Crowdstrike had no evidence Russia -- or anyone else -- hacked the DNC server !!!

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
What frightens me about seeing stuff like this come out right now, it is suggests that whoever was keeping it hidden no longer feels the need to keep it hidden.

Like they're so sure the coming collapse will put them in a position to exhonerate themselves, they can just go ahead and let us know.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut

No concrete evidence about what?

About mordor?

Lol
Act like you dont know, at this point you are all wet.

Nice try tho
No concrete evidence will hang around your neck like a millstone

Lol

The whole quote: "Counsel just reminded me that, as it relates to the DNC, we have indicators that data was exfiltrated. We did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exflitrated."

This means that they did not have evidence of a specific thing. It does not mean that they had no evidence of other things.

Did they have evidence of other things, though?

Yes, the tool sets that CrowdStrike code named 'Fancy Bear' and 'Cozy Bear' and also the files that were in place, compressed and scheduled to be sent on the 22nd July 2016. It's in the transcript.

There was also hard evidence of the compromises that put those tools in place.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: chr0naut

That's all very interesting, but it still remains a fact that there is no proof that the Russians hacked the DNC.

Until we open up your head, we can't really be sure your brain is mostly grey in color.

You can speculate that the Russians hacked the DNC, but there is no proof of that.
Speculate all you like, it just smacks of you not being able to admit you got taken for a ride by the media. Obama holdovers and Democrats.

It isn't speculative. There is strong circumstantial evidence. There are the hacking tools left behind on the drives. There are the logs of when files were written to the drives. There was even a connection log of an IP address traced back to Russia. And the data retrieved was released to the public by people with links to Russian hackers.

Can you provide the logs with time stamps?

I don't have those. And neither do any of those who deny that Russia was behind the hacks. Some of the date details of the compromises are in the transcript under discussion.

The data forensics people who have the VEEAM images would have the full logs. Strangely, ALL of them (CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, the FBI, and US Intelligence services) are saying it was Russian hackers.

However, the following blog post includes the hash values of the tools found on the hard drives. It is evidence written into the data of the drive that the tools used by hackers were present. It does not absolutely indicate that they were Russians but there are numerous indicators that circumstantially identify them as Russian:

CrowdStrike’s work with the Democratic National Committee: Setting the record straight - Crowdstrike Blog

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: chr0naut



" Do you think we are as gullible as you? "


No , WE Don't , but Sometimes I Wonder About YOUR Motives here on ATS Mr/Ms C . History Lives..........

Pretty simple. He's trolling. He's admitted to it before.

No.

I don't troll. But I will fairly tenaciously try to speak the truth, especially where people seem to be deceived by propagandist media.

Most ironic post I've seen on here in a while.

Coming from a guy who lives halfway across the world and gets all of his information about America from propagandist media, who constantly deceive him.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: chr0naut

That's all very interesting, but it still remains a fact that there is no proof that the Russians hacked the DNC.

Until we open up your head, we can't really be sure your brain is mostly grey in color.

You can speculate that the Russians hacked the DNC, but there is no proof of that.
Speculate all you like, it just smacks of you not being able to admit you got taken for a ride by the media. Obama holdovers and Democrats.

It isn't speculative. There is strong circumstantial evidence. There are the hacking tools left behind on the drives. There are the logs of when files were written to the drives. There was even a connection log of an IP address traced back to Russia. And the data retrieved was released to the public by people with links to Russian hackers.

Can you provide the logs with time stamps?

I don't have those. And neither do any of those who deny that Russia was behind the hacks. Some of the date details of the compromise are in the transcript, if you had read and understood it.

The data forensics companies who have the VEEAM images would have the full logs. Strangely, ALL of them (CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, the FBI, and US Intelligence services) are saying it was Russian hackers.

However, the following blog post includes the hash values of the tools found on the hard drives. It is evidence written into the data of the drive that the tools used by hackers were present. It does not absolutely indicate that they were Russians but there are numerous indicators that circumstantially identify them as Russian:

CrowdStrike’s work with the Democratic National Committee: Setting the record straight - Crowdstrike Blog

Your post and link is another way of basically agreeing with me.

We haven't seen the logs and have not been able to cross check the alleged intrusions with the actual email batch dates - you see it would be easy to at least provide the log entries that corresponded to the last email in the batch released by Wikileaks, but we've never even seen that simple piece of corroborating evidence.

No, what we have is an accusation not backed up with any proof and that is now accepted.

For clarity - Crowdstrike saying something or 'setting the record straight' is not proof of anything at all.

So we get back to the same place - no proof that Russia hacked the DNC, either the Russian Govt or even any Russian or even any people in Russia.
Now compare that fact with the 'slam dunk' that was regurgitated for 3 years that you fell for. '17 agencies said' and all that cr*p repeated day after day. Are you not in the slightest bit pissed off at the media and Democrats that led you down the garden path?

With the information we have, blaming Russia is about as logical as me blaming you for hacking the DNC.

a reply to: face23785
Seems the member has a subscription to the national enquirer.
Bat boy posts incomming.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Quick question: Do you know who hacked the DNC?

Thank you kindly.

No.
I suspect there was no hack and that the data was handed over to Wikileaks in Washington, just as an associate of Wikileaks said. No proof of that either, though.

The point is that despite all the '17 agencies' malarkey, it turns out that there is no proof that the Russians hacked the DNC, which is what I said at the time when I read the IC's report.

The IC's report made that pretty clear actually. The only people who think the IC report showed Russia hacked them are people who were told to think that by the media. If you read it for yourself, there's nothing solid there. Nothing that couldn't have been faked or even just been coincidence. Hackers do this all the time, make their hack look like it came from another country.

Crowdstrike under oath testified the had no concrete evidence.
They have NO credibility.
They are part of a smear campaign, no more no less.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Crowdstrike under oath testified the had no concrete evidence.
They have NO credibility.
They are part of a smear campaign, no more no less.

Yes, but have you seen their 'setting the record straight' webpage????
Apparently it's proof Russia hacked the DNC.
Ignore their under oath statements, we have a web page to tell uys what we need to know!

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: chr0naut

" Do you think we are as gullible as you? "

No , WE Don't , but Sometimes I Wonder About YOUR Motives here on ATS Mr/Ms C . History Lives..........

Pretty simple. He's trolling. He's admitted to it before.

No.

I don't troll. But I will fairly tenaciously try to speak the truth, especially where people seem to be deceived by propagandist media.

Most ironic post I've seen on here in a while.

Coming from a guy who lives halfway across the world and gets all of his information about America from propagandist media, who constantly deceive him.

I rarely read American media and news sources. As such, the media I read are not involved in the partisan political back and forth of US media. They have far less advantage to themselves of taking sides in an American political debate.

In fact, this topic thread is a primary example of an American News source misrepresenting things with a political agenda as motivation!

Faux News have taken the reasonable admission that CrowdStrike (only one of the data forensics teams involved) did not have hard evidence of a particular event occurring, and then Faux News has presented that fact as if it somehow invalidated all other data collected by all the disparate groups who assert that the hacks were by state sponsored Russian cyber-intrusion operatives. There is also the additional identification of Guccifer 2.0 and his sources and US Intelligence tracing of the Wikileaks data that agrees with the conclusions of the data forensics groups, adding weight to those conclusions.

It is clear that I am not the one that is being deceived.

originally posted by: chr0naut
I rarely read American media and news sources. As such, the media I read are not involved in the partisan political back and forth of US media. They have far less advantage to themselves of taking sides in an American political debate.

The naivety is unreal. Because you don't get your news from American outlets, you think they're unbiased on American issues? lol what's it like going through life this sheltered that you can actually believe something like that?

Hilarious too that you thinks you haven't been exposed to partisan perceptions about American news, but you call Fox "Faux."

You have no idea the amount of brainwashing you've endured about American politics. It's just hilarious to watch, especially from someone who thinks he's smart.

And yeah, you absolutely have been deceived, about a lot of things, as evidenced from all of your uninformed posts.

ETA: Purely a coincidence that your views are always pretty much in line with CNN's lol but yeah, you're totally getting an unbiased perspective on American politics.

Keep trolling.

a reply to: UKTruth
Some dont know a computer from a car lot.
Tho Wikipedia tells them they do.
I think the testimony under oath is enough.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: chr0naut
I rarely read American media and news sources. As such, the media I read are not involved in the partisan political back and forth of US media. They have far less advantage to themselves of taking sides in an American political debate.

The naivety is unreal. Because you don't get your news from American outlets, you think they're unbiased on American issues? lol what's it like going through life this sheltered that you can actually believe something like that?

No, I don't think that they are entirely unbiased. I said that they get far less out of any bias than American news sources do.

This is yet another example of you not seeing the wood for the trees.

Hilarious too that you thinks you haven't been exposed to partisan perceptions about American news, but you call Fox "Faux."

Faux News is a 24 x 7 opinion delivery system.

It takes a few seconds of soundbite, or a few lines of text, and somehow stretches it out over days of "commentary". As we have just seen with this topic thread, they also misrepresent the little actual source content that they have and spin it into all sorts of garbage. That's not 'News'.

The number of times they have pronounced "This is it", "The smoking gun!", "Boom...", etc, and absolutely nothing comes of it, might raise a question about giving Faux News and their ilk any credence.

You have no idea the amount of brainwashing you've endured about American politics. It's just hilarious to watch, especially from someone who thinks he's smart.

Why would I be brainwashed about anything in American politics at all? It is just another country and has very little impact upon my life. The fact that you believe that the world is somehow polarized upon American party lines is indicative of how much you are in fact indoctrinated in your own country's propaganda.

The USA is just another country, among a hundred or so, to me.

And yeah, you absolutely have been deceived, about a lot of things, as evidenced from all of your uninformed posts.

ETA: Purely a coincidence that your views are always pretty much in line with CNN's lol but yeah, you're totally getting an unbiased perspective on American politics.

Keep trolling.

There is significant circumstantial evidence that the DNC e-mail hacks were Russian state-sponsored actions. There is absolutely no evidence, even circumstantial, that it wasn't.

The weight of evidence that does exist, even if some of it is not "concrete", is that there was a hack and Russia is behind it.

If you have "concrete" evidence to the contrary, present it and I will reconsider my opinion.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: chr0naut

That's all very interesting, but it still remains a fact that there is no proof that the Russians hacked the DNC.

Until we open up your head, we can't really be sure your brain is mostly grey in color.

You can speculate that the Russians hacked the DNC, but there is no proof of that.
Speculate all you like, it just smacks of you not being able to admit you got taken for a ride by the media. Obama holdovers and Democrats.

It isn't speculative. There is strong circumstantial evidence. There are the hacking tools left behind on the drives. There are the logs of when files were written to the drives. There was even a connection log of an IP address traced back to Russia. And the data retrieved was released to the public by people with links to Russian hackers.

Can you provide the logs with time stamps?

I don't have those. And neither do any of those who deny that Russia was behind the hacks. Some of the date details of the compromises are in the transcript under discussion.

The data forensics people who have the VEEAM images would have the full logs. Strangely, ALL of them (CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, the FBI, and US Intelligence services) are saying it was Russian hackers.

However, the following blog post includes the hash values of the tools found on the hard drives. It is evidence written into the data of the drive that the tools used by hackers were present. It does not absolutely indicate that they were Russians but there are numerous indicators that circumstantially identify them as Russian:

CrowdStrike’s work with the Democratic National Committee: Setting the record straight - Crowdstrike Blog

If you start at the line that says:

"Bears in the Midst: Intrusion Into the Democratic National Committee"

And read from there, and know a little bit about programming, it is actually pretty convincing. He's saying that he found various kinds of malware, and some Powershell (direct command to the operating system) instructions that shouldn't be there.

Stuff only somebody at Dmitri Alperovich's level of knowledge would even know how to fake.

So either

A: A pair of true pro hackers were hired to hack the DNC.

or

B: A pair of true pro hackers were hired the plant hacker-ish data.





What is fishy (or should I say "Phishy"????) about it all though, is they both went straight after exactly the same pieces of data.

Alperov passes this off as "Typical Russian intelligence redundant objectives" or something like that.


But what is the probability of them going after exactly the same data immediately?

If they were looking through a haystack for something incriminating, there should have been some randomness to it.

But no: they make B line straight to exactly the same files (but using two entirely different hacking methods.)


It's like someone told them exactly where, on the system, to look.

That's pretty fishy (/"Phishy")

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: UKTruth
Some dont know a computer from a car lot.
Tho Wikipedia tells them they do.
I think the testimony under oath is enough.

I am the CIO IT&T Manager for the company I currently work for. I have worked for more than 30 years at a number of technology companies, including IBM and IBMGSA. I have done disaster recoveries several times, for several companies, and have held an MCSE and A+ and other IT qualifications in the past. I have also written some commercial applications and have a software development portfolio. I would consider myself an expert in IT and computing.

I am confident that what CrowdStrike wrote in their blog post, or what is in the Wikipedia article on the DNC compromise, is technically correct.

originally posted by: chr0naut

No, I don't think that they are entirely unbiased. I said that they get far less out of any bias than American news sources do.

Your posts here make it pretty clear that this is not true. Your perceptions about American politics are skewed incredibly far to the left. You routinely parrot left-wing talking points that float around on CNN and MSNBC. Your perception is not reality.

Faux News is a 24 x 7 opinion delivery system.

It takes a few seconds of soundbite, or a few lines of text, and somehow stretches it out over days of "commentary". As we have just seen with this topic thread, they also misrepresent the little actual source content that they have and spin it into all sorts of garbage. That's not 'News'.

The number of times they have pronounced "This is it", "The smoking gun!", "Boom...", etc, and absolutely nothing comes of it, might raise a question about giving Faux News and their ilk any credence.

And this here reinforces my point. You've been told to think this about Fox, despite it being objectively not true, and you swallowed that propaganda hook, line, and sinker. Then you come here and think you have an objective view of things, despite your views being overwhelmingly skewed to one side.

Just as CNN and MSNBC's commentary hours are overwhelmingly biased left, Fox's are biased right. That's different than their news coverage. As usual, you don't even know the basics about the subject on which you're trying to opine. Getting informed about the subject matter before you post would help you tremendously. But you're diametrically opposed to actually learning anything. You'd rather just spout propaganda, because you're a troll.

Why would I be brainwashed about anything in American politics at all? It is just another country and has very little impact upon my life. The fact that you believe that the world is somehow polarized upon American party lines is indicative of how much you are in fact indoctrinated in your own country's propaganda.

The USA is just another country, among a hundred or so, to me.

Again, your posts do not align with what you're claiming here. You post about American politics an inordinate amount, and your views are overwhelmingly skewed, so yes, you are brainwashed, and it matters more to you than you want to admit. The fact that you believe you're NOT polarized along our party lines is indicative of how indoctrinated you've been by media coverage. Everything you see and read about us is skewed, and you absorb it that way, and your perceptions are all out of whack because of it. You think you know the truth, but all you know is the DNC's talking points.

There is significant circumstantial evidence that the DNC e-mail hacks were Russian state-sponsored actions. There is absolutely no evidence, even circumstantial, that it wasn't.

The weight of evidence that does exist, even if some of it is not "concrete", is that there was a hack and Russia is behind it.

If you have "concrete" evidence to the contrary, present it and I will reconsider my opinion.

Like most of what you say, that's not true at all, and has been addressed in numerous posts in this thread. Of course, you ignored the ones you didn't want to read that explained why this is not true, and instead have chosen to just continue trolling.

See you in the next thread I have to debunk your baseless CNN talking points that you magically just know somehow even though you swear you're not tainted by our partisan biased news. My work is done in this one. Next thread, try to actually learn something about the subject matter before you post, for once? I know that will be really hard, but trust me it's worth it.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: UKTruth
Some dont know a computer from a car lot.
Tho Wikipedia tells them they do.
I think the testimony under oath is enough.

I am currently the CIO IT&T Manager for the company I currently work for. I have worked for more than 30 years at a number of technology companies, including IBM and IBMGSA. I have done disaster recoveries several times, for several companies, and have held an MCSE and A+ and other IT qualifications in the past. I have also written some commercial applications and have a software development portfolio. I would consider myself an expert in IT and computing.

I am confident that what CrowdStrike wrote in their blog post, or what is in the Wikipedia article on the DNC compromise, is technically correct.

Technically, they said they had no proof that the Russians hacked the DNC.
I would agree that they were technically correct when they said that.

It's always rather sad to witness the last person holding on to a lie many swallowed. I pity you in that respect.

The big question...

Do the people who keep typing faux-news, know that the word faux is not pronounced like the word fox ?

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: chr0naut

That's all very interesting, but it still remains a fact that there is no proof that the Russians hacked the DNC.

Until we open up your head, we can't really be sure your brain is mostly grey in color.

You can speculate that the Russians hacked the DNC, but there is no proof of that.
Speculate all you like, it just smacks of you not being able to admit you got taken for a ride by the media. Obama holdovers and Democrats.

It isn't speculative. There is strong circumstantial evidence. There are the hacking tools left behind on the drives. There are the logs of when files were written to the drives. There was even a connection log of an IP address traced back to Russia. And the data retrieved was released to the public by people with links to Russian hackers.

Can you provide the logs with time stamps?

I don't have those. And neither do any of those who deny that Russia was behind the hacks. Some of the date details of the compromises are in the transcript under discussion.

The data forensics people who have the VEEAM images would have the full logs. Strangely, ALL of them (CrowdStrike, Fidelis Cybersecurity, Mandiant, SecureWorks, ThreatConnect, the FBI, and US Intelligence services) are saying it was Russian hackers.

However, the following blog post includes the hash values of the tools found on the hard drives. It is evidence written into the data of the drive that the tools used by hackers were present. It does not absolutely indicate that they were Russians but there are numerous indicators that circumstantially identify them as Russian:

CrowdStrike’s work with the Democratic National Committee: Setting the record straight - Crowdstrike Blog

If you start at the line that says:

"Bears in the Midst: Intrusion Into the Democratic National Committee"

And read from there, and know a little bit about programming, it is actually pretty convincing. He's saying that he found various kinds of malware, and some Powershell (direct command to the operating system) instructions that shouldn't be there.

Stuff only somebody at Dmitri Alperovich's level of knowledge would even know how to fake.

So either

A: A pair of true pro hackers were hired to hack the DNC.

or

B: A pair of true pro hackers were hired the plant hacker-ish data.

What is fishy (or should I say "Phishy"????) about it all though, is they both went straight after exactly the same pieces of data.

Alperov passes this off as "Typical Russian intelligence redundant objectives" or something like that.

But what is the probability of them going after exactly the same data immediately?

If they were looking through a haystack for something incriminating, there should have been some randomness to it.

But no: they make B line straight to exactly the same files (but using two entirely different hacking methods.)

It's like someone told them exactly where, on the system, to look.

That's pretty fishy (/"Phishy")

CrowdStrike's way of doing data forensics is somewhat different to other companies. It looks through data not just for specific strings, or sequences of data, but also heuristically, as in looking at the sequence of operations indicative of getting particular tasks done.

Hackers can obfuscate their code by inserting garbage skips or nulls, or by chopping up their code and shuffling the order with a number of jumps, and pushing and popping code onto different CPU registers or in memory locations. However, despite the shuffling around, the sequence of operations to achieve a particular goal must remain the same.

CrowdStrike's technology steps through the sequence of operations and therefore can 'see' the heuristic process, despite the obfuscation attempts. To do this, it uses AI and a library of known exploits, and speculatively applies them and then looks for pattern matches to those exploits. From those exploits, it does a lookup of who those particular exploits are attributed to and can produce a weighted estimate as to who may have been likely to have placed them there.

While there is some expert disagreement as to the 100% accuracy of the attribution (being one identified by an AI with nothing more to go on than previous assumptions), it is definitely more accurate, more comprehensive (the data set of potential compromises is inhumanly huge), faster, and unbiased than a human interpretation based upon those same inputs would be.

Much of the Falcon AI is proprietary but there have been several academic papers describing the concepts. My understanding of it is based upon those.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: UKTruth
Some dont know a computer from a car lot.
Tho Wikipedia tells them they do.
I think the testimony under oath is enough.

I am currently the CIO IT&T Manager for the company I currently work for. I have worked for more than 30 years at a number of technology companies, including IBM and IBMGSA. I have done disaster recoveries several times, for several companies, and have held an MCSE and A+ and other IT qualifications in the past. I have also written some commercial applications and have a software development portfolio. I would consider myself an expert in IT and computing.

I am confident that what CrowdStrike wrote in their blog post, or what is in the Wikipedia article on the DNC compromise, is technically correct.

Technically, they said they had no proof that the Russians hacked the DNC.
I would agree that they were technically correct when they said that.

It's always rather sad to witness the last person holding on to a lie many swallowed. I pity you in that respect.

That's the funniest part to me. It's so obvious he was tricked into believing something that wasn't true. But he thinks he's sooooo smart he can't possibly have been fooled and come to the wrong conclusion, so he has to pretend the lie is still true despite the evidence to the contrary.

The arrogance and lack of self-awareness is just hilarious. As smart as he tries to look, he ends up looking dumber and dumber because he can't just grow up and admit he got fooled by our media, whether he heard it directly from them or from his media who parroted some CNN garbage to him.

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
The big question...

Do the people who keep typing faux-news, know that the word faux is not pronounced like the word fox ?

Yes, it is pronounced similar to "Fow" (or foe).