Crowdstrike

[Faun]

LOLOL

Imbecile, his point was that I don't discuss topics. Being able to point to my own posts where I did proved he's delusional. My adding insults on top of discussing topics is merely gravy.

And best of all, you're not man enough to dismiss me.

I've already done it son.

And yet, here I am... not dismissed.

no - you're kinda like that 5 year old learning to jump in the pool screaming MOMMA LOOK AT ME before you do it. then you get up and do it again.

and again.

and again.

and again.

and eventually the phrase "that's nice dear" continues to be validation to keep jumping into the pool as if it's something still new.

and again.

 

[iceberg]

I've already done it son.

And yet, here I am... not dismissed.

no - you're kinda like that 5 year old learning to jump in the pool screaming MOMMA LOOK AT ME before you do it. then you get up and do it again.

and again.

and again.

and again.

and eventually the phrase "that's nice dear" continues to be validation to keep jumping into the pool as if it's something still new.

and again.

 

[Faun]

And yet, here I am... not dismissed.

no - you're kinda like that 5 year old learning to jump in the pool screaming MOMMA LOOK AT ME before you do it. then you get up and do it again.

and again.

and again.

and again.

and eventually the phrase "that's nice dear" continues to be validation to keep jumping into the pool as if it's something still new.

and again.

 

[iceberg]

no - you're kinda like that 5 year old learning to jump in the pool screaming MOMMA LOOK AT ME before you do it. then you get up and do it again.

and again.

and again.

and again.

and eventually the phrase "that's nice dear" continues to be validation to keep jumping into the pool as if it's something still new.

and again.

it's like putting a yarn ball in front of a kitten.

you have a day now, hear?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Crowdstrike gave the FBI and others a copy of the server.... to verify it themselves.... And the FBI did just that..... And more....

They followed the hackers, gathered how and who did it, who paid for it and how it was paid for, how the info also got to Wikileaks etc.... And had enough evidence to charge the perps who directed the theft at the Russian GRU.

You think that sounds reasonable that the FBI let some suspect dent them access to evidence

They were not a suspect... other than in the heads of those kissing Putin's butt... And trying to deflect from Russia's hacking....

99% of cyber security firms for clients hacked, use copies of the client's servers to examine the breach and identify the hackers.

So in your vast experience dealing with the FBI, people asked to turn over ALL material are allowed to sift through and delete 33,000 emails prior to turning it over and then destroying the server?

 

[jc456]

i've given up trying to explain this. a copy can be anything and certainly no guarantee it's of the original unmodified server. i can also get zero reasonable explanations why a copy vs. the original is necessary.

if trump were to pull ANY OF THIS they would scream unholy hell at the party foul, and rightfully so - it would be. yet if "their side" does it, they protect to the death what they would want to "kill" others for doing.

go figure these people. may as well flush a broken turd as it would be more productive than talking with these people.

'Pull any of this'?

Tell us more about this mythical server you believe is hidden away in Ukraine......

Meanwhile in the real world....

The “server” Trump is obsessed with is actually 140 servers, most of them cloud-based, which the DNC was forced to decommission in June 2016 while trying to rid its network of the Russian GRU officers working to help Trump win the election, according to the figures in the DNC’s civil lawsuit against Russia and the Trump campaign. Another 180 desktop and laptop computers were also swapped out as the DNC raced to get the organization back on its feet and free of Putin’s surveillance.

But despite Trump’s repeated feverish claims to the contrary, no machines are actually missing.

It’s true that the FBI doesn’t have the DNC’s computer hardware. Agents didn’t sweep into DNC headquarters, load up all the equipment and leave Democrats standing stunned beside empty desks and dangling cables. There’s a reason for that, and it has nothing to do with a deep state conspiracy to frame Putin.

Trump and his allies are capitalizing on a basic misapprehension of how computer intrusion investigations work. Investigating a virtual crime isn’t a like investigating a murder. The Russians didn’t leave DNA evidence on the server racks and fingerprints on the keyboards. All the evidence of their comings and goings was on the computer hard drives, and in memory, and in the ephemeral network transmissions to and from the GRU’s command-and-control servers.

When cyber investigators respond to an incident, they capture that evidence in a process called “imaging.” They make an exact byte-for-byte copy of the hard drives. They do the same for the machine’s memory, capturing evidence that would otherwise be lost at the next reboot, and they monitor and store the traffic passing through the victim’s network. This has been standard procedure in computer intrusion investigations for decades. The images, not the computer’s hardware, provide the evidence.

Both the DNC and the security firm Crowdstrike, hired to respond to the breach, have said repeatedly over the years that they gave the FBI a copy of all the DNC images back in 2016. The DNC reiterated that Monday in a statement to the Daily Beast.

“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.”

It’s also consistent with the Department of Justice’s electronic evidence manual, which recommends capturing images when practical even when the FBI is executing a search warrant against a uncooperative suspect. When the computers belong to a cooperating victim, seizing the machines is pretty much out of the question, said James Harris, a former FBI cybercrime agent who worked on a 2009 breach at Google that’s been linked to the Chinese government.

“In most cases you don’t even ask, you just assume you’re going to make forensic copies,” said Harris, now vice president of engineering at PFP Cyber. “For example when the Google breach happened back in 2009, agents were sent out with express instructions that you image what they allow you to image, because they’re the victim, you don’t have a search warrant, and you don’t want to disrupt their business.”

There’s a final bit of evidence that the FBI got what it wanted from the DNC, and it was filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. last Friday: 29-pages of inside details showing exactly how and when the GRU’s hackers moved through the DNC’s network on their mission to help Trump.

Trump’s ‘Missing DNC Server’ Is Neither Missing Nor a Server

great - now give me 1 good reason why they couldn't examine the actual server itself. lobbing daily beast at me is, at best, that broken turd i was flushing.

Just one? There was no actual server itself.

where was the data held, in space? too fking funny. nope the file was in limbo and not on any physical device. hey, it's why nothing was hacked, there was nothing to hack. you just admitted it.

There were multiple servers on their network. Besides you claim that the FBI is corrupt anyway so turning all their virtual servers and computer over to the FBI would be useless. They'd never tell if they found out it was really the Ukraine anyway. Amirite?

So someone now hacked multiple servers? Link

 

[jc456]

Do you see how hard they try to derail this thread?

They are scared to DEATH over the word "CROWDSTRIKE".

That's why I titled this thread "CROWDSTRIKE"

There ain't no getting away from the word CROWDSTRIKE

Truth be told, you got beat like a dog with that word.

Ohhhkay FRANCIS

 

[iceberg]

Crowdstrike gave the FBI and others a copy of the server.... to verify it themselves.... And the FBI did just that..... And more....

They followed the hackers, gathered how and who did it, who paid for it and how it was paid for, how the info also got to Wikileaks etc.... And had enough evidence to charge the perps who directed the theft at the Russian GRU.

You think that sounds reasonable that the FBI let some suspect dent them access to evidence

They were not a suspect... other than in the heads of those kissing Putin's butt... And trying to deflect from Russia's hacking....

99% of cyber security firms for clients hacked, use copies of the client's servers to examine the breach and identify the hackers.

So in your vast experience dealing with the FBI, people asked to turn over ALL material are allowed to sift through and delete 33,000 emails prior to turning it over and then destroying the server?

99% huh? she's such a tool.

The FBI Relied on a Private Firm’s Investigation of the DNC Hack—Which Makes the Agency Harder to Trust

The DNC maintains there’s a simple answer to this question: According to the group, the FBI never asked to see their servers. But FBI Director James Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee back in January that the FBI did, in fact, issue “multiple requests at different levels” to the DNC to gain direct access to their computer systems and conduct their own forensic analysis.
-----
so which is it? did they ask? if they asked, why just ask for the copy that 99% of the firms seem to do?

seems the FBI did ask to see the actual server, and were refused, several times.
----------
Asking private firms to investigate security incidents is often beneficial—it’s possible (likely even) that CrowdStrike has resources and technical expertise that the FBI does not. But turning over an entire law enforcement investigation to the private sector is a serious mistake. Companies have very different agendas and motivations from those of law enforcement agencies—companies want to raise their own profiles, satisfy their clients, and draw new customers, while law enforcement agencies aim to identify criminals and hold them accountable. Especially when the government is going to justify an accusation by urging citizens to trust its judgment, it matters that they have actually conducted an investigation themselves and drawn their own conclusions based on a firsthand examination of the available evidence.

So if the FBI didn’t ask for access the DNC’s servers out of laziness or negligence, it certainly should have. And if the DNC denied them that access for fear of being embarrassed by what they might find, or because they had more faith in CrowdStrike than the FBI, then it served only to undermine confidence in the ultimate results of the investigation and give the impression of having something shameful to hide. Neither the DNC nor the FBI should have been satisfied with an investigation that did not involve the FBI conducting a firsthand look at the compromised systems. And all of us should be concerned about the seeming acceptance of both parties to let a private company singlehandedly carry out an investigation with such significant political consequences.
----
i would ask her for links to prove her claim but she runs way like a montey python bunny scene every time you do.

 

[Lesh]

This is no actual “server”

It was a cloud based system

that would mean like 1400 servers

 

[iceberg]

This is no actual “server”

It was a cloud based system

that would mean like 1400 servers

then what did she bleachbit?

high (cirrus, cirrocumulus, cirrostratus), middle (altocumulus, altostratus), multi-level (nimbostratus, cumulus, cumulonimbus), and low (stratocumulus, stratus) cloud servers?

lord you are a neo-maxie-zoondweetie-tool.

 

[Lesh]

This is no actual “server”

It was a cloud based system

that would mean like 1400 servers

then what did she bleachbit?

high (cirrus, cirrocumulus, cirrostratus), middle (altocumulus, altostratus), multi-level (nimbostratus, cumulus, cumulonimbus), and low (stratocumulus, stratus) cloud servers?

lord you are a neo-maxie-zoondweetie-tool.

You seem confused.
This is not about Hillary or her server dumbass

get back to us when you have a clue

 

[francoHFW]

Dumbfuck, Mueller explained why he couldn't. It's no one's fault but your own that you can't understand what he said.

Mueller explained no Trump Russian collusion or obstruction shove it up your ass you might like it

Poor, PussyBitch. Too rightarded to understand Mueller...

First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers." 1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations , see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F .R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct. 2 Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible .3 The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office. 4 And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in

1 A Sitting President 's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222, 222, 260 (2000) (OLC Op.).

2 See U .S. CONST. Art. I § 2, cl. 5; § 3, cl. 6; cf OLC Op. at 257-258 (discussing relationship between impeachment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President).

3 OLC Op. at 257 n.36 ("A grand jury could continue to gather evidence throughout the period of immunity").

4 OLC Op. at 255 ("Recognizing an immunity from prosecution for a sitting President would not preclude suc h prosecution once the President's term is over or he is otherwise removed from office by resignation or impeachment").​

Dear beta male Mueller said no Trump Russian collusion or obstruction nor did anyone in the Trump campaign work with the Russians to influence the 2016 election

LOL

Poor, demented PussyBitch. Even when I quote Mueller's report, he still can't understand it.

Poor beta male lost his mind when Mueller couldn't deliver.

actually, brainwashed functional moron, Mueller said there was collusion and obstruction but it was not his duty and besides a president cannot be indicted according to these GOP dopes. He basically said it was up to Congress to decide what to do. And we're doing it. Everybody knows this except for the dupes....

 

[francoHFW]

This is no actual “server”

It was a cloud based system

that would mean like 1400 servers

then what did she bleachbit?

high (cirrus, cirrocumulus, cirrostratus), middle (altocumulus, altostratus), multi-level (nimbostratus, cumulus, cumulonimbus), and low (stratocumulus, stratus) cloud servers?

lord you are a neo-maxie-zoondweetie-tool.

The devices she used with the server. Duh. Blackberries smartphones etc. And her security team did all this stuff not her for crying out loud. She was a little busy being Secretary of State, and by the way until the Russians hacked everybody nobody gave a damn, general Powell and condoleezza did all the same things, they just did not have a server that was not hacked.

 

[francoHFW]

so is the entire world outside your bubble of garbage propaganda, super duper dupe. Wellington

No, but if crowdstrike can be raided the way Trump's lawyer was. You're screwed!

Crowd strike is not being investigated in the Ukraine by the DOJ, Barr or Durham.... that's all Giuliani, the three Ukrainian/Russian thugs, and Trump's debunked a thousand times over, conspiracy theory....

Barr said he had no part in it....

They need to raid them and their lawyers office's. Muller set new ways into investigating. You said nothing.

Duh.... Michael Cohen was a criminal.... his and any lawyer's communications are not insulated by attorney client privileges when involved in a crime.... THAT is nothing new.

Crowdstrike has the hacked dnc emails. The thing that started Russia collusion. Raid them today. We know you approve of this tatic.

Everybody has the hacked DNC emails duh. And ourm ridiculous punditocracy starting with fox and your demagoguesspent 60% of political coverage talking about the stupid goddamn emails and your ridiculous conspiracies.

 

[BlindBoo]

'Pull any of this'?

Tell us more about this mythical server you believe is hidden away in Ukraine......

Meanwhile in the real world....

The “server” Trump is obsessed with is actually 140 servers, most of them cloud-based, which the DNC was forced to decommission in June 2016 while trying to rid its network of the Russian GRU officers working to help Trump win the election, according to the figures in the DNC’s civil lawsuit against Russia and the Trump campaign. Another 180 desktop and laptop computers were also swapped out as the DNC raced to get the organization back on its feet and free of Putin’s surveillance.

But despite Trump’s repeated feverish claims to the contrary, no machines are actually missing.

It’s true that the FBI doesn’t have the DNC’s computer hardware. Agents didn’t sweep into DNC headquarters, load up all the equipment and leave Democrats standing stunned beside empty desks and dangling cables. There’s a reason for that, and it has nothing to do with a deep state conspiracy to frame Putin.

Trump and his allies are capitalizing on a basic misapprehension of how computer intrusion investigations work. Investigating a virtual crime isn’t a like investigating a murder. The Russians didn’t leave DNA evidence on the server racks and fingerprints on the keyboards. All the evidence of their comings and goings was on the computer hard drives, and in memory, and in the ephemeral network transmissions to and from the GRU’s command-and-control servers.

When cyber investigators respond to an incident, they capture that evidence in a process called “imaging.” They make an exact byte-for-byte copy of the hard drives. They do the same for the machine’s memory, capturing evidence that would otherwise be lost at the next reboot, and they monitor and store the traffic passing through the victim’s network. This has been standard procedure in computer intrusion investigations for decades. The images, not the computer’s hardware, provide the evidence.

Both the DNC and the security firm Crowdstrike, hired to respond to the breach, have said repeatedly over the years that they gave the FBI a copy of all the DNC images back in 2016. The DNC reiterated that Monday in a statement to the Daily Beast.

“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.”

It’s also consistent with the Department of Justice’s electronic evidence manual, which recommends capturing images when practical even when the FBI is executing a search warrant against a uncooperative suspect. When the computers belong to a cooperating victim, seizing the machines is pretty much out of the question, said James Harris, a former FBI cybercrime agent who worked on a 2009 breach at Google that’s been linked to the Chinese government.

“In most cases you don’t even ask, you just assume you’re going to make forensic copies,” said Harris, now vice president of engineering at PFP Cyber. “For example when the Google breach happened back in 2009, agents were sent out with express instructions that you image what they allow you to image, because they’re the victim, you don’t have a search warrant, and you don’t want to disrupt their business.”

There’s a final bit of evidence that the FBI got what it wanted from the DNC, and it was filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. last Friday: 29-pages of inside details showing exactly how and when the GRU’s hackers moved through the DNC’s network on their mission to help Trump.

Trump’s ‘Missing DNC Server’ Is Neither Missing Nor a Server

great - now give me 1 good reason why they couldn't examine the actual server itself. lobbing daily beast at me is, at best, that broken turd i was flushing.

Just one? There was no actual server itself.

where was the data held, in space? too fking funny. nope the file was in limbo and not on any physical device. hey, it's why nothing was hacked, there was nothing to hack. you just admitted it.

There were multiple servers on their network. Besides you claim that the FBI is corrupt anyway so turning all their virtual servers and computer over to the FBI would be useless. They'd never tell if they found out it was really the Ukraine anyway. Amirite?

So someone now hacked multiple servers? Link

All the computers on their network had to be checked because, once inside the network ........

 

[BlindBoo]

This is no actual “server”

It was a cloud based system

that would mean like 1400 servers

then what did she bleachbit?

high (cirrus, cirrocumulus, cirrostratus), middle (altocumulus, altostratus), multi-level (nimbostratus, cumulus, cumulonimbus), and low (stratocumulus, stratus) cloud servers?

lord you are a neo-maxie-zoondweetie-tool.

Crowdstrike had nothing to do with the Clinton's email server. I believe that was a stand alone box and not a virtual server.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Mueller explained no Trump Russian collusion or obstruction shove it up your ass you might like it

Poor, PussyBitch. Too rightarded to understand Mueller...

First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions" in violation of "the constitutional separation of powers." 1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations , see 28 U.S.C. § 515; 28 C.F .R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC's legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC's constitutional view, we recognized that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President's capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct. 2 Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted, it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible .3 The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office. 4 And if individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in

1 A Sitting President 's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. 222, 222, 260 (2000) (OLC Op.).

2 See U .S. CONST. Art. I § 2, cl. 5; § 3, cl. 6; cf OLC Op. at 257-258 (discussing relationship between impeachment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President).

3 OLC Op. at 257 n.36 ("A grand jury could continue to gather evidence throughout the period of immunity").

4 OLC Op. at 255 ("Recognizing an immunity from prosecution for a sitting President would not preclude suc h prosecution once the President's term is over or he is otherwise removed from office by resignation or impeachment").​

Dear beta male Mueller said no Trump Russian collusion or obstruction nor did anyone in the Trump campaign work with the Russians to influence the 2016 election

LOL

Poor, demented PussyBitch. Even when I quote Mueller's report, he still can't understand it.

Poor beta male lost his mind when Mueller couldn't deliver.

actually, brainwashed functional moron, Mueller said there was collusion and obstruction but it was not his duty and besides a president cannot be indicted according to these GOP dopes. He basically said it was up to Congress to decide what to do. And we're doing it. Everybody knows this except for the dupes....

OK brainwashed beta male

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This is no actual “server”

It was a cloud based system

that would mean like 1400 servers

then what did she bleachbit?

high (cirrus, cirrocumulus, cirrostratus), middle (altocumulus, altostratus), multi-level (nimbostratus, cumulus, cumulonimbus), and low (stratocumulus, stratus) cloud servers?

lord you are a neo-maxie-zoondweetie-tool.

You seem confused.
This is not about Hillary or her server dumbass

get back to us when you have a clue

it's all one in the same dumbass.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Mueller: Four acts of obstruction of justice by Trump.

Then why didn't he recommend filing charges???

Unlike Ken Starr he was working for the DOJ not Congress. He had to send his report to "Deep Six" AG Barr.

Then why didn't he recommend filing charges???

He said why. What a pity you lack even the minimal intellect required to understand what he said.

Ken Starr had no problem recommending charges 9 of them as a matter of fact
One was for obstruction.

Ken Starr was working for Congress and had the charge to do so under the Special Prosecutor law which has since been let expire.

Soon the evidence Mueller gathered will be turned over to the Committees that subpoenaed it.

So did Mueller

Dumbfuck, no, Mueller was not working for Congress. He was working for the DoJ. And again, unlike Starr, Mueller had the OLC opinion, that a sitting president can't be indicted, to deal with.

Well if any of that were true why in the fuck did the house call Mueller to answer why he failed them poor little beta male still licking his ass.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Mueller: Four acts of obstruction of justice by Trump.

Then why didn't he recommend filing charges???

Unlike Ken Starr he was working for the DOJ not Congress. He had to send his report to "Deep Six" AG Barr.

Then why didn't he recommend filing charges???

He said why. What a pity you lack even the minimal intellect required to understand what he said.

Ken Starr had no problem recommending charges 9 of them as a matter of fact
One was for obstruction.

Ken Starr was working for Congress and had the charge to do so under the Special Prosecutor law which has since been let expire.

Soon the evidence Mueller gathered will be turned over to the Committees that subpoenaed it.

So did Mueller

So did Mueller what? Work for Congress?

What was that congressional hearing all about and the Mueller report?