CrowdStrike couldn't say for sure Russians stole DNC emails...

[DivineOb]

I don't understand why it's "unproven" the files were taken from the DNC server, considering how massive it was. Where else would they have been able to get those files, or is there some sort of way they could have intercepted the files in transit between servers?

I agree with you that, for all intents and purposes, it's proven. The interviewee is hedging because a less skilled hacker (e.g. me :D) would leave behind definitive proof that files were transferred. For example, normally a short history commands you execute is retained. Failing to clear this history would definitively show that commands were executed to transfer files.

[DivineOb]

Right, they can't prove that files were taken or that Russia did it. Something was likely taken, and Russia likely did it. This is well beyond the certitude we were lead to believe...

Why are you so sure about this when you know far less about about computers than I do?

[seer]

Why are you so sure about this when you know far less about about computers than I do?

Because even in your quotes from the testimony there was clear ambiguity. BTW which page are you quoting from, I haven't found that part yet.

[DivineOb]

Right, they can't prove that files were taken or that Russia did it. Something was likely taken, and Russia likely did it. This is well beyond the certitude we were lead to believe...

Pages 59 and 64.

[seer]

Pages 59 and 64.

From page 32:

MR. SCHIFF: lt provides in the report on 2016, April 22nd, data staged for
exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor'

MR.HENRY: Yes,sir.So that,again,staged for,which ,l mean, there's
not -- the analogy I used with Mr. Stewart earlier was we don't have video of it
happening, but there are indicators that it happened. There are times when we
can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case, it appears
it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it
actually left.

[DivineOb]

From page 32:

MR. SCHIFF: lt provides in the report on 2016, April 22nd, data staged for
exfiltration by the Fancy Bear actor'

MR.HENRY: Yes,sir.So that,again,staged for,which ,l mean, there's
not -- the analogy I used with Mr. Stewart earlier was we don't have video of it
happening, but there are indicators that it happened. There are times when we
can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case, it appears
it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it
actually left.

Right before that he says

MR. HENRY: counseljust reminded me that, as it relates to the DNC' wehave indicators that data was exfiltrated. we did not have concrete evidence thatdata was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated

Again, are you actually disputing that files were taken from the DNC? Are you disputing that they were taken by the Russians? What are you actually challenging?

[DivineOb]

Even a casual perusal of the underlying testimony shows that the "article" in the OP is just so much hogwash. *THIS* is why I don't trust RWNJ news sources. *THIS* is why I insist on looking at the underlying data.

RWNJ "news" sites are *not* about reporting the news but only spin. Please don't continue to be suckers :(.

[seer]

Right before that he says

MR. HENRY: counseljust reminded me that, as it relates to the DNC' wehave indicators that data was exfiltrated. we did not have concrete evidence thatdata was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated

Again, are you actually disputing that files were taken from the DNC? Are you disputing that they were taken by the Russians? What are you actually challenging?

DO, what is not clear to you? It looks like someone attempted to take data but there is no evidence that it was actually accomplished:

"There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually left."

[DivineOb]

DO, what is not clear to you? It looks like someone attempted to take data but there is no evidence that it was actually accomplished:

"There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually left."

First, let's get this out of the way. Are you disputing that data was taken from the DNC servers? Where did the emails Wikileaks "published" come from?

[seer]

First, let's get this out of the way. Are you disputing that data was taken from the DNC servers? Where did the emails Wikileaks "published" come from?

First, I'm only quoting Henry: But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually left.

Is he wrong? Misinformed? And do we even know where the Wikileaks stuff came from? Do we know it came from these servers? Or from a spear-phishing attack through Podesta's email?

[DivineOb]

First, I'm only quoting Henry: But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually left.

He's saying we have circumstantial evidence that the files were taken but we don't have direct evidence. He's not saying it's just a guess.

Also, we know for certain that the files were taken because the hashes match the files which were released publicly. If you don't understand what I meant when I posted about that I'll be happy to break it down further.

Is he wrong? Misinformed?

No, he's speaking as a computer scientist who wants to be technically accurate in what he says.

And do we even know where the Wikileaks stuff came from? Do we know it came from these servers? Or from a spear-phishing attack through Podesta's email?

There were two leaks and they were both published by Wikileaks. Right? At least that's my understanding.

[Ronson]

One thing that is rarely mentioned in these "Russia did it" articles and arguments, is the definition of "Russia".

When one talks about "China did it" they usually mean the Chinese government, because it is a quasi-communist dictatorship. The same with Cuba or Venezuela or Iran.

Russia is not the Soviet Union and (arguably) it is not a dictatorship. It has a free market and private enterprise, and its citizens enjoy a good amount of freedom; heck, they don't even have capital punishment. So when one says "Russia did it" do they mean Putin specifically, or some others in the Russian government? Or in some lower governments within the country? There are Russian companies like Gazprom that can interfere with other nations, and the Russian military nearly operates independently of the government (almost like ours does). In 2017, US investigators found a Russian bot farm in St. Petersburg that was being run by a Russian company that had a stake in the US election - independent of the Russian government.

So, I'm just saying that the "Russia did it" arguments really need to be specific. If the accusers mean Putin, then they should say "Putin", or specify some other entity in that country.

End rant.

[seanD]

One thing that is rarely mentioned in these "Russia did it" articles and arguments, is the definition of "Russia".

When one talks about "China did it" they usually mean the Chinese government, because it is a quasi-communist dictatorship. The same with Cuba or Venezuela or Iran.

Russia is not the Soviet Union and (arguably) it is not a dictatorship. It has a free market and private enterprise, and its citizens enjoy a good amount of freedom; heck, they don't even have capital punishment. So when one says "Russia did it" do they mean Putin specifically, or some others in the Russian government? Or in some lower governments within the country? There are Russian companies like Gazprom that can interfere with other nations, and the Russian military nearly operates independently of the government (almost like ours does). In 2017, US investigators found a Russian bot farm in St. Petersburg that was being run by a Russian company that had a stake in the US election - independent of the Russian government.

So, I'm just saying that the "Russia did it" arguments really need to be specific. If the accusers mean Putin, then they should say "Putin", or specify some other entity in that country.

End rant.

From what I understand, though I haven't dug into it deep enough yet, is that there are supposedly docs proving Russia preferred Clinton instead because she was a known commodity, whereas Trump was an unknown. That should be interesting if that pans out. It certainly makes logical sense.

[Ronson]

From what I understand, though I haven't dug into it deep enough yet, is that there are supposedly docs proving Russia preferred Clinton instead because she was a known commodity, whereas Trump was an unknown. That should be interesting if that pans out. It certainly makes logical sense.

"Russia" meaning ... ? All of its citizens? Putin? Some oligarch?

Your scenario above would unlikely be Putin. He hates Hillary because she tried to foment unrest in Moscow during the 2011/2012 elections there (talk about interfering in an election, and she was Secretary of State at the time). Putin denounced her publicly.

[seanD]

"Russia" meaning ... ? All of its citizens? Putin? Some oligarch?

Your scenario above would unlikely be Putin. He hates Hillary because she tried to foment unrest in Moscow during the 2011/2012 elections there (talk about interfering in an election, and she was Secretary of State at the time). Putin denounced her publicly.

At 3:06.