Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
these the same ones that offered to show up here in the US and mueller said no thank you? those 12?You know, that you do not want to know the answer to your question....so tell me - what exactly did russia do? you fail to show this cause you're busy just shouting out bullshit. when you're done shouting, show what russia did, how they did it, and provide links/proof to these "ads" that changed the world.What a crock of lying crap....so tell me - exactly what did russia do? no theories. no supposition. facts. what did they do.It took 2 years just to convince the conservatives that Russia actually was involved in election interference.
And STILL to this day Trump is babbling on about some loony Ukraine theory regarding the hack of the DNC.
and governments jack with elections. hell we overthew saddam and forced our own system on them. seems we want to cry like a stuck pig and go FOUL FOUL *only* cause it can impact trump / excuse the left.
as for the DNC hack - i'm sorry. that was never proven nor looked into. don't give me a copy of something and tell me all is good, you got what you need. the left has gotten away with that shit for a long time.
you want my e-mails? hold on. (can we alter the headers? NO??? DAMMIT - send them paper copies while we think of something else!)
so prove something more than just you love to whine.
or keep being an idiot.
your call.
How many times do you need to be given this, and you NOT reading it? Will this be 101??
Read Mueller's full indictment against 12 Russian officers for election interference
I'm not aware of any testimony stating they had no access to the server logs. If you have that testimony, please provide it.just admit that no US agency ever looked at any logs off of the server. that's just a fact that was verified by individuals in congressional testimony. Please, tell us differently.i think when given a copy, a lot can change.Do you think that unless they examine the original hardware, you cannot determine the origin of the hack?great. then look at the original cloud server, not a lot of snapshots. you'd never allow trump or others to look at "copies" of evidence but demand full access. is it any wonder you don't want the same for YOUR side?There was no physical server dumb ass. It was kept on the cloud.
if trump said he was hacked, but only provided you a copy of his machine, do you trust it to be all there? authentic? i wouldn't. i would want to examine what he said was hacked. not a copy. not his blessed version. the actual server.
If you think the disc image could be altered, then so too could the hardware. Nothing changes. If they had turned over the hardware, the doubters would still be challenging the findings. Are you discounting the traffic logs and human intelligence that also contributed to the picture?
To operate X-Agent and X-Tunnel on the DCCC and DNC networks, Unit 26165 officers set up a group of computers outside those networks to communicate with the implanted malware.126 The first set of GRU-controlled computers, known by the GRU as “middle servers,” sent and received messages to and from malware on the DNC/DCCC networks. The middle servers, in turn, relayed messages to a second set of GRU-controlled computers, labeled internally The AMS Panel used to control X-Agent during the DCCC and DNC intrusions was housed by the GRU as an “AMS Panel.” The AMS Panel served as a nerve center through which GRU officers monitored and directed the malware’s operations on the DNC/DCCC networks.127 Investigative Technique on a leased computer located near Arizona.128
but again, why not get direct access to the system? if you're going to stick with "disruption" then please show me where that was *EVER* cited by the DNC as to why they wouldn't allow it.appreciate that. so we don't seem to be agreeing on much but you're not digging heels in - at least that's something to work with.it's not a disk image, it's a vm snapshot.i think when given a copy, a lot can change.
if trump said he was hacked, but only provided you a copy of his machine, do you trust it to be all there? authentic? i wouldn't. i would want to examine what he said was hacked. not a copy. not his blessed version. the actual server.
If you think the disc image could be altered, then so too could the hardware. Nothing changes. If they had turned over the hardware, the doubters would still be challenging the findings. Are you discounting the traffic logs and human intelligence that also contributed to the picture?
again i'll ask and if you choose to dodge the question again, i guess i'm done trying to reason with you.
why not simply look at the original configuration?
I answered above, perhaps you missed it.
I can answer that question. Because they were in the middle of a huge campaign and didn’t want a disruption that it would take to tear down their entire server system and build a new one from scratch.
Not an expert by any means and a VMsnapshot and a disc image are different so I was wrong on that one.
if it's a cloud configuration the vmsnapshot would likely take a bit depending on how much data is there but in the end, in theory, the DNC could have ran off that and turned the original over.
Comey: DNC denied FBI's requests for access to hacked servers
the Feds DID want to look at it. but was denied. many times. so the feds say they asked, the DNC says they never did. which is it? who do i believe here?
“The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated,” the official said.
“This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information. These actions caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier.”
CrowdStrike, the private security firm in question, has published extensive forensic analysis backing up its assessment that the threat groups that infiltrated the DNC were associated with Russian intelligence.
-----
so, it had nothing to do with service disruption. if that was ever a stated reason please link that back to me. i've not seen it. all i've seen is they must use a copy and get their info from a 3rd party.
no direct access - request denied.
no real snapshot to look at
general info from a private security company
FBI says DNC rebuffed request to examine computer servers - CNNPolitics
cnn saying the same thing. FBI requests direct access, DNC saying "no you didn't". again, who here is lying?
It’s my understanding that a VM snapshot is not a backup and can it restore a system without the original hardware.
well partly why i was asking as i wasn't sure to that level of detail. i'll take you at your word on that one.these the same ones that offered to show up here in the US and mueller said no thank you? those 12?You know, that you do not want to know the answer to your question....so tell me - what exactly did russia do? you fail to show this cause you're busy just shouting out bullshit. when you're done shouting, show what russia did, how they did it, and provide links/proof to these "ads" that changed the world.What a crock of lying crap....so tell me - exactly what did russia do? no theories. no supposition. facts. what did they do.
and governments jack with elections. hell we overthew saddam and forced our own system on them. seems we want to cry like a stuck pig and go FOUL FOUL *only* cause it can impact trump / excuse the left.
as for the DNC hack - i'm sorry. that was never proven nor looked into. don't give me a copy of something and tell me all is good, you got what you need. the left has gotten away with that shit for a long time.
you want my e-mails? hold on. (can we alter the headers? NO??? DAMMIT - send them paper copies while we think of something else!)
so prove something more than just you love to whine.
or keep being an idiot.
your call.
How many times do you need to be given this, and you NOT reading it? Will this be 101??
Read Mueller's full indictment against 12 Russian officers for election interference
No. None of the Russian officers offered to show up here. There was one of the indicted companies who sent their lawyers to attend a trial, but none of the actual individuals who have been indicted have shown up in the US.
Mr. Mueller: Was the DNC Server Actually Hacked by the Russians? | The American Spectator | Politics Is Too Important To Be Taken Seriously.I'm not aware of any testimony stating they had no access to the server logs. If you have that testimony, please provide it.just admit that no US agency ever looked at any logs off of the server. that's just a fact that was verified by individuals in congressional testimony. Please, tell us differently.i think when given a copy, a lot can change.Do you think that unless they examine the original hardware, you cannot determine the origin of the hack?great. then look at the original cloud server, not a lot of snapshots. you'd never allow trump or others to look at "copies" of evidence but demand full access. is it any wonder you don't want the same for YOUR side?
if trump said he was hacked, but only provided you a copy of his machine, do you trust it to be all there? authentic? i wouldn't. i would want to examine what he said was hacked. not a copy. not his blessed version. the actual server.
If you think the disc image could be altered, then so too could the hardware. Nothing changes. If they had turned over the hardware, the doubters would still be challenging the findings. Are you discounting the traffic logs and human intelligence that also contributed to the picture?
It appears to me they did have access because they were able to trace where the data flowed out of the DNC server onto the Russian's servers.
To operate X-Agent and X-Tunnel on the DCCC and DNC networks, Unit 26165 officers set up a group of computers outside those networks to communicate with the implanted malware.126 The first set of GRU-controlled computers, known by the GRU as “middle servers,” sent and received messages to and from malware on the DNC/DCCC networks. The middle servers, in turn, relayed messages to a second set of GRU-controlled computers, labeled internally The AMS Panel used to control X-Agent during the DCCC and DNC intrusions was housed by the GRU as an “AMS Panel.” The AMS Panel served as a nerve center through which GRU officers monitored and directed the malware’s operations on the DNC/DCCC networks.127 Investigative Technique on a leased computer located near Arizona.128
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
but again, why not get direct access to the system? if you're going to stick with "disruption" then please show me where that was *EVER* cited by the DNC as to why they wouldn't allow it.appreciate that. so we don't seem to be agreeing on much but you're not digging heels in - at least that's something to work with.it's not a disk image, it's a vm snapshot.If you think the disc image could be altered, then so too could the hardware. Nothing changes. If they had turned over the hardware, the doubters would still be challenging the findings. Are you discounting the traffic logs and human intelligence that also contributed to the picture?
again i'll ask and if you choose to dodge the question again, i guess i'm done trying to reason with you.
why not simply look at the original configuration?
I answered above, perhaps you missed it.
I can answer that question. Because they were in the middle of a huge campaign and didn’t want a disruption that it would take to tear down their entire server system and build a new one from scratch.
Not an expert by any means and a VMsnapshot and a disc image are different so I was wrong on that one.
if it's a cloud configuration the vmsnapshot would likely take a bit depending on how much data is there but in the end, in theory, the DNC could have ran off that and turned the original over.
Comey: DNC denied FBI's requests for access to hacked servers
the Feds DID want to look at it. but was denied. many times. so the feds say they asked, the DNC says they never did. which is it? who do i believe here?
“The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated,” the official said.
“This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information. These actions caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier.”
CrowdStrike, the private security firm in question, has published extensive forensic analysis backing up its assessment that the threat groups that infiltrated the DNC were associated with Russian intelligence.
-----
so, it had nothing to do with service disruption. if that was ever a stated reason please link that back to me. i've not seen it. all i've seen is they must use a copy and get their info from a 3rd party.
no direct access - request denied.
no real snapshot to look at
general info from a private security company
FBI says DNC rebuffed request to examine computer servers - CNNPolitics
cnn saying the same thing. FBI requests direct access, DNC saying "no you didn't". again, who here is lying?
It’s my understanding that a VM snapshot is not a backup and can it restore a system without the original hardware.
“The FBI was given images of servers, forensic copies, as well as a host of other forensic information we collected from our systems,” said Adrienne Watson, the DNC’s deputy communications director. “We were in close contact and worked cooperatively with the FBI and were always responsive to their requests. Any suggestion that they were denied access to what they wanted for their investigation is completely incorrect.”
FBI never examined hacked DNC servers itself: reportI'm not aware of any testimony stating they had no access to the server logs. If you have that testimony, please provide it.just admit that no US agency ever looked at any logs off of the server. that's just a fact that was verified by individuals in congressional testimony. Please, tell us differently.i think when given a copy, a lot can change.Do you think that unless they examine the original hardware, you cannot determine the origin of the hack?great. then look at the original cloud server, not a lot of snapshots. you'd never allow trump or others to look at "copies" of evidence but demand full access. is it any wonder you don't want the same for YOUR side?
if trump said he was hacked, but only provided you a copy of his machine, do you trust it to be all there? authentic? i wouldn't. i would want to examine what he said was hacked. not a copy. not his blessed version. the actual server.
If you think the disc image could be altered, then so too could the hardware. Nothing changes. If they had turned over the hardware, the doubters would still be challenging the findings. Are you discounting the traffic logs and human intelligence that also contributed to the picture?
It appears to me they did have access because they were able to trace where the data flowed out of the DNC server onto the Russian's servers.
To operate X-Agent and X-Tunnel on the DCCC and DNC networks, Unit 26165 officers set up a group of computers outside those networks to communicate with the implanted malware.126 The first set of GRU-controlled computers, known by the GRU as “middle servers,” sent and received messages to and from malware on the DNC/DCCC networks. The middle servers, in turn, relayed messages to a second set of GRU-controlled computers, labeled internally The AMS Panel used to control X-Agent during the DCCC and DNC intrusions was housed by the GRU as an “AMS Panel.” The AMS Panel served as a nerve center through which GRU officers monitored and directed the malware’s operations on the DNC/DCCC networks.127 Investigative Technique on a leased computer located near Arizona.128
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
i'm told there were 140 servers. that's a lot of disc images.but again, why not get direct access to the system? if you're going to stick with "disruption" then please show me where that was *EVER* cited by the DNC as to why they wouldn't allow it.appreciate that. so we don't seem to be agreeing on much but you're not digging heels in - at least that's something to work with.it's not a disk image, it's a vm snapshot.
again i'll ask and if you choose to dodge the question again, i guess i'm done trying to reason with you.
why not simply look at the original configuration?
I answered above, perhaps you missed it.
I can answer that question. Because they were in the middle of a huge campaign and didn’t want a disruption that it would take to tear down their entire server system and build a new one from scratch.
Not an expert by any means and a VMsnapshot and a disc image are different so I was wrong on that one.
if it's a cloud configuration the vmsnapshot would likely take a bit depending on how much data is there but in the end, in theory, the DNC could have ran off that and turned the original over.
Comey: DNC denied FBI's requests for access to hacked servers
the Feds DID want to look at it. but was denied. many times. so the feds say they asked, the DNC says they never did. which is it? who do i believe here?
“The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated,” the official said.
“This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information. These actions caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier.”
CrowdStrike, the private security firm in question, has published extensive forensic analysis backing up its assessment that the threat groups that infiltrated the DNC were associated with Russian intelligence.
-----
so, it had nothing to do with service disruption. if that was ever a stated reason please link that back to me. i've not seen it. all i've seen is they must use a copy and get their info from a 3rd party.
no direct access - request denied.
no real snapshot to look at
general info from a private security company
FBI says DNC rebuffed request to examine computer servers - CNNPolitics
cnn saying the same thing. FBI requests direct access, DNC saying "no you didn't". again, who here is lying?
It’s my understanding that a VM snapshot is not a backup and can it restore a system without the original hardware.
If you're looking for a direct quote from the DNC, I don't have it. Their line is they did everything asked and they're not backing away from it. We both know that disruption would have happened and this was months before a huge election, so it's as good an explanation as any. Or maybe they didn't want FBI operating in their closet, the same FBI that had been leaking about Clinton during the election.
I found a quote from the DNC spokesperson, apparently they did give disc images and forensic copies. Not just VM snapshots.
“The FBI was given images of servers, forensic copies, as well as a host of other forensic information we collected from our systems,” said Adrienne Watson, the DNC’s deputy communications director. “We were in close contact and worked cooperatively with the FBI and were always responsive to their requests. Any suggestion that they were denied access to what they wanted for their investigation is completely incorrect.”
The idea that the DNC was hiding the true source of the hack is very, very, very unlikely. They'd have to be criminal masterminds to pull off such an extensive operation and for what outcome?
Mr. Mueller: Was the DNC Server Actually Hacked by the Russians? | The American Spectator | Politics Is Too Important To Be Taken Seriously.I'm not aware of any testimony stating they had no access to the server logs. If you have that testimony, please provide it.just admit that no US agency ever looked at any logs off of the server. that's just a fact that was verified by individuals in congressional testimony. Please, tell us differently.i think when given a copy, a lot can change.Do you think that unless they examine the original hardware, you cannot determine the origin of the hack?
if trump said he was hacked, but only provided you a copy of his machine, do you trust it to be all there? authentic? i wouldn't. i would want to examine what he said was hacked. not a copy. not his blessed version. the actual server.
If you think the disc image could be altered, then so too could the hardware. Nothing changes. If they had turned over the hardware, the doubters would still be challenging the findings. Are you discounting the traffic logs and human intelligence that also contributed to the picture?
It appears to me they did have access because they were able to trace where the data flowed out of the DNC server onto the Russian's servers.
To operate X-Agent and X-Tunnel on the DCCC and DNC networks, Unit 26165 officers set up a group of computers outside those networks to communicate with the implanted malware.126 The first set of GRU-controlled computers, known by the GRU as “middle servers,” sent and received messages to and from malware on the DNC/DCCC networks. The middle servers, in turn, relayed messages to a second set of GRU-controlled computers, labeled internally The AMS Panel used to control X-Agent during the DCCC and DNC intrusions was housed by the GRU as an “AMS Panel.” The AMS Panel served as a nerve center through which GRU officers monitored and directed the malware’s operations on the DNC/DCCC networks.127 Investigative Technique on a leased computer located near Arizona.128
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
In its analysis of the purported DNC hack, VIPS brought to bear the impressive talents of more than a dozen experienced, well-credentialed experts, including William Binney, a former NSA technical director and cofounder of the NSA’s Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center; Edward Loomis, former NSA technical director for the Office of Signals Processing; and Skip Folden, a former IBM information technology manager. As the French would say, these are l’hommes serieux, as are the other computer-system designers, program architects, and analysts with whom they investigated the Clinton-DNC hack story.
As set forth in the article, VIPS’ investigative findings were nothing short of stunning.
First, VIPS concluded that the DNC data were not hacked by the Russians or anyone else accessing the server over the internet. Instead, the data were downloaded by means of a thumb drive or similar portable storage device physically attached to the DNC server.
-----
we also hear the files were copied to a thumb drive, not hacked. of course this is shot down by the left but they only "proof" provided is from the same people who wouldn't let the FBI review the server to begin with.
-----
Buried toward the end of the article comes the revelation that, on July 26, 2016 (four days after WikiLeaks published the DNC emails), “Steele filed yet another memo” in which “Steele’s sources claimed that the [DNC] digital attack involved agents ‘within the Democratic Party structure itself…’”
-----
i don't think we can call any of this conclusive for the same reason the left can't say it's a lie - no one was allowed to fully examine and look directly. a hired 3rd party company (crowdstrike) was hired to give the details to the FBI. all of this is very unusual and should raise eyebrows to dig deeper as to why this resistance to what happened is there.
if trump did this, i would demand we dig deeper. some actions are beyond partisan in nature and we have to put down our protection for "our side" and somehow, some way get back to a baseline of right and wrong we're all held accountable to. otherwise we all have different laws and hide behind personal justifications as to why we're "innocent" and in that light, no one is ever guilty.
when that happens, we get what we have today and it sucks.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the 140 servers are operating as a VM, they act as basically one machine, correct? Doesn't that mean it just pushes one image?i'm told there were 140 servers. that's a lot of disc images.but again, why not get direct access to the system? if you're going to stick with "disruption" then please show me where that was *EVER* cited by the DNC as to why they wouldn't allow it.appreciate that. so we don't seem to be agreeing on much but you're not digging heels in - at least that's something to work with.I answered above, perhaps you missed it.
Not an expert by any means and a VMsnapshot and a disc image are different so I was wrong on that one.
if it's a cloud configuration the vmsnapshot would likely take a bit depending on how much data is there but in the end, in theory, the DNC could have ran off that and turned the original over.
Comey: DNC denied FBI's requests for access to hacked servers
the Feds DID want to look at it. but was denied. many times. so the feds say they asked, the DNC says they never did. which is it? who do i believe here?
“The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated,” the official said.
“This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information. These actions caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier.”
CrowdStrike, the private security firm in question, has published extensive forensic analysis backing up its assessment that the threat groups that infiltrated the DNC were associated with Russian intelligence.
-----
so, it had nothing to do with service disruption. if that was ever a stated reason please link that back to me. i've not seen it. all i've seen is they must use a copy and get their info from a 3rd party.
no direct access - request denied.
no real snapshot to look at
general info from a private security company
FBI says DNC rebuffed request to examine computer servers - CNNPolitics
cnn saying the same thing. FBI requests direct access, DNC saying "no you didn't". again, who here is lying?
It’s my understanding that a VM snapshot is not a backup and can it restore a system without the original hardware.
If you're looking for a direct quote from the DNC, I don't have it. Their line is they did everything asked and they're not backing away from it. We both know that disruption would have happened and this was months before a huge election, so it's as good an explanation as any. Or maybe they didn't want FBI operating in their closet, the same FBI that had been leaking about Clinton during the election.
I found a quote from the DNC spokesperson, apparently they did give disc images and forensic copies. Not just VM snapshots.
“The FBI was given images of servers, forensic copies, as well as a host of other forensic information we collected from our systems,” said Adrienne Watson, the DNC’s deputy communications director. “We were in close contact and worked cooperatively with the FBI and were always responsive to their requests. Any suggestion that they were denied access to what they wanted for their investigation is completely incorrect.”
The idea that the DNC was hiding the true source of the hack is very, very, very unlikely. They'd have to be criminal masterminds to pull off such an extensive operation and for what outcome?
again - as far as i'm concerned NOTHING has been said by the DNC to justify the refusal for the FBI to look at the server.
no. you'd have 140 VMs each doing it's own server function.Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the 140 servers are operating as a VM, they act as basically one machine, correct? Doesn't that mean it just pushes one image?i'm told there were 140 servers. that's a lot of disc images.but again, why not get direct access to the system? if you're going to stick with "disruption" then please show me where that was *EVER* cited by the DNC as to why they wouldn't allow it.appreciate that. so we don't seem to be agreeing on much but you're not digging heels in - at least that's something to work with.
if it's a cloud configuration the vmsnapshot would likely take a bit depending on how much data is there but in the end, in theory, the DNC could have ran off that and turned the original over.
Comey: DNC denied FBI's requests for access to hacked servers
the Feds DID want to look at it. but was denied. many times. so the feds say they asked, the DNC says they never did. which is it? who do i believe here?
“The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated,” the official said.
“This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information. These actions caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier.”
CrowdStrike, the private security firm in question, has published extensive forensic analysis backing up its assessment that the threat groups that infiltrated the DNC were associated with Russian intelligence.
-----
so, it had nothing to do with service disruption. if that was ever a stated reason please link that back to me. i've not seen it. all i've seen is they must use a copy and get their info from a 3rd party.
no direct access - request denied.
no real snapshot to look at
general info from a private security company
FBI says DNC rebuffed request to examine computer servers - CNNPolitics
cnn saying the same thing. FBI requests direct access, DNC saying "no you didn't". again, who here is lying?
It’s my understanding that a VM snapshot is not a backup and can it restore a system without the original hardware.
If you're looking for a direct quote from the DNC, I don't have it. Their line is they did everything asked and they're not backing away from it. We both know that disruption would have happened and this was months before a huge election, so it's as good an explanation as any. Or maybe they didn't want FBI operating in their closet, the same FBI that had been leaking about Clinton during the election.
I found a quote from the DNC spokesperson, apparently they did give disc images and forensic copies. Not just VM snapshots.
“The FBI was given images of servers, forensic copies, as well as a host of other forensic information we collected from our systems,” said Adrienne Watson, the DNC’s deputy communications director. “We were in close contact and worked cooperatively with the FBI and were always responsive to their requests. Any suggestion that they were denied access to what they wanted for their investigation is completely incorrect.”
The idea that the DNC was hiding the true source of the hack is very, very, very unlikely. They'd have to be criminal masterminds to pull off such an extensive operation and for what outcome?
again - as far as i'm concerned NOTHING has been said by the DNC to justify the refusal for the FBI to look at the server.
Anyway, this is Crowdstrike's business, I'm sure they know how to pull a copy quickly and efficiently. Crowdstrike is highly respected, in fact being used by the RNC for their security as well. Comey acknowledged they were highly respected if I recall correctly.
In the end, maybe the DNC hasn't publicly stated such, but wouldn't you agree that there are many plausible explanations for why they didn't produce the hardware? It seems rather standard for businesses to hand over images to the FBI but keep the hardware so they can get back to work.
that's because of the mueller investigation and the FBI investigation and the Senate investigation, the house investigation, and on and on and on, this president's been investigated more than every other president in history combined and you're still batting zero. I give two shits what the republicans did with clinton. I was responding to your email on us hanging our hats on an investigation by the DOJ. I said the irony in it. you've proven that over and over now.hahahahaha well Einstein, one needs to be in office to have committed an impeachable offense. when screams for impeachment ahead of inauguration, just makes it all a waste of money. again, your irony is noted.I don’t find accountability to be a waste of money. What is a waste is the amount of money we are spending so Trump can fight transparency in court.a waste of tax payers money for an outcome correct? who is running that hoax? Again, your irony is noted.dude the irony in that statement is noted. impeach 45 since Nov 2016. too fking funny, what's today's date?
I never expected Trump to be impeached. Turns out he’s dumber than imagined. This wouldn’t be possible without him.
Really? Republicans were saying the same thing when they expected Clinton to run.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...al-republicans-openly-discussing-impeachment/
Trump didn’t face impeachment until just a few months ago.
well fk numbnuts, Iceberg posted it earlier. you saw it.I'm not aware of any testimony stating they had no access to the server logs. If you have that testimony, please provide it.just admit that no US agency ever looked at any logs off of the server. that's just a fact that was verified by individuals in congressional testimony. Please, tell us differently.i think when given a copy, a lot can change.Do you think that unless they examine the original hardware, you cannot determine the origin of the hack?great. then look at the original cloud server, not a lot of snapshots. you'd never allow trump or others to look at "copies" of evidence but demand full access. is it any wonder you don't want the same for YOUR side?
if trump said he was hacked, but only provided you a copy of his machine, do you trust it to be all there? authentic? i wouldn't. i would want to examine what he said was hacked. not a copy. not his blessed version. the actual server.
If you think the disc image could be altered, then so too could the hardware. Nothing changes. If they had turned over the hardware, the doubters would still be challenging the findings. Are you discounting the traffic logs and human intelligence that also contributed to the picture?
It appears to me they did have access because they were able to trace where the data flowed out of the DNC server onto the Russian's servers.
To operate X-Agent and X-Tunnel on the DCCC and DNC networks, Unit 26165 officers set up a group of computers outside those networks to communicate with the implanted malware.126 The first set of GRU-controlled computers, known by the GRU as “middle servers,” sent and received messages to and from malware on the DNC/DCCC networks. The middle servers, in turn, relayed messages to a second set of GRU-controlled computers, labeled internally The AMS Panel used to control X-Agent during the DCCC and DNC intrusions was housed by the GRU as an “AMS Panel.” The AMS Panel served as a nerve center through which GRU officers monitored and directed the malware’s operations on the DNC/DCCC networks.127 Investigative Technique on a leased computer located near Arizona.128
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
appreciate that. so we don't seem to be agreeing on much but you're not digging heels in - at least that's something to work with.it's not a disk image, it's a vm snapshot.i think when given a copy, a lot can change.Do you think that unless they examine the original hardware, you cannot determine the origin of the hack?
if trump said he was hacked, but only provided you a copy of his machine, do you trust it to be all there? authentic? i wouldn't. i would want to examine what he said was hacked. not a copy. not his blessed version. the actual server.
If you think the disc image could be altered, then so too could the hardware. Nothing changes. If they had turned over the hardware, the doubters would still be challenging the findings. Are you discounting the traffic logs and human intelligence that also contributed to the picture?
again i'll ask and if you choose to dodge the question again, i guess i'm done trying to reason with you.
why not simply look at the original configuration?
I answered above, perhaps you missed it.
I can answer that question. Because they were in the middle of a huge campaign and didn’t want a disruption that it would take to tear down their entire server system and build a new one from scratch.
Not an expert by any means and a VMsnapshot and a disc image are different so I was wrong on that one.
colfax_m no logs ever looked at by any federal agency. period. again, you are aspiring to be a dick you're entire life I see. can't even admit sworn in facts in evidence.no. you'd have 140 VMs each doing it's own server function.Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the 140 servers are operating as a VM, they act as basically one machine, correct? Doesn't that mean it just pushes one image?i'm told there were 140 servers. that's a lot of disc images.but again, why not get direct access to the system? if you're going to stick with "disruption" then please show me where that was *EVER* cited by the DNC as to why they wouldn't allow it.It’s my understanding that a VM snapshot is not a backup and can it restore a system without the original hardware.
If you're looking for a direct quote from the DNC, I don't have it. Their line is they did everything asked and they're not backing away from it. We both know that disruption would have happened and this was months before a huge election, so it's as good an explanation as any. Or maybe they didn't want FBI operating in their closet, the same FBI that had been leaking about Clinton during the election.
I found a quote from the DNC spokesperson, apparently they did give disc images and forensic copies. Not just VM snapshots.
“The FBI was given images of servers, forensic copies, as well as a host of other forensic information we collected from our systems,” said Adrienne Watson, the DNC’s deputy communications director. “We were in close contact and worked cooperatively with the FBI and were always responsive to their requests. Any suggestion that they were denied access to what they wanted for their investigation is completely incorrect.”
The idea that the DNC was hiding the true source of the hack is very, very, very unlikely. They'd have to be criminal masterminds to pull off such an extensive operation and for what outcome?
again - as far as i'm concerned NOTHING has been said by the DNC to justify the refusal for the FBI to look at the server.
Anyway, this is Crowdstrike's business, I'm sure they know how to pull a copy quickly and efficiently. Crowdstrike is highly respected, in fact being used by the RNC for their security as well. Comey acknowledged they were highly respected if I recall correctly.
In the end, maybe the DNC hasn't publicly stated such, but wouldn't you agree that there are many plausible explanations for why they didn't produce the hardware? It seems rather standard for businesses to hand over images to the FBI but keep the hardware so they can get back to work.
active directory
printing
file shares
websites
sql/database
redundancy
it can go on and on. you'd usually stand up a VM with say Windows Server 2010 (for example) on it. then setup that server for the desired functions as you see above. while you can combine some roles, for many you just don't.
and if a "cloud" configuration there is no server to hand over, much less hardware to get back to work with. Amazon, Microsoft, Rackspace and many more provide cloud environments for while people can set all this up and from a local machine, you just access it, log in and it more or less acts as if it's on premise.
---
as for the file copy - yea that one can go many different ways. but again w/o actual access to the logs, you're taking people at their word and i know of no one who does that these days. and if we do, then assange himself said no russians handed him anything at all.
easy to call him a liar and serves a purpose to boot. but what if he didn't lie? what if the DNC did? if you were lying what would you do to cover your tracks?
we have the pakastani brothers and their role and that can't really be explained what they were doing in it all to begin with.
FBI investigating smashed hard drives from Wasserman Schultz IT worker's home, Pakistani brothers: Report
why are all these people smashing hard drives and destroying evidence? to me that alone causes the need for a lot of questions that need solid answers, NOT speculation and NOT defense and excuses by the very people you're investigating.
none of what the DNC made sense. hiding something would make sense but no one on the left wants to even pretend that could be what they were doing - hiding their activities.
been looking when i had time this am and found no article anywhere that said the FBI got to ever look at things firsthand. it was all what crowdstrike told them.colfax_m no logs ever looked at by any federal agency. period. again, you are aspiring to be a dick you're entire life I see. can't even admit facts in evidence.no. you'd have 140 VMs each doing it's own server function.Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the 140 servers are operating as a VM, they act as basically one machine, correct? Doesn't that mean it just pushes one image?i'm told there were 140 servers. that's a lot of disc images.but again, why not get direct access to the system? if you're going to stick with "disruption" then please show me where that was *EVER* cited by the DNC as to why they wouldn't allow it.
If you're looking for a direct quote from the DNC, I don't have it. Their line is they did everything asked and they're not backing away from it. We both know that disruption would have happened and this was months before a huge election, so it's as good an explanation as any. Or maybe they didn't want FBI operating in their closet, the same FBI that had been leaking about Clinton during the election.
I found a quote from the DNC spokesperson, apparently they did give disc images and forensic copies. Not just VM snapshots.
“The FBI was given images of servers, forensic copies, as well as a host of other forensic information we collected from our systems,” said Adrienne Watson, the DNC’s deputy communications director. “We were in close contact and worked cooperatively with the FBI and were always responsive to their requests. Any suggestion that they were denied access to what they wanted for their investigation is completely incorrect.”
The idea that the DNC was hiding the true source of the hack is very, very, very unlikely. They'd have to be criminal masterminds to pull off such an extensive operation and for what outcome?
again - as far as i'm concerned NOTHING has been said by the DNC to justify the refusal for the FBI to look at the server.
Anyway, this is Crowdstrike's business, I'm sure they know how to pull a copy quickly and efficiently. Crowdstrike is highly respected, in fact being used by the RNC for their security as well. Comey acknowledged they were highly respected if I recall correctly.
In the end, maybe the DNC hasn't publicly stated such, but wouldn't you agree that there are many plausible explanations for why they didn't produce the hardware? It seems rather standard for businesses to hand over images to the FBI but keep the hardware so they can get back to work.
active directory
printing
file shares
websites
sql/database
redundancy
it can go on and on. you'd usually stand up a VM with say Windows Server 2010 (for example) on it. then setup that server for the desired functions as you see above. while you can combine some roles, for many you just don't.
and if a "cloud" configuration there is no server to hand over, much less hardware to get back to work with. Amazon, Microsoft, Rackspace and many more provide cloud environments for while people can set all this up and from a local machine, you just access it, log in and it more or less acts as if it's on premise.
---
as for the file copy - yea that one can go many different ways. but again w/o actual access to the logs, you're taking people at their word and i know of no one who does that these days. and if we do, then assange himself said no russians handed him anything at all.
easy to call him a liar and serves a purpose to boot. but what if he didn't lie? what if the DNC did? if you were lying what would you do to cover your tracks?
we have the pakastani brothers and their role and that can't really be explained what they were doing in it all to begin with.
FBI investigating smashed hard drives from Wasserman Schultz IT worker's home, Pakistani brothers: Report
why are all these people smashing hard drives and destroying evidence? to me that alone causes the need for a lot of questions that need solid answers, NOT speculation and NOT defense and excuses by the very people you're investigating.
none of what the DNC made sense. hiding something would make sense but no one on the left wants to even pretend that could be what they were doing - hiding their activities.
well then both Comey and Jeh Johnson both lied under oath, nope not allowed to see DNC servers.been looking when i had time this am and found no article anywhere that said the FBI got to ever look at things firsthand. it was all what crowdstrike told them.colfax_m no logs ever looked at by any federal agency. period. again, you are aspiring to be a dick you're entire life I see. can't even admit facts in evidence.no. you'd have 140 VMs each doing it's own server function.Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the 140 servers are operating as a VM, they act as basically one machine, correct? Doesn't that mean it just pushes one image?i'm told there were 140 servers. that's a lot of disc images.If you're looking for a direct quote from the DNC, I don't have it. Their line is they did everything asked and they're not backing away from it. We both know that disruption would have happened and this was months before a huge election, so it's as good an explanation as any. Or maybe they didn't want FBI operating in their closet, the same FBI that had been leaking about Clinton during the election.
I found a quote from the DNC spokesperson, apparently they did give disc images and forensic copies. Not just VM snapshots.
The idea that the DNC was hiding the true source of the hack is very, very, very unlikely. They'd have to be criminal masterminds to pull off such an extensive operation and for what outcome?
again - as far as i'm concerned NOTHING has been said by the DNC to justify the refusal for the FBI to look at the server.
Anyway, this is Crowdstrike's business, I'm sure they know how to pull a copy quickly and efficiently. Crowdstrike is highly respected, in fact being used by the RNC for their security as well. Comey acknowledged they were highly respected if I recall correctly.
In the end, maybe the DNC hasn't publicly stated such, but wouldn't you agree that there are many plausible explanations for why they didn't produce the hardware? It seems rather standard for businesses to hand over images to the FBI but keep the hardware so they can get back to work.
active directory
printing
file shares
websites
sql/database
redundancy
it can go on and on. you'd usually stand up a VM with say Windows Server 2010 (for example) on it. then setup that server for the desired functions as you see above. while you can combine some roles, for many you just don't.
and if a "cloud" configuration there is no server to hand over, much less hardware to get back to work with. Amazon, Microsoft, Rackspace and many more provide cloud environments for while people can set all this up and from a local machine, you just access it, log in and it more or less acts as if it's on premise.
---
as for the file copy - yea that one can go many different ways. but again w/o actual access to the logs, you're taking people at their word and i know of no one who does that these days. and if we do, then assange himself said no russians handed him anything at all.
easy to call him a liar and serves a purpose to boot. but what if he didn't lie? what if the DNC did? if you were lying what would you do to cover your tracks?
we have the pakastani brothers and their role and that can't really be explained what they were doing in it all to begin with.
FBI investigating smashed hard drives from Wasserman Schultz IT worker's home, Pakistani brothers: Report
why are all these people smashing hard drives and destroying evidence? to me that alone causes the need for a lot of questions that need solid answers, NOT speculation and NOT defense and excuses by the very people you're investigating.
none of what the DNC made sense. hiding something would make sense but no one on the left wants to even pretend that could be what they were doing - hiding their activities.
if this is incorrect, anyone on the left is free to provide a link from as neutral a source as can be these days and let us dig into that.
no. you'd have 140 VMs each doing it's own server function.Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the 140 servers are operating as a VM, they act as basically one machine, correct? Doesn't that mean it just pushes one image?i'm told there were 140 servers. that's a lot of disc images.but again, why not get direct access to the system? if you're going to stick with "disruption" then please show me where that was *EVER* cited by the DNC as to why they wouldn't allow it.It’s my understanding that a VM snapshot is not a backup and can it restore a system without the original hardware.
If you're looking for a direct quote from the DNC, I don't have it. Their line is they did everything asked and they're not backing away from it. We both know that disruption would have happened and this was months before a huge election, so it's as good an explanation as any. Or maybe they didn't want FBI operating in their closet, the same FBI that had been leaking about Clinton during the election.
I found a quote from the DNC spokesperson, apparently they did give disc images and forensic copies. Not just VM snapshots.
“The FBI was given images of servers, forensic copies, as well as a host of other forensic information we collected from our systems,” said Adrienne Watson, the DNC’s deputy communications director. “We were in close contact and worked cooperatively with the FBI and were always responsive to their requests. Any suggestion that they were denied access to what they wanted for their investigation is completely incorrect.”
The idea that the DNC was hiding the true source of the hack is very, very, very unlikely. They'd have to be criminal masterminds to pull off such an extensive operation and for what outcome?
again - as far as i'm concerned NOTHING has been said by the DNC to justify the refusal for the FBI to look at the server.
Anyway, this is Crowdstrike's business, I'm sure they know how to pull a copy quickly and efficiently. Crowdstrike is highly respected, in fact being used by the RNC for their security as well. Comey acknowledged they were highly respected if I recall correctly.
In the end, maybe the DNC hasn't publicly stated such, but wouldn't you agree that there are many plausible explanations for why they didn't produce the hardware? It seems rather standard for businesses to hand over images to the FBI but keep the hardware so they can get back to work.
active directory
printing
file shares
websites
sql/database
redundancy
it can go on and on. you'd usually stand up a VM with say Windows Server 2010 (for example) on it. then setup that server for the desired functions as you see above. while you can combine some roles, for many you just don't.
and if a "cloud" configuration there is no server to hand over, much less hardware to get back to work with. Amazon, Microsoft, Rackspace and many more provide cloud environments for while people can set all this up and from a local machine, you just access it, log in and it more or less acts as if it's on premise.
---
as for the file copy - yea that one can go many different ways. but again w/o actual access to the logs, you're taking people at their word and i know of no one who does that these days. and if we do, then assange himself said no russians handed him anything at all.
easy to call him a liar and serves a purpose to boot. but what if he didn't lie? what if the DNC did? if you were lying what would you do to cover your tracks?
we have the pakastani brothers and their role and that can't really be explained what they were doing in it all to begin with.
FBI investigating smashed hard drives from Wasserman Schultz IT worker's home, Pakistani brothers: Report
why are all these people smashing hard drives and destroying evidence? to me that alone causes the need for a lot of questions that need solid answers, NOT speculation and NOT defense and excuses by the very people you're investigating.
none of what the DNC made sense. hiding something would make sense but no one on the left wants to even pretend that could be what they were doing - hiding their activities.
I love it when dicks like you think they know someone lied. how the fk do you know assange lied? come on brilliant fk tell us your credentials that allows you that kind of access?no. you'd have 140 VMs each doing it's own server function.Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the 140 servers are operating as a VM, they act as basically one machine, correct? Doesn't that mean it just pushes one image?i'm told there were 140 servers. that's a lot of disc images.but again, why not get direct access to the system? if you're going to stick with "disruption" then please show me where that was *EVER* cited by the DNC as to why they wouldn't allow it.
If you're looking for a direct quote from the DNC, I don't have it. Their line is they did everything asked and they're not backing away from it. We both know that disruption would have happened and this was months before a huge election, so it's as good an explanation as any. Or maybe they didn't want FBI operating in their closet, the same FBI that had been leaking about Clinton during the election.
I found a quote from the DNC spokesperson, apparently they did give disc images and forensic copies. Not just VM snapshots.
“The FBI was given images of servers, forensic copies, as well as a host of other forensic information we collected from our systems,” said Adrienne Watson, the DNC’s deputy communications director. “We were in close contact and worked cooperatively with the FBI and were always responsive to their requests. Any suggestion that they were denied access to what they wanted for their investigation is completely incorrect.”
The idea that the DNC was hiding the true source of the hack is very, very, very unlikely. They'd have to be criminal masterminds to pull off such an extensive operation and for what outcome?
again - as far as i'm concerned NOTHING has been said by the DNC to justify the refusal for the FBI to look at the server.
Anyway, this is Crowdstrike's business, I'm sure they know how to pull a copy quickly and efficiently. Crowdstrike is highly respected, in fact being used by the RNC for their security as well. Comey acknowledged they were highly respected if I recall correctly.
In the end, maybe the DNC hasn't publicly stated such, but wouldn't you agree that there are many plausible explanations for why they didn't produce the hardware? It seems rather standard for businesses to hand over images to the FBI but keep the hardware so they can get back to work.
active directory
printing
file shares
websites
sql/database
redundancy
it can go on and on. you'd usually stand up a VM with say Windows Server 2010 (for example) on it. then setup that server for the desired functions as you see above. while you can combine some roles, for many you just don't.
and if a "cloud" configuration there is no server to hand over, much less hardware to get back to work with. Amazon, Microsoft, Rackspace and many more provide cloud environments for while people can set all this up and from a local machine, you just access it, log in and it more or less acts as if it's on premise.
---
as for the file copy - yea that one can go many different ways. but again w/o actual access to the logs, you're taking people at their word and i know of no one who does that these days. and if we do, then assange himself said no russians handed him anything at all.
easy to call him a liar and serves a purpose to boot. but what if he didn't lie? what if the DNC did? if you were lying what would you do to cover your tracks?
we have the pakastani brothers and their role and that can't really be explained what they were doing in it all to begin with.
FBI investigating smashed hard drives from Wasserman Schultz IT worker's home, Pakistani brothers: Report
why are all these people smashing hard drives and destroying evidence? to me that alone causes the need for a lot of questions that need solid answers, NOT speculation and NOT defense and excuses by the very people you're investigating.
none of what the DNC made sense. hiding something would make sense but no one on the left wants to even pretend that could be what they were doing - hiding their activities.
Assange is a liar and has plenty of motivation to lie since he's gotten in bed with the Russians who aren't exactly afraid of getting their hands dirty.
The evidence that Russia hacked the DNC comes from many, many sources and they all corroborate the same story. All anyone else has done is attempt to inject uncertainty into it. There's no actual evidence of any other method or culprit.
The Daily Caller (not a legitimate news source in my opinion) pushed this conspiracy theory, but that was years ago. It never went anywhere because the truth was far less interesting.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...0b4170-93f2-11e7-b9bc-b2f7903bab0d_story.html
well fk numbnuts, Iceberg posted it earlier. you saw it.I'm not aware of any testimony stating they had no access to the server logs. If you have that testimony, please provide it.just admit that no US agency ever looked at any logs off of the server. that's just a fact that was verified by individuals in congressional testimony. Please, tell us differently.i think when given a copy, a lot can change.Do you think that unless they examine the original hardware, you cannot determine the origin of the hack?
if trump said he was hacked, but only provided you a copy of his machine, do you trust it to be all there? authentic? i wouldn't. i would want to examine what he said was hacked. not a copy. not his blessed version. the actual server.
If you think the disc image could be altered, then so too could the hardware. Nothing changes. If they had turned over the hardware, the doubters would still be challenging the findings. Are you discounting the traffic logs and human intelligence that also contributed to the picture?
It appears to me they did have access because they were able to trace where the data flowed out of the DNC server onto the Russian's servers.
To operate X-Agent and X-Tunnel on the DCCC and DNC networks, Unit 26165 officers set up a group of computers outside those networks to communicate with the implanted malware.126 The first set of GRU-controlled computers, known by the GRU as “middle servers,” sent and received messages to and from malware on the DNC/DCCC networks. The middle servers, in turn, relayed messages to a second set of GRU-controlled computers, labeled internally The AMS Panel used to control X-Agent during the DCCC and DNC intrusions was housed by the GRU as an “AMS Panel.” The AMS Panel served as a nerve center through which GRU officers monitored and directed the malware’s operations on the DNC/DCCC networks.127 Investigative Technique on a leased computer located near Arizona.128
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
QUOTE="iceberg, post: 23633114, member: 63397"]appreciate that. so we don't seem to be agreeing on much but you're not digging heels in - at least that's something to work with.it's not a disk image, it's a vm snapshot.i think when given a copy, a lot can change.Do you think that unless they examine the original hardware, you cannot determine the origin of the hack?
if trump said he was hacked, but only provided you a copy of his machine, do you trust it to be all there? authentic? i wouldn't. i would want to examine what he said was hacked. not a copy. not his blessed version. the actual server.
If you think the disc image could be altered, then so too could the hardware. Nothing changes. If they had turned over the hardware, the doubters would still be challenging the findings. Are you discounting the traffic logs and human intelligence that also contributed to the picture?
again i'll ask and if you choose to dodge the question again, i guess i'm done trying to reason with you.
why not simply look at the original configuration?
I answered above, perhaps you missed it.
I can answer that question. Because they were in the middle of a huge campaign and didn’t want a disruption that it would take to tear down their entire server system and build a new one from scratch.
Not an expert by any means and a VMsnapshot and a disc image are different so I was wrong on that one.
if it's a cloud configuration the vmsnapshot would likely take a bit depending on how much data is there but in the end, in theory, the DNC could have ran off that and turned the original over.
Comey: DNC denied FBI's requests for access to hacked servers
the Feds DID want to look at it. but was denied. many times. so the feds say they asked, the DNC says they never did. which is it? who do i believe here?
“The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated,” the official said.
“This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information. These actions caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier.”
CrowdStrike, the private security firm in question, has published extensive forensic analysis backing up its assessment that the threat groups that infiltrated the DNC were associated with Russian intelligence.
-----
so, it had nothing to do with service disruption. if that was ever a stated reason please link that back to me. i've not seen it. all i've seen is they must use a copy and get their info from a 3rd party.
no direct access - request denied.
no real snapshot to look at
general info from a private security company
FBI says DNC rebuffed request to examine computer servers - CNNPolitics
cnn saying the same thing. FBI requests direct access, DNC saying "no you didn't". again, who here is lying?
Do you understand that a server log is a computer file, which has the capacity to be copied and distributed, right?[/QUOTE]well fk numbnuts, Iceberg posted it earlier. you saw it.I'm not aware of any testimony stating they had no access to the server logs. If you have that testimony, please provide it.just admit that no US agency ever looked at any logs off of the server. that's just a fact that was verified by individuals in congressional testimony. Please, tell us differently.i think when given a copy, a lot can change.
if trump said he was hacked, but only provided you a copy of his machine, do you trust it to be all there? authentic? i wouldn't. i would want to examine what he said was hacked. not a copy. not his blessed version. the actual server.
If you think the disc image could be altered, then so too could the hardware. Nothing changes. If they had turned over the hardware, the doubters would still be challenging the findings. Are you discounting the traffic logs and human intelligence that also contributed to the picture?
It appears to me they did have access because they were able to trace where the data flowed out of the DNC server onto the Russian's servers.
To operate X-Agent and X-Tunnel on the DCCC and DNC networks, Unit 26165 officers set up a group of computers outside those networks to communicate with the implanted malware.126 The first set of GRU-controlled computers, known by the GRU as “middle servers,” sent and received messages to and from malware on the DNC/DCCC networks. The middle servers, in turn, relayed messages to a second set of GRU-controlled computers, labeled internally The AMS Panel used to control X-Agent during the DCCC and DNC intrusions was housed by the GRU as an “AMS Panel.” The AMS Panel served as a nerve center through which GRU officers monitored and directed the malware’s operations on the DNC/DCCC networks.127 Investigative Technique on a leased computer located near Arizona.128
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
QUOTE="iceberg, post: 23633114, member: 63397"]appreciate that. so we don't seem to be agreeing on much but you're not digging heels in - at least that's something to work with.it's not a disk image, it's a vm snapshot.i think when given a copy, a lot can change.
if trump said he was hacked, but only provided you a copy of his machine, do you trust it to be all there? authentic? i wouldn't. i would want to examine what he said was hacked. not a copy. not his blessed version. the actual server.
If you think the disc image could be altered, then so too could the hardware. Nothing changes. If they had turned over the hardware, the doubters would still be challenging the findings. Are you discounting the traffic logs and human intelligence that also contributed to the picture?
again i'll ask and if you choose to dodge the question again, i guess i'm done trying to reason with you.
why not simply look at the original configuration?
I answered above, perhaps you missed it.
I can answer that question. Because they were in the middle of a huge campaign and didn’t want a disruption that it would take to tear down their entire server system and build a new one from scratch.
Not an expert by any means and a VMsnapshot and a disc image are different so I was wrong on that one.
if it's a cloud configuration the vmsnapshot would likely take a bit depending on how much data is there but in the end, in theory, the DNC could have ran off that and turned the original over.
Comey: DNC denied FBI's requests for access to hacked servers
the Feds DID want to look at it. but was denied. many times. so the feds say they asked, the DNC says they never did. which is it? who do i believe here?
“The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated,” the official said.
“This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information. These actions caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier.”
CrowdStrike, the private security firm in question, has published extensive forensic analysis backing up its assessment that the threat groups that infiltrated the DNC were associated with Russian intelligence.
-----
so, it had nothing to do with service disruption. if that was ever a stated reason please link that back to me. i've not seen it. all i've seen is they must use a copy and get their info from a 3rd party.
no direct access - request denied.
no real snapshot to look at
general info from a private security company
FBI says DNC rebuffed request to examine computer servers - CNNPolitics
cnn saying the same thing. FBI requests direct access, DNC saying "no you didn't". again, who here is lying?
you aspire to be a dick you're entire life huh?
