Forensic data shows Russians did not hack the DNC

[barbos]

And we must remember that Clinton and the DNC is framing the Russians for an election loss that is 4 months away and looking quite unlikely... and if Clinton won (according to barbos), there wouldn't have even been sanctions.

True, she was framing it for the win However after the loss she reframed it for the loss.
On the other hand her anti-russian agenda kinda won because congress double down on it.

Anyway, back to the OP. All it shows is that there is nothing there that points toward russian hackers, but it does not mean much. And if it did point toward Russia it would still meant nothing.
That kind of forensics is pretty useless because hackers know about them already.

By the way, when I archive files I often set all file dates to the same, that way file gets slightly smaller.

 

[KeepTalking]

I'm not sure what you mean by "there", or what leaks have to do with hacking, but if my memory is correct on this, there were 4 successful attacks against the Clintons / DNC. Those would be the Guccifer 2.0 hack of the DNC emails, the phishing attack on Podesta's email, the compromised Clinton aide's email account accessed using Tor, and the original Guccifer hacking of Sid Blumenthal's email. It is the Blumenthal hack that I think is often confused for a hack of the Clinton server, as Guccifer originally claimed to have hacked her server, but later admitted that he was lying about it.

remind WP that Hillary Clinton's email server was not hacked.

I just had a thought about this factoid. How do we know it was not successfully hacked?

If her server had been hacked, and emails retrieved from it, they would have been released during the 2016 campaign, if not earlier, in an attempt to damage her.

I find it awfully convenient and fortunate For Hillary to claim "It's true, these bad russians tried to hack my (not quite legal) server but they failed so it's OK to have it". I mean both these "facts" are awfully favorable for Clinton.

That is not a claim that Hillary ever made, so I am not sure why you are trying to put those words in her mouth. The first thing you should realize is that Hillary Clinton only served as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, and her server was shut down long before Trump announced his candidacy and began colluding with the Russians to steal the election. Also, the original Guccifer is Romanian, not Russian.

So there were 4 successful attacks which were NOT attributed to russians, Plus 2 failed attempts which WERE attributed to russians by some russian expat who happened to be friend of Clinton and whose other report on russia was demonstrated to be 100% false and biased if not fraudulent. And yes, FBI were not allowed to examine servers. Is that all we know?

Wow, you really like putting words in people's mouths, don't you? I would say that the only hack that we know for sure was not in some way orchestrated, or leveraged by Russia was the Guccifer attack on Blumenthal's account. I made no mention of the FBI examining any server, so that part is a non-sequitur. Finally, I am not sure what you know, but I know many other things other than what I typed in that post, however, the vast majority of things I know are not relevant to this discussion.

 

[barbos]

I would say that the only hack that we know for sure was not in some way orchestrated, or leveraged by Russia

Sounds as if you shifted burden of proof on Russia to prove they are not responsible.
Correct me if I am wrong but that 17 agencies meme (in reality only 2 but that's OK) is based mostly on these failed DNC hacks. if not, give me links. In any case it seems to me that whole thing is intentionally foggy on your side.

 

[Malintent]

it is not completely clear, but it seems that the 12 minute or so time that was subtracted was idle time.. that is, the time nothing was happening while the hacker stepped away between file copies. no one "paused" the transfers.. .they were done in batches and the time between batches is "dead time" that does not count towards the calculation of transfer speed.

If I copy two files, one takes 1 second and one takes 1 minute... but between those files 1 hour goes by, then you do not include that 1 hour in calculating the 1 minute and 1 second transfer time of the total dataset.

Furthermore, it is more common than not for a hacker to utilize a local server they "hop" around from for multiple reasons... to help hide their identity / location, to speed up data exfiltration (VERY common for international capers where a speed increase is simply needed to get the job done), or because they simply have to due to firewall rules they otherwise cannot get around.

this also leads to one of the reasons that "tar pitting" is illegal (the act of a security professional "reverse hacking" a hacker). More often than not, the apparent target is your grandmothers windows XP computer that hasn't been patched since it was bought... and you are just destroying their grandchildren's wedding pictures by attempting to go after the hacker that hopped over from there.

 

[beero1000]

it is not completely clear, but it seems that the 12 minute or so time that was subtracted was idle time.. that is, the time nothing was happening while the hacker stepped away between file copies. no one "paused" the transfers.. .they were done in batches and the time between batches is "dead time" that does not count towards the calculation of transfer speed.

If I copy two files, one takes 1 second and one takes 1 minute... but between those files 1 hour goes by, then you do not include that 1 hour in calculating the 1 minute and 1 second transfer time of the total dataset.

Furthermore, it is more common than not for a hacker to utilize a local server they "hop" around from for multiple reasons... to help hide their identity / location, to speed up data exfiltration (VERY common for international capers where a speed increase is simply needed to get the job done), or because they simply have to due to firewall rules they otherwise cannot get around.

this also leads to one of the reasons that "tar pitting" is illegal (the act of a security professional "reverse hacking" a hacker). More often than not, the apparent target is your grandmothers windows XP computer that hasn't been patched since it was bought... and you are just destroying their grandchildren's wedding pictures by attempting to go after the hacker that hopped over from there.

They don't have transfer times, they only have last modified times. They are assuming a transfer speed to figure out the transfer time so they can figure out the transfer speed.

So you have a 100 MB file modified at 12pm and a 100 MB file modified at 1pm, how much of that time is dead time? Who decides? The more dead time I decide to include or not directly affects the resulting speed that I get. I could just as well conclude that the hackers had a billion gigabit per second connection speed... You don't know, they might have spent 59+ minutes of the hour playing tetris...

 

[KeepTalking]

I would say that the only hack that we know for sure was not in some way orchestrated, or leveraged by Russia

Sounds as if you shifted burden of proof on Russia to prove they are not responsible.

Then you need to get your hearing checked. I am not shifting the burden of proof of anything to anyone. I am only presenting the facts as I remember them, and offering an opinion to avoid your ascribing opinions to me that I do not hold.

Correct me if I am wrong but that 17 agencies meme (in reality only 2 but that's OK) is based mostly on these failed DNC hacks. if not, give me links. In any case it seems to me that whole thing is intentionally foggy on your side.

I never mentioned 17 agencies, so why are you asking me for links? Yes, things are very foggy on all sides. That is the nature of things when espionage, hacking, and people not wanting to get caught doing those things is the point of contention. The reason I made the statement you quoted above is because the Guccifer hack occurred before the 2016 presidential race even got started, so there is no reason to think that Russia was involved in this sort of thing before anyone declared their candidacy.

 

[barbos]

Sounds as if you shifted burden of proof on Russia to prove they are not responsible.

Then you need to get your hearing checked. I am not shifting the burden of proof of anything to anyone. I am only presenting the facts as I remember them, and offering an opinion to avoid your ascribing opinions to me that I do not hold.

My hearing is fine, it does look like your side accepted the default position that until proven otherwise Russian hackers are the ones.

Correct me if I am wrong but that 17 agencies meme (in reality only 2 but that's OK) is based mostly on these failed DNC hacks. if not, give me links. In any case it seems to me that whole thing is intentionally foggy on your side.

I never mentioned 17 agencies, so why are you asking me for links? Yes, things are very foggy on all sides.

Well, 17 agencies meme existence is a fact, Steven Colbert have mentioned it many times. It' not foggy on russian side, they simply deny any involvement on any hacking without any fog. On your side it's very foggy that's why many people had thought that clinton's servers were hacked and then this 17 agencies meme which turned out to be only 2.

That is the nature of things when espionage, hacking, and people not wanting to get caught doing those things is the point of contention. The reason I made the statement you quoted above is because the Guccifer hack occurred before the 2016 presidential race even got started, so there is no reason to think that Russia was involved in this sort of thing before anyone declared their candidacy.

I am not blaming nature of things of espionage. I blame US agencies and media for creating the fog.
It looks like they were throwing large amounts half-baked shit on the wall hoping some of it would stick, but it created a lot of fog which is good too, cause nobody now knows what is what.

 

[KeepTalking]

Then you need to get your hearing checked. I am not shifting the burden of proof of anything to anyone. I am only presenting the facts as I remember them, and offering an opinion to avoid your ascribing opinions to me that I do not hold.

My hearing is fine, it does look like your side accepted the default position that until proven otherwise Russian hackers are the ones.

In that case, you need to get your vision checked. I am not putting forward any default position. I am merely eliminating one of the 4 attacks from the possibility of being ascribed to the Russians for purposes of influencing the election because of when it occurred. I have made no prognostication regarding the other three attacks.

Correct me if I am wrong but that 17 agencies meme (in reality only 2 but that's OK) is based mostly on these failed DNC hacks. if not, give me links. In any case it seems to me that whole thing is intentionally foggy on your side.

I never mentioned 17 agencies, so why are you asking me for links? Yes, things are very foggy on all sides.

Well, 17 agencies meme existence is a fact, Steven Colbert have mentioned it many times.

I am not Stephen Colbert, and I made no mention of 17 agencies, so I would suggest you engage me on the content of my posts rather than what you perceive to be my position outside of those posts.

It' not foggy on russian side, they simply deny any involvement on any hacking without any fog.

IF that denial is a lie, then their denial is indeed foggy.

On your side it's very foggy that's why many people had thought that clinton's servers were hacked

I already offered my opinion on why I think people thought that Clinton's server was hacked. Please scroll up for that opinion.

That is the nature of things when espionage, hacking, and people not wanting to get caught doing those things is the point of contention. The reason I made the statement you quoted above is because the Guccifer hack occurred before the 2016 presidential race even got started, so there is no reason to think that Russia was involved in this sort of thing before anyone declared their candidacy.

I am not blaming nature of things of espionage.

Why do you think that I think you are? I know you don't think any espionage occurred. It is I who proffered the opinion when espionage and hacking are involved, things can get very foggy. This is because people who engage in espionage and hacking will do anything they can to obscure the fact that they are involved in those acts.

I blame US agencies and media for creating the fog.
It looks like they were throwing large amounts half-baked shit on the wall hoping some of it would stick, but it created a lot of fog which is good too, cause nobody now knows what is what.

A lot of fog created by anyone regarding what happened is not good for anyone who wants to know the truth. I can only assume you are gleeful about the fog surrounding this issue because you don't want the truth to be known, in true Russian apologetic fashion.

 

[Malintent]

it is not completely clear, but it seems that the 12 minute or so time that was subtracted was idle time.. that is, the time nothing was happening while the hacker stepped away between file copies. no one "paused" the transfers.. .they were done in batches and the time between batches is "dead time" that does not count towards the calculation of transfer speed.

If I copy two files, one takes 1 second and one takes 1 minute... but between those files 1 hour goes by, then you do not include that 1 hour in calculating the 1 minute and 1 second transfer time of the total dataset.

Furthermore, it is more common than not for a hacker to utilize a local server they "hop" around from for multiple reasons... to help hide their identity / location, to speed up data exfiltration (VERY common for international capers where a speed increase is simply needed to get the job done), or because they simply have to due to firewall rules they otherwise cannot get around.

this also leads to one of the reasons that "tar pitting" is illegal (the act of a security professional "reverse hacking" a hacker). More often than not, the apparent target is your grandmothers windows XP computer that hasn't been patched since it was bought... and you are just destroying their grandchildren's wedding pictures by attempting to go after the hacker that hopped over from there.

They don't have transfer times, they only have last modified times. They are assuming a transfer speed to figure out the transfer time so they can figure out the transfer speed.

So you have a 100 MB file modified at 12pm and a 100 MB file modified at 1pm, how much of that time is dead time? Who decides? The more dead time I decide to include or not directly affects the resulting speed that I get. I could just as well conclude that the hackers had a billion gigabit per second connection speed... You don't know, they might have spent 59+ minutes of the hour playing tetris...

Ya, if that is the case then it is undeterminable...

 

[barbos]

My hearing is fine, it does look like your side accepted the default position that until proven otherwise Russian hackers are the ones.

In that case, you need to get your vision checked. I am not putting forward any default position. I am merely eliminating one of the 4 attacks from the possibility of being ascribed to the Russians for purposes of influencing the election because of when it occurred. I have made no prognostication regarding the other three attacks.

Correct me if I am wrong but that 17 agencies meme (in reality only 2 but that's OK) is based mostly on these failed DNC hacks. if not, give me links. In any case it seems to me that whole thing is intentionally foggy on your side.

I never mentioned 17 agencies, so why are you asking me for links? Yes, things are very foggy on all sides.

Well, 17 agencies meme existence is a fact, Steven Colbert have mentioned it many times.

I am not Stephen Colbert, and I made no mention of 17 agencies, so I would suggest you engage me on the content of my posts rather than what you perceive to be my position outside of those posts.

And you have not corrected other people people on your side either.

It' not foggy on russian side, they simply deny any involvement on any hacking without any fog.

IF that denial is a lie, then their denial is indeed foggy.

It's a big IF, whereas on your side there are no ifs or buts, your side is actively engaged in creating fog.

On your side it's very foggy that's why many people had thought that clinton's servers were hacked

I already offered my opinion on why I think people thought that Clinton's server was hacked. Please scroll up for that opinion.

Your opinion is irrelevant here.

That is the nature of things when espionage, hacking, and people not wanting to get caught doing those things is the point of contention. The reason I made the statement you quoted above is because the Guccifer hack occurred before the 2016 presidential race even got started, so there is no reason to think that Russia was involved in this sort of thing before anyone declared their candidacy.

I am not blaming nature of things of espionage.

Why do you think that I think you are? I know you don't think any espionage occurred.

I don't think that. I think your side provided no evidence of russian side doing it.

It is I who proffered the opinion when espionage and hacking are involved, things can get very foggy. This is because people who engage in espionage and hacking will do anything they can to obscure the fact that they are involved in those acts.

Again, I have no problem with accepting that. My problem with your side BSing public with their fog.

I blame US agencies and media for creating the fog.
It looks like they were throwing large amounts half-baked shit on the wall hoping some of it would stick, but it created a lot of fog which is good too, cause nobody now knows what is what.

A lot of fog created by anyone regarding what happened is not good for anyone who wants to know the truth. I can only assume you are gleeful about the fog surrounding this issue because you don't want the truth to be known, in true Russian apologetic fashion.

Again, your side created the fog, not russian side.

 

[ZiprHead]

Correct me if I am wrong but that 17 agencies meme (in reality only 2 but that's OK) is based mostly on these failed DNC hacks. if not, give me links. In any case it seems to me that whole thing is intentionally foggy on your side.

Well, 17 agencies meme existence is a fact, Steven Colbert have mentioned it many times. It' not foggy on russian side, they simply deny any involvement on any hacking without any fog. On your side it's very foggy that's why many people had thought that clinton's servers were hacked and then this 17 agencies meme which turned out to be only 2.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/

"So their endorsement or non-endorsement basically means nothing in this case," Aftergood said, adding, "In this context, the assessments that count the most are those of CIA, NSA, FBI and ODNI."

The intelligence community likely limited the Russia assessment to those four agencies because they have the most to contribute on this topic, and because they wanted to contain the highly sensitive intelligence as much as possible, said Paul Pillar, senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Center for Security Studies who served in the intelligence community for 28 years.

"The ones that participated are the ones you’d expect on this," Pillar said. "It’s hard to see any of the others having something to contribute."

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think the most relevant intelligence agency assessment was the one when the FSB reviewed their operation to hack the DNC and determined that they did it.

 

[KeepTalking]

In that case, you need to get your vision checked. I am not putting forward any default position. I am merely eliminating one of the 4 attacks from the possibility of being ascribed to the Russians for purposes of influencing the election because of when it occurred. I have made no prognostication regarding the other three attacks.

Correct me if I am wrong but that 17 agencies meme (in reality only 2 but that's OK) is based mostly on these failed DNC hacks. if not, give me links. In any case it seems to me that whole thing is intentionally foggy on your side.

I never mentioned 17 agencies, so why are you asking me for links? Yes, things are very foggy on all sides.

Well, 17 agencies meme existence is a fact, Steven Colbert have mentioned it many times.

I am not Stephen Colbert, and I made no mention of 17 agencies, so I would suggest you engage me on the content of my posts rather than what you perceive to be my position outside of those posts.

And you have not corrected other people people on your side either.

It is not something with which I intend to engage anyone on either side. I think it is a red herring.

It' not foggy on russian side, they simply deny any involvement on any hacking without any fog.

IF that denial is a lie, then their denial is indeed foggy.

It's a big IF, whereas on your side there are no ifs or buts, your side is actively engaged in creating fog.

I don't give a shit about your perception of 'sides', and what they are engaging in. I will only defend that which I have posted. Please point out where I have engaged in creating fog in this discussion. If you think the facts I have presented are incorrect, then challenge them, I am amenable to being corrected. If you disagree with the opinions I express, then tell me how you think my opinion is wrong, and we can have a discussion about that. Otherwise, please stop ascribing words to me that I have not typed, and stop expecting me to defend what others say or do.

On your side it's very foggy that's why many people had thought that clinton's servers were hacked

I already offered my opinion on why I think people thought that Clinton's server was hacked. Please scroll up for that opinion.

Your opinion is irrelevant here.

My opinion is just as relevant as yours as long as it is on topic. You have offered absolutely nothing but opinion in this thread.

That is the nature of things when espionage, hacking, and people not wanting to get caught doing those things is the point of contention. The reason I made the statement you quoted above is because the Guccifer hack occurred before the 2016 presidential race even got started, so there is no reason to think that Russia was involved in this sort of thing before anyone declared their candidacy.

I am not blaming nature of things of espionage.

Why do you think that I think you are? I know you don't think any espionage occurred.

I don't think that. I think your side provided no evidence of russian side doing it.

Thank you for correcting my estimation of your thoughts. Please note that I have not ascribed any blame on Russia in this thread. I have only entered this thread to provide the facts as I remember them, as I was one of the posters who had to continually correct the WP collective's insistence that Clinton's server was hacked.

It is I who proffered the opinion when espionage and hacking are involved, things can get very foggy. This is because people who engage in espionage and hacking will do anything they can to obscure the fact that they are involved in those acts.

Again, I have no problem with accepting that.

Good. At least we can agree on something. That's a start.

My problem with your side BSing public with their fog.

And I have a problem with you continually lumping me in with a 'side' and ascribing bad motivation to me as a result. I am not bullshitting anyone, nor am I attempting to obscure anything with fog. I would much rather find out, and present, the truth of the matter regardless of what that truth turns out to be.

I blame US agencies and media for creating the fog.
It looks like they were throwing large amounts half-baked shit on the wall hoping some of it would stick, but it created a lot of fog which is good too, cause nobody now knows what is what.

A lot of fog created by anyone regarding what happened is not good for anyone who wants to know the truth. I can only assume you are gleeful about the fog surrounding this issue because you don't want the truth to be known, in true Russian apologetic fashion.

Again, your side created the fog, not russian side.

That's a nice opinion you have there, but I was told up-thread that opinions don't matter.

 

[barbos]

Well. I am glad you agree with me that your side is full of fog and that you trying to distance yourself from them.

 

[LordKiran]

Well. I am glad you agree with me that your side is full of fog and that you trying to distance yourself from them.

Man that's pretty petty and weak as arguments go.

 

[barbos]

Well. I am glad you agree with me that your side is full of fog and that you trying to distance yourself from them.

Man that's pretty petty and weak as arguments go.

That was not an argument, just an observation.

 

[LordKiran]

Man that's pretty petty and weak as arguments go.

That was not an argument, just an observation.

A petty and weak observation then, whatever.

 

[barbos]

That was not an argument, just an observation.

A petty and weak observation then, whatever.

Observation can't be weak.

 

[LordKiran]

A petty and weak observation then, whatever.

Observation can't be weak.

Given the fallible nature of the human experience, they absolutely can be. Enough of your quibbling over the words I choose when my meaning is clear to you.

 

[barbos]

Fact is, the public was not shown any evidence of russian involvement in hacking. At best they pee on your boots and call it ... russian hackers. Maybe there is evidence but it's kept secret and is not shown to anyone. But as I said I don't like by boots being peed on and then called it russian hackers, it insults my intelligence.