taking the word of someone calling himself the "Forensicator" at face value.

[Edited on August 11, 2017 at 3:47 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2017 3:46:53 PM

Cool. To anyone reading this: I don't know what Shrike read, but he definitely didn't read the links I posted. So I encourage you to do your own research.

8/11/2017 3:57:09 PM

Or we could just stop discussing this wacky conspiracy theory and focus on actual events relevant to thread title,

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-subpoena-idUSKBN1AJ2V0

Quote :

"Grand jury subpoenas have been issued in connection with the June 2016 meeting between Donald Trump Jr., a Russian lawyer and others, two sources familiar with the matter told Reuters on Thursday."

[Edited on August 11, 2017 at 4:18 PM. Reason : .]

8/11/2017 4:18:23 PM

Quote :

"A speed of 22.7 megabytes is simply unobtainable, especially if we are talking about a transoceanic data transfer,” Folden said. “Based on the data we now have, what we’ve been calling a hack is impossible.” Last week Forensicator reported on a speed test he conducted more recently. It tightens the case considerably. “Transfer rates of 23 MB/s (Mega Bytes per second) are not just highly unlikely, but effectively impossible to accomplish when communicating over the Internet at any significant distance,” he wrote. “Further, local copy speeds are measured, demonstrating that 23 MB/s is a typical transfer rate when using a USB–2 flash device (thumb drive)."

1) This guy is a moron

2) DNC servers, if hosted on site, would have required a business-class internet connection to serve without violating ISP terms, which would have been significantly faster than residential. Residential connections were easily hitting 22.7 MBs, hell I had residential, symmetrical 250 mbs (approx 25 MBs) in Hoboken from Optimum for the past two or three years.

3) https://www.howtogeek.com/179803/usb-2.0-vs.-usb-3.0-should-you-upgrade-your-flash-drives/

Quote :

"The test also includes a few USB 2.0 drives, which are at the bottom of the charts at between 7.9 MB/s to 9.5 MB/s in write speed. "

4) If the information was actually downloaded to a drive as opposed to a remote internet IP address, you'd have this information as well.

5) This "cross-atlantic" speed nonsense ignores important points. To begin with, anyone hacking worth even a small amount of skill, let alone backed by a robust intelligence organization, would route traffic across multiple hops via VPN, etc. The speeds the DNC would have seen would only have been to the first hop (cut-out) between their servers and the next one up, which most likely would have been a U.S. IP address, or at the very least, North American. Furthermore, several Russian diplomats left the country (allegedly on orders from Moscow according to the Steele dossier) shortly after all of this, which implies at the least that they were involved. And if so, it's not unlikely that they could have had PCs set up domestically through which this stuff would have routed as well, though I tend to doubt this. At the very least they certainly wouldn't have been hosted at the embassy.

Quote :

""A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump’s deflections and denials about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year’s presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.""

That's correct. I would highly doubt that the National Geospatial Intelligence agency or the National Reconnaissance Office, among many of the other agencies would not have opined on this as their missions do not overlap here. Coast Guard intelligence would have not been involved either. See the point I'm getting at? The four agencies (really three, if you consider the DNI is more of a central point of contact rather than something with active operations) are the ones that would have been involved in this type of incident. The fact that the rest did not approve simply implies they had no bearing on this investigation.

Quote :

"VIPS"

Unless they have real-time access to TS/SCI and codeword intelligence, all these guys can do is opine on anything released in the public domain. That essentially makes it worthless from the standpoint of whether Russian attribution is correct or not.

As for timelines:

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/06/timeline-russia-investigation/

http://www.politico.com/trump-russia-ties-scandal-guide/timeline-of-events

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/russia-hacking-timeline/?utm_term=.574508f88692

[Edited on August 11, 2017 at 5:45 PM. Reason : a]

8/11/2017 5:40:35 PM

All that being said, yet another example as to why those fucks can't gain anyone's trust.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/313555-comey-fbi-did-request-access-to-hacked-dnc-servers

8/11/2017 6:21:41 PM

https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/5/14178806/fbi-dnc-hack-server-examined-forensics-russia

Oh noessss, the FBI handled a high profile cyber hacking case the same exact way they've handled them in the recent past!!!!!

8/12/2017 3:44:24 PM

^Thanks for posting that.

8/13/2017 6:33:28 PM

To be clear, there are still some discrepancies. And this is a big enough deal that the FBI should be going out of its way to obtain evidence and release it to the public. So I get where you're coming from.

8/13/2017 7:22:57 PM

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/16/world/europe/russia-ukraine-malware-hacking-witness.html?referer=https://t.co/T7svWt8JtO?amp=1

8/16/2017 11:54:52 AM

They better get that dude out of Ukraine and into U.S. protective custody immediately.

Quote :

"Nevertheless, Ukrainian officials, though wary of upsetting the Trump administration, have been quietly cooperating with American investigators to try to figure out who stands behind all the disguises."

Amazing to see a statement like that. Officials afraid of pissing our country's leaders off by helping us find out who attacked us.

[Edited on August 16, 2017 at 12:34 PM. Reason : a]

8/16/2017 12:30:02 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/23/politics/donald-trump-rick-dearborn-email-russia-investigation/index.html

Quote :

"Washington (CNN)Congressional investigators have unearthed an email from a top Trump aide that referenced a previously unreported effort to arrange a meeting last year between Trump campaign officials and Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to sources with direct knowledge of the matter. The aide, Rick Dearborn, who is now President Donald Trump's deputy chief of staff, sent a brief email to campaign officials last year relaying information about an individual who was seeking to connect top Trump officials with Putin, the sources said."

8/23/2017 7:42:33 PM

#Sources

8/23/2017 8:43:36 PM

Seems like Ol' Dick Burr might think there's something there?

Take a look at his defense funding bill requesting a bunch of cyber and Russia bills:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/08/the-senate-is-trolling-trump-with-its-intelligence-bill/

8/24/2017 6:19:28 PM