Joe diGenova: What To Expect From The Horowitz IG Report

[iceberg]

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?

i'm told there were 140 servers. that's a lot of disc images.

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.

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?

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.

no. you'd have 140 VMs each doing it's own server function.

active directory
printing
file shares
websites
sql/database
e-mail
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

Maybe. but who was destroying hard drives? who was refusing to allow their "crime scene" to be investigated? who had illegal Pakistani brothers running the servers?

if we are going after character fine. let's go after all involved.

 

[colfax_m]

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?

i'm told there were 140 servers. that's a lot of disc images.

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.

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?

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.

no. you'd have 140 VMs each doing it's own server function.

active directory
printing
file shares
websites
sql/database
e-mail
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

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?

Because we know that Russia hacked the DNC.

Assange claimed he would come to the US willingly if Manning was given clemency. Guess who was given clemency and guess who never showed up?

 

[jc456]

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?

i'm told there were 140 servers. that's a lot of disc images.

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.

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?

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.

no. you'd have 140 VMs each doing it's own server function.

active directory
printing
file shares
websites
sql/database
e-mail
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

Maybe. but who was destroying hard drives? who was refusing to allow their "crime scene" to be investigated? who had illegal Pakistani brothers running the servers?

if we are going after character fine. let's go after all involved.

BTW, the mere fact that the pakistan brothers were in DNC server files, is completely illegal with respect to classified material. oops!!!!

 

[iceberg]

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?

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'm not aware of any testimony stating they had no access to the server logs. If you have that testimony, please provide it.

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

well fk numbnuts, Iceberg posted it earlier. you saw it.

QUOTE="iceberg, post: 23633114, member: 63397"]

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'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.

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?

you aspire to be a dick you're entire life huh?

Do you understand that a server log is a computer file, which has the capacity to be copied and distributed, right?[/QUOTE]

and you do understand in most cases of computer hacks we examine the hacked machine.

 

[jc456]

i'm told there were 140 servers. that's a lot of disc images.

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.

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?

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.

no. you'd have 140 VMs each doing it's own server function.

active directory
printing
file shares
websites
sql/database
e-mail
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

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?

Because we know that Russia hacked the DNC.

Assange claimed he would come to the US willingly if Manning was given clemency. Guess who was given clemency and guess who never showed up?

Because we know that Russia hacked the DNC.

no you don't you fking liar!!! you know no such thing. you heard it, but the fk, you don't know it. no one ever looked at it.

 

[iceberg]

i'm told there were 140 servers. that's a lot of disc images.

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.

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?

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.

no. you'd have 140 VMs each doing it's own server function.

active directory
printing
file shares
websites
sql/database
e-mail
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

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?

Because we know that Russia hacked the DNC.

Assange claimed he would come to the US willingly if Manning was given clemency. Guess who was given clemency and guess who never showed up?

The fbi never looked at the servers
crowdstrike did. paid for by the DNC.

How do we know what happened for sure?

 

[colfax_m]

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?

i'm told there were 140 servers. that's a lot of disc images.

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.

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?

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.

no. you'd have 140 VMs each doing it's own server function.

active directory
printing
file shares
websites
sql/database
e-mail
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

Maybe. but who was destroying hard drives? who was refusing to allow their "crime scene" to be investigated? who had illegal Pakistani brothers running the servers?

if we are going after character fine. let's go after all involved.

Since when is destroying hard drives so sinister? I've destroyed hard drives of my own a nmberof times.

The brothers were not "illegal" and they were not running the DNC servers. They were part of Schultz's Congressional staff.

Another conspiracy theory. The right wing pumps these theories out and by the time you've debunked it, they've hardly noticed because they've moved on to several other new conspiracies.

 

[iceberg]

i'm told there were 140 servers. that's a lot of disc images.

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.

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?

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.

no. you'd have 140 VMs each doing it's own server function.

active directory
printing
file shares
websites
sql/database
e-mail
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

Maybe. but who was destroying hard drives? who was refusing to allow their "crime scene" to be investigated? who had illegal Pakistani brothers running the servers?

if we are going after character fine. let's go after all involved.

Since when is destroying hard drives so sinister? I've destroyed hard drives of my own a nmberof times.

The brothers were not "illegal" and they were not running the DNC servers. They were part of Schultz's Congressional staff.

Another conspiracy theory. The right wing pumps these theories out and by the time you've debunked it, they've hardly noticed because they've moved on to several other new conspiracies.

OK then we are simply back to...

why wasn't the fbi allowed to look at the servers directly?

as for the latest conspiracy theory... please the left trots these out as needed also. let's not pretend they don't.

 

[colfax_m]

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?

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.

no. you'd have 140 VMs each doing it's own server function.

active directory
printing
file shares
websites
sql/database
e-mail
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

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?

Because we know that Russia hacked the DNC.

Assange claimed he would come to the US willingly if Manning was given clemency. Guess who was given clemency and guess who never showed up?

The fbi never looked at the servers
crowdstrike did. paid for by the DNC.

How do we know what happened for sure?

Disc images, forensic copies, data logs, server logs, human intelligence.

If the FBI had the actual servers, I'm sure the right wing would still be telling us that we don't know what happened for sure because the hardware could have been altered by the DNC. This is just the most convenient excuse to add uncertainty to the findings that they don't want to acknowledge.

 

[colfax_m]

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?

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.

no. you'd have 140 VMs each doing it's own server function.

active directory
printing
file shares
websites
sql/database
e-mail
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

Maybe. but who was destroying hard drives? who was refusing to allow their "crime scene" to be investigated? who had illegal Pakistani brothers running the servers?

if we are going after character fine. let's go after all involved.

Since when is destroying hard drives so sinister? I've destroyed hard drives of my own a nmberof times.

The brothers were not "illegal" and they were not running the DNC servers. They were part of Schultz's Congressional staff.

Another conspiracy theory. The right wing pumps these theories out and by the time you've debunked it, they've hardly noticed because they've moved on to several other new conspiracies.

OK then we are simply back to...

why wasn't the fbi allowed to look at the servers directly?

as for the latest conspiracy theory... please the left trots these out as needed also. let's not pretend they don't.

I've given you a more than reasonable reason that they didn't look at the servers directly which you've chosen to ignore.

 

[Crixus]

So if Durham gets the scoop from Adm. Rogers then the entire scam is outed.
So Horowitz' report isn't as critical as Durham's.
Here's hoping that some of the deep state "professionals" can tell the truth under oath.

From what I understand the IG report is more like a corporate self diagnostic type thing to see what went on, and that report is basically to find stuff that can be acted on. I'm not sure their opinion means anything. Durham is another issue. He will hold the Issues the IG found up to the law and see what can be done. I figure plenty will make it to a grand jury, but nothing on anyone who matteres.

 

[colfax_m]

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?

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.

no. you'd have 140 VMs each doing it's own server function.

active directory
printing
file shares
websites
sql/database
e-mail
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

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?

Because we know that Russia hacked the DNC.

Assange claimed he would come to the US willingly if Manning was given clemency. Guess who was given clemency and guess who never showed up?

Because we know that Russia hacked the DNC.

no you don't you fking liar!!! you know no such thing. you heard it, but the fk, you don't know it. no one ever looked at it.

Robert Mueller looked at it. US intelligence looked at it. Respected private security firms looked at it.

Why is it so hard to accept?

 

[colfax_m]

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?

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'm not aware of any testimony stating they had no access to the server logs. If you have that testimony, please provide it.

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

well fk numbnuts, Iceberg posted it earlier. you saw it.

QUOTE="iceberg, post: 23633114, member: 63397"]

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'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.

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?

you aspire to be a dick you're entire life huh?

Do you understand that a server log is a computer file, which has the capacity to be copied and distributed, right?

I look at logs all the time. Back up logs, diagnostic logs, back door logs. All kinds of logs. It's my business.[/QUOTE]

Great. So who told you they never looked at any logs?

 

[iceberg]

no. you'd have 140 VMs each doing it's own server function.

active directory
printing
file shares
websites
sql/database
e-mail
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

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?

Because we know that Russia hacked the DNC.

Assange claimed he would come to the US willingly if Manning was given clemency. Guess who was given clemency and guess who never showed up?

The fbi never looked at the servers
crowdstrike did. paid for by the DNC.

How do we know what happened for sure?

Disc images, forensic copies, data logs, server logs, human intelligence.

If the FBI had the actual servers, I'm sure the right wing would still be telling us that we don't know what happened for sure because the hardware could have been altered by the DNC. This is just the most convenient excuse to add uncertainty to the findings that they don't want to acknowledge.

well you're simply making assumptions. all i want is what is needed to resolve the crime. ie - access to the crime scene for an analysis.

this was prevented.

i would be mad if trump prevented it, the DNC did, my brother did...some things you just don't do w/o a good solid stated reason. to pretend i'd extend my "anger" at something else is again, simply an assumption on your part.

what adds uncertainty to the finds is the FACT that a 3rd party provided all the facts. why you're ok with that is beyond me. all of your "excuses" still don't tell me this valid reason the DNC didn't want their servers examined by the feds. everything you said is your guess, not their statement.

 

[iceberg]

no. you'd have 140 VMs each doing it's own server function.

active directory
printing
file shares
websites
sql/database
e-mail
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

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?

Because we know that Russia hacked the DNC.

Assange claimed he would come to the US willingly if Manning was given clemency. Guess who was given clemency and guess who never showed up?

Because we know that Russia hacked the DNC.

no you don't you fking liar!!! you know no such thing. you heard it, but the fk, you don't know it. no one ever looked at it.

Robert Mueller looked at it. US intelligence looked at it. Respected private security firms looked at it.

Why is it so hard to accept?

list those who got to look at the actual server please. not what was handed to them.

there's potential for a huge gap between these 2 steps you ignore in order to say all is fine here. i give NO ONE that benefit of doubt. NO ONE.

 

[colfax_m]

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

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?

Because we know that Russia hacked the DNC.

Assange claimed he would come to the US willingly if Manning was given clemency. Guess who was given clemency and guess who never showed up?

The fbi never looked at the servers
crowdstrike did. paid for by the DNC.

How do we know what happened for sure?

Disc images, forensic copies, data logs, server logs, human intelligence.

If the FBI had the actual servers, I'm sure the right wing would still be telling us that we don't know what happened for sure because the hardware could have been altered by the DNC. This is just the most convenient excuse to add uncertainty to the findings that they don't want to acknowledge.

well you're simply making assumptions. all i want is what is needed to resolve the crime. ie - access to the crime scene for an analysis.

this was prevented.

i would be mad if trump prevented it, the DNC did, my brother did...some things you just don't do w/o a good solid stated reason. to pretend i'd extend my "anger" at something else is again, simply an assumption on your part.

what adds uncertainty to the finds is the FACT that a 3rd party provided all the facts. why you're ok with that is beyond me.

If you claim the images could have been altered, then the servers could have been altered. If they had access to the hardware, we'd be no closer. This is all a red herring.

There is more than enough evidence to resolve the crime without the physical hardware.

 

[iceberg]

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'm not aware of any testimony stating they had no access to the server logs. If you have that testimony, please provide it.

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

well fk numbnuts, Iceberg posted it earlier. you saw it.

QUOTE="iceberg, post: 23633114, member: 63397"]

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.

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?

you aspire to be a dick you're entire life huh?

Do you understand that a server log is a computer file, which has the capacity to be copied and distributed, right?

I look at logs all the time. Back up logs, diagnostic logs, back door logs. All kinds of logs. It's my business.

Great. So who told you they never looked at any logs?[/QUOTE]
great. find the link and source who says they did. i've yet to find it. just that they were denied access and all their info was given to them by crowdstrike.

stop telling me how you feel about it and simply go find the article that states the FBI looked at the actual logs. why is that so hard to do?

 

[colfax_m]

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

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?

Because we know that Russia hacked the DNC.

Assange claimed he would come to the US willingly if Manning was given clemency. Guess who was given clemency and guess who never showed up?

Because we know that Russia hacked the DNC.

no you don't you fking liar!!! you know no such thing. you heard it, but the fk, you don't know it. no one ever looked at it.

Robert Mueller looked at it. US intelligence looked at it. Respected private security firms looked at it.

Why is it so hard to accept?

list those who got to look at the actual server please. not what was handed to them.

there's potential for a huge gap between these 2 steps you ignore in order to say all is fine here. i give NO ONE that benefit of doubt. NO ONE.

What is the potential gap. Explain please.

 

[iceberg]

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?

Because we know that Russia hacked the DNC.

Assange claimed he would come to the US willingly if Manning was given clemency. Guess who was given clemency and guess who never showed up?

The fbi never looked at the servers
crowdstrike did. paid for by the DNC.

How do we know what happened for sure?

Disc images, forensic copies, data logs, server logs, human intelligence.

If the FBI had the actual servers, I'm sure the right wing would still be telling us that we don't know what happened for sure because the hardware could have been altered by the DNC. This is just the most convenient excuse to add uncertainty to the findings that they don't want to acknowledge.

well you're simply making assumptions. all i want is what is needed to resolve the crime. ie - access to the crime scene for an analysis.

this was prevented.

i would be mad if trump prevented it, the DNC did, my brother did...some things you just don't do w/o a good solid stated reason. to pretend i'd extend my "anger" at something else is again, simply an assumption on your part.

what adds uncertainty to the finds is the FACT that a 3rd party provided all the facts. why you're ok with that is beyond me.

If you claim the images could have been altered, then the servers could have been altered. If they had access to the hardware, we'd be no closer. This is all a red herring.

There is more than enough evidence to resolve the crime without the physical hardware.

ok - we're going to keep going in circles with you allowing the DNC benefit of doubt i simply fail to believe you'd allow for trump also. i'd not allow either side the leeway to tell me what is ok and not ok to investigate.

i'm out. you can circle on and never provide the requested links. tired of asking for them and just getting your opinion.

 

[colfax_m]

I'm not aware of any testimony stating they had no access to the server logs. If you have that testimony, please provide it.

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.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

well fk numbnuts, Iceberg posted it earlier. you saw it.

QUOTE="iceberg, post: 23633114, member: 63397"]

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.

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?

you aspire to be a dick you're entire life huh?

Do you understand that a server log is a computer file, which has the capacity to be copied and distributed, right?

I look at logs all the time. Back up logs, diagnostic logs, back door logs. All kinds of logs. It's my business.

Great. So who told you they never looked at any logs?

great. find the link and source who says they did. i've yet to find it. just that they were denied access and all their info was given to them by crowdstrike.

stop telling me how you feel about it and simply go find the article that states the FBI looked at the actual logs. why is that so hard to do?[/QUOTE]
The logs were given to them by Crowdstrike because they handed over disc images. The Mueller report identified where the data was transferred and when. How would that information have been obtained without logs?