Crowdstrike

[BlindBoo]

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

A copy doesn't tell you squat!

You can't track the download speeds from a copy...Which could say the download speed was faster than any comm lines in existence...which would mean it would have to be a device that is physically attached to the server (thumb drive)...Which would mean it was not a "hack" but a "leak" (inside job).Which would mean it wasn't the russians...unless the democrats hired russians (which is plausible).

You can't tell any of that from a "copy".

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.

 

[francoHFW]

But then you're a russian bot who wants to spread the lie that Crowdstrike had

Yup...I'm a russian bot from Minnesota.

NYET!

Trump and the whole GOP are assets of Putin now anyway. Whether you know it or not. Disrespecting our institutions and conspiracy theories that have no evidence to back them up about the deep State -our government is a conspiracy. You're a total disgrace. Doing Putin service....

 

[francoHFW]

Well you right-wing brainwashed functional morons made me look up crowdstrike. It is a ridiculously highly respected computer security company and all your conspiracy theories that have no evidence behind them are pure garbage time brainwashed functional morons. Schiff is stopping the GOP scumbags ,from asking questions trying to find out who the whistleblower is -end the story. You have absolutely nothing to complain about except ridiculous garbage propaganda conspiracy theories and worse.

they aren't the intelligence agency of the US and that's who most americans prefer to review the server. so, dude, shut the fk up. your opinion isn't worth shit here. crowdstrike was hired by the DNC. It's someone investigating themselves. And no, that isn't allowed.

Oh right the deep state conspiracy. All our wonderful institutions AR traders. How can you tell? emails. Dumbass emails too are easily explained totally taken out of context and spun out of all reality. It's like the two FBI lovebird agents bull shiting about Trump and saying he was not to be taken seriously. Of course that was in 2015 and everybody felt that way. Big conspiracy, nut job.

then why the concern for the AG investigating the russia stuff? sphincter getting tight?

He may well be a brainwashed functional moron to. It's the only people Trump trusts LOL. Unbelievable the crap they say and it won't go anywhere no I am not worried.the people they are having sham investigations about could be worried because it cost money to get lawyers. A favorite GOP propaganda trick to shut people up....

so what do you call it when no one can give a single good reason why the physical server couldn't be examined?

lord you people are a bucketfull of broken krako radios.

I have no idea, I don't listen to ridiculous conspiracy theories that every media and law enforcement in the world have discredited totally. I prefer reality. Try it sometime.

 

[Syriusly]

Well you right-wing brainwashed functional morons made me look up crowdstrike. It is a ridiculously highly respected computer security company and all your conspiracy theories that have no evidence behind them are pure garbage time brainwashed functional morons. Schiff is stopping the GOP scumbags ,from asking questions trying to find out who the whistleblower is -end the story. You have absolutely nothing to complain about except ridiculous garbage propaganda conspiracy theories and worse.

they aren't the intelligence agency of the US and that's who most americans prefer to review the server. so, dude, shut the fk up. your opinion isn't worth shit here. crowdstrike was hired by the DNC. It's someone investigating themselves. And no, that isn't allowed.

Oh right the deep state conspiracy. All our wonderful institutions AR traders. How can you tell? emails. Dumbass emails too are easily explained totally taken out of context and spun out of all reality. It's like the two FBI lovebird agents bull shiting about Trump and saying he was not to be taken seriously. Of course that was in 2015 and everybody felt that way. Big conspiracy, nut job.

then why the concern for the AG investigating the russia stuff? sphincter getting tight?

He may well be a brainwashed functional moron to. It's the only people Trump trusts LOL. Unbelievable the crap they say and it won't go anywhere no I am not worried.the people they are having sham investigations about could be worried because it cost money to get lawyers. A favorite GOP propaganda trick to shut people up....

so what do you call it when no one can give a single good reason why the physical server couldn't be examined?

lord you people are a bucketfull of broken krako radios.

Already answered

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.”

 

[iceberg]

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

A copy doesn't tell you squat!

You can't track the download speeds from a copy...Which could say the download speed was faster than any comm lines in existence...which would mean it would have to be a device that is physically attached to the server (thumb drive)...Which would mean it was not a "hack" but a "leak" (inside job).Which would mean it wasn't the russians...unless the democrats hired russians (which is plausible).

You can't tell any of that from a "copy".

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.

well - where did the copy come from then to be verified it was THE server in question?

 

[Syriusly]

Physics don't lie.

But Trump and his supporters sure do- your post is another great example.

You posted this lie way to soon
I am a Trump supporter and I DON'T LIE
SO THAT MAKES YOU A LYING SACK OF SHIT.

LOL

You don't lie, PussyBitch??

You lied in this thread. You claimed CrowdStrike altered the disk image they provided to the FBI but you can't prove that.

A lot of claims have been made and anything crowdstrike gave to the FBI is worthless and can never be used in a court of law.

Odd then that it was used in the indictments of the Russian nationals charged

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.

indictments that went nowhere. When the trial date? If it had gone to court Judge would have kick any evidence crowd stikr gave to the FBI out as inadmissible

According to who exactly?

Give us that citation.

 

[iceberg]

they aren't the intelligence agency of the US and that's who most americans prefer to review the server. so, dude, shut the fk up. your opinion isn't worth shit here. crowdstrike was hired by the DNC. It's someone investigating themselves. And no, that isn't allowed.

Oh right the deep state conspiracy. All our wonderful institutions AR traders. How can you tell? emails. Dumbass emails too are easily explained totally taken out of context and spun out of all reality. It's like the two FBI lovebird agents bull shiting about Trump and saying he was not to be taken seriously. Of course that was in 2015 and everybody felt that way. Big conspiracy, nut job.

then why the concern for the AG investigating the russia stuff? sphincter getting tight?

He may well be a brainwashed functional moron to. It's the only people Trump trusts LOL. Unbelievable the crap they say and it won't go anywhere no I am not worried.the people they are having sham investigations about could be worried because it cost money to get lawyers. A favorite GOP propaganda trick to shut people up....

so what do you call it when no one can give a single good reason why the physical server couldn't be examined?

lord you people are a bucketfull of broken krako radios.

Already answered

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.”

so which is it? seizing the computers is out of the question, or there wasn't a server to examine?

y'all should plan your bullshit better.

 

[Faun]

OP-another dupe baffled by bulshit....every Republican and Democrat on intelligence committees agree the Russians hacked the DNC computer, gave it to WikiLeaks who gave it to Fox and we ended up with media spending 60% of their time arguing a ridiculous email Scandal for a year and wrecked the election.

Funny, I don't remember the world ending when sara palins emails were hacked.

Nobody was screaming "INPEACH FOETY FOE".

How many of her emails were dumped on the Internet?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You posted this lie way to soon
I am a Trump supporter and I DON'T LIE
SO THAT MAKES YOU A LYING SACK OF SHIT.

LOL

You don't lie, PussyBitch??

You lied in this thread. You claimed CrowdStrike altered the disk image they provided to the FBI but you can't prove that.

A lot of claims have been made and anything crowdstrike gave to the FBI is worthless and can never be used in a court of law.

Odd then that it was used in the indictments of the Russian nationals charged

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.

indictments that went nowhere. When the trial date? If it had gone to court Judge would have kick any evidence crowd stikr gave to the FBI out as inadmissible

According to who exactly?

Give us that citation.

When is the trial date? What do you mean give you a citation?
What the DNC did would be me going to a private security firm to investigate a crime and any evidence they choose to turn it over to the police. It would never fly in a court of law the judge would kick it out

 

[Syriusly]

The 'death penalty'.....for what exactly?

Do you have eyes?

It's called a coup attempt!

You're telling me you can't see the filth is trying to unseat a duly elected president? And have been since before his inauguration?

A) I have eyes- I still am waiting for you to come up with a crime subject to the death penalty- of course maybe you are just referring to an assasination by a Trump wet team.
B) "Coupe Attempt' is not a crime. Nor by any stretch of the definition of 'coupe' is what is happening a coupe- except of course your Orange Messiah has told you to keep repeating 'its a coupe!"
C) I am telling you that if the FBI had wanted to prevent Trump from being elected- the FBI could have done so. If Obama wanted to prevent Trump from being elected- he could have done so. All it would have taken would have been for Obama or the FBI to do what Trump demanded Ukraine do- to publicly announce the actual investigation by the FBI into possible collusion by the Trump campaign with Russia. But there was no such announcement, and yes, Trump was duly elected. The investigation continued and while it found some questionable contacts between Trump's campaign and Russia, it found no criminal collusion.
Now we have the President of the United States as subject to an impeachment investigation- which is provided for by the Constitution. So again- not a coup attempt.

When you go back to what Hannity is telling you to repeat- see if he is telling you about an actual crime? Maybe that would help.

 

[Syriusly]

LOL

You don't lie, PussyBitch??

You lied in this thread. You claimed CrowdStrike altered the disk image they provided to the FBI but you can't prove that.

A lot of claims have been made and anything crowdstrike gave to the FBI is worthless and can never be used in a court of law.

Odd then that it was used in the indictments of the Russian nationals charged

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.

indictments that went nowhere. When the trial date? If it had gone to court Judge would have kick any evidence crowd stikr gave to the FBI out as inadmissible

According to who exactly?

Give us that citation.

When is the trial date? What do you mean give you a citation?
What the DNC did would be me going to a private security firm to investigate a crime and any evidence they choose to turn it over to the police. It would never fly in a court of law the judge would kick it out

Go ahead and give us that citation. Right now it is just your opinion as an anonymous uneducated poster.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh right the deep state conspiracy. All our wonderful institutions AR traders. How can you tell? emails. Dumbass emails too are easily explained totally taken out of context and spun out of all reality. It's like the two FBI lovebird agents bull shiting about Trump and saying he was not to be taken seriously. Of course that was in 2015 and everybody felt that way. Big conspiracy, nut job.

then why the concern for the AG investigating the russia stuff? sphincter getting tight?

He may well be a brainwashed functional moron to. It's the only people Trump trusts LOL. Unbelievable the crap they say and it won't go anywhere no I am not worried.the people they are having sham investigations about could be worried because it cost money to get lawyers. A favorite GOP propaganda trick to shut people up....

so what do you call it when no one can give a single good reason why the physical server couldn't be examined?

lord you people are a bucketfull of broken krako radios.

Already answered

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.”

so which is it? seizing the computers is out of the question, or there wasn't a server to examine?

y'all should plan your bullshit better.

Hmmm correction- I am refuting your Trump bullshit- which is laughably easy.


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.”
If you can't read- well you are just another Trumpette

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A lot of claims have been made and anything crowdstrike gave to the FBI is worthless and can never be used in a court of law.

Odd then that it was used in the indictments of the Russian nationals charged

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.

indictments that went nowhere. When the trial date? If it had gone to court Judge would have kick any evidence crowd stikr gave to the FBI out as inadmissible

According to who exactly?

Give us that citation.

When is the trial date? What do you mean give you a citation?
What the DNC did would be me going to a private security firm to investigate a crime and any evidence they choose to turn it over to the police. It would never fly in a court of law the judge would kick it out

Go ahead and give us that citation. Right now it is just your opinion as an anonymous uneducated poster.

I asked you first
WHEN'S THE COURT DATE for those indicted Russians?

 

[Syriusly]

Odd then that it was used in the indictments of the Russian nationals charged

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.

indictments that went nowhere. When the trial date? If it had gone to court Judge would have kick any evidence crowd stikr gave to the FBI out as inadmissible

According to who exactly?

Give us that citation.

When is the trial date? What do you mean give you a citation?
What the DNC did would be me going to a private security firm to investigate a crime and any evidence they choose to turn it over to the police. It would never fly in a court of law the judge would kick it out

Go ahead and give us that citation. Right now it is just your opinion as an anonymous uneducated poster.

I asked you first
WHEN'S THE COURT DATE for those indicted Russians?

The court date can't be until those fugitives are caught.

Looking for that citation now.

 

[BlindBoo]

A copy doesn't tell you squat!

You can't track the download speeds from a copy...Which could say the download speed was faster than any comm lines in existence...which would mean it would have to be a device that is physically attached to the server (thumb drive)...Which would mean it was not a "hack" but a "leak" (inside job).Which would mean it wasn't the russians...unless the democrats hired russians (which is plausible).

You can't tell any of that from a "copy".

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.

well - where did the copy come from then to be verified it was THE server in question?

First, there were multiple servers on their network. Second, they were virtual servers Third, disc imaging software simply copies the 1 and 0's. To ensure the image cannot be altered they save it to read only media. The real forensic work had to be done while the network was still active so the CrowdStrike software could track all the processes and see if the were malignant or not.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

indictments that went nowhere. When the trial date? If it had gone to court Judge would have kick any evidence crowd stikr gave to the FBI out as inadmissible

According to who exactly?

Give us that citation.

When is the trial date? What do you mean give you a citation?
What the DNC did would be me going to a private security firm to investigate a crime and any evidence they choose to turn it over to the police. It would never fly in a court of law the judge would kick it out

Go ahead and give us that citation. Right now it is just your opinion as an anonymous uneducated poster.

I asked you first
WHEN'S THE COURT DATE for those indicted Russians?

The court date can't be until those fugitives are caught.

Looking for that citation now.

They were indicted for that very reason knowing they would not be brought before a judge
Anyway
Inadmissible Evidence
Primary tabs
Evidence that can not be presented to the jury or decision maker for any of a variety of reasons: it was improperly obtained, it is prejudicial (the prejudicial value outweighs the probative value), it is hearsay, it is not relevant to the case, etc.

wex:
THE LEGAL PROCESS
courts
evidence
subject
courts and procedure
wex definitions
Keywords:
evidence

 

[JustAGuy1]

It in

nope, how can you always miss the facts.

Such as, super duper? LOL hilariously ironic. Have you figured out that there are Republicans on these impeachment inquiry committees? you usually fall back into your misinformation....

Have you figured out why Schitt is directing witnesses not to answer their questions?

that would be Republican swine trying to find out who the whistleblower is, super duper. Funny what your propaganda machine leaves out every time isn't it?

Ummmmm, he was "testifying" in front of them, they are in a SCIF , they KNOW who he is.
You really are an idiot.

Speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill, House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., slammed the hidden process claiming Schiff was instructing witnesses testifying behind the closed doors of the SCIF not to answer questions asked by Republican members.


“He’s directing witnesses not to answer questions that he doesn’t want the witness to answer if they’re asked by Republicans,” Scalise charged. “He’s not cut off one Democrat. He’s not interrupted one Democrat and told a witness not to answer Democrat members’ questions but today he started telling witnesses not to answer questions by certain Republicans.”"

Schiff Directing Witnesses Not To Answer GOP Questions

Wrong again. He said he is not the whistleblower and we have no reason to doubt him as always. Schiff is telling them to shut up asking questions trying to find out who the whistleblower is, dumbass doup. You are missing 90% of the news easily.

Nope I am once again proving that you are a lying crackpot.

 

[Thunk]

"Coupe Attempt' is not a crime.

You read it for yourselves folks.

I can't top that one!

 

[Faun]

How did Debbie Wasserman Schultz keep the FBI away from her server? Since when can't the FBI obtain a warrant to seize computer equipment suspected of being internationally hacked?

THAT is a great question!!!

The FBI should be forced to answer it...don't you thunk?

The same FBI that found all of hillarys crimes but didn't prosecute her!

It's already been answered. When the DNC was hacked, they hired CrowdStrike to investigate and clean up their servers. When the FBI got involved, they were provided exact duplicates of the hard drives, as were several other cybersecurity companies. CrowdStrike was able to provide the FBI a copy and they found that acceptable. Comey testified under oath that his agency deemed a copy was an "appropriate substitute."

 

[Syriusly]

According to who exactly?

Give us that citation.

When is the trial date? What do you mean give you a citation?
What the DNC did would be me going to a private security firm to investigate a crime and any evidence they choose to turn it over to the police. It would never fly in a court of law the judge would kick it out

Go ahead and give us that citation. Right now it is just your opinion as an anonymous uneducated poster.

I asked you first
WHEN'S THE COURT DATE for those indicted Russians?

The court date can't be until those fugitives are caught.

Looking for that citation now.

They were indicted for that very reason knowing they would not be brought before a judge
Anyway
Inadmissible Evidence
Primary tabs
Evidence that can not be presented to the jury or decision maker for any of a variety of reasons: it was improperly obtained, it is prejudicial (the prejudicial value outweighs the probative value), it is hearsay, it is not relevant to the case, etc.

wex:
THE LEGAL PROCESS
courts
evidence
subject
courts and procedure
wex definitions
Keywords:
evidence

And......still waiting for you to show us the part that makes this copy of the server inadmissible.