Support NeoGAF

[Arkage]

None of those things are conspiracies. Let's be honest, your using conspiracy to try to attack me without engaging what I'm saying. If you keep it up, then I'll actually get mean.

Are you a hacker that's going to dox me if I keep arguing with you? Is that you getting "mean"?

Here is Crowdstrike and their reliability issue.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/0...ay-have-fabricated-russia-hacking-in-ukraine/

Your response will be to attack counterpunch.org as a conspiracy site, despite the fact that you can verify their report.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraines-military-denies-russian-hack-attack-143419289.html

Let me break it down for you. The only allegation for the original Crowdstrike report that IISS disputed was how much of the military inventory of howitzers was destroyed in combat operations. Crowdstrike was using an IISS report for their numbers as they are a cyber investigation firm, not a military operations investigator, but they were misunderstanding what the IISS report said. After IISS told Crowdstrike about this they modified the report to match what IISS says. (https://www.crowdstrike.com/wp-content/brochures/FancyBearTracksUkrainianArtillery.pdf)

Did Crowdstrike make a mistake? Yes. Was the mistake malicious? No, as they corrected the report after IISS, their source to begin with, disputed their interpretation of the numbers. And it would be irrational for a company to maliciously misrepresent the data of a world-renowned British intel organization as they would have to know they would get called out on it. It was a dumb mistake concerning a specialized subject they don't have expertise in.

Additionally, there were 6 total allegations in their report, 5 of which nobody credible has disputed. These allegations had to do with the hacking, which is Clowdstrike's actual expertise. Private cyber intel orgs like Fidelis and Mandiant have backed their conclusions in the report, and of course all US intel organizations.

And is the FBI and US intel doing their own research? Nope, just relaying Crowdstrike's claim.



So that line about "trusting good Americans" or not trusting "American intel!" as if you're branding a car product? Horseshit. It's not American intel. It's Ukranian private company intel that nobody has verified independently.

The FBI/US investigation into the hack went far beyond the physical DNC server. Pretending the investigation is based entirely upon a single DNC server and Clowdstrike is ludicrous misdirection. The server was also inspected by Mandiant and ThreatDetect and they all came to the same conclusions. Are you going to throw Mandiant, ThreatDetect, and Fidelis all into your conspiracy stew? Hundreds, if not thousands, of intel experts all lying to the public. Just call them the illuminati and get it over with.

Also, none of those companies are related to a "Ukranian private company." Conspiracy #4. Crowdstrike, Mandiant, Fidelis are all American companies, and RedScan's ThreatDetect is UK. In fact, Ukraine's President vehemently denies Crowdstrike's report that they were victim to hacking as it would be highly embarassing to the government and military.

 

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Are you a hacker that's going to dox me if I keep arguing with you? Is that you getting "mean"?

That? See that's a conspiracy. That everyone who disagrees with you is a Russian hacker bot.

And you can fuck right off you piece of shit. That's what being mean entails.

 

[Arkage]

That? See that's a conspiracy. That everyone who disagrees with you is a Russian hacker bot.

And you can fuck right off you piece of shit. That's what being mean entails.

What's that you said earlier about "attack me without engaging what I'm saying"?

 

[Deleted member 12837]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-behind-the-sony-hack/?utm_term=.838f9c70c79e

The Sony hack was not proven to be North Korea either.

There's some that have doubts, yes, but the FBI and CNA have maintained their original position, even after meeting with and reviewing the evidence gathered by those in disagreement. Additionally, other security firms have rebuked the "inside job" theory after studying it further and independently.

https://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/fbi-rejects-alternate-sony-hack-theory-113893
https://www.recode.net/2015/4/21/11...-inside-job-says-security-expert-kevin-mandia
https://www.recode.net/2015/4/30/11...alks-about-the-world-after-the-sony-hack-full

The original hard drive is better than an image that can be manufactured. Note that it was not an interactive mirror image, which is probably what you're seeing under a google search.

No, it's not. The original hard drive doesn't contain any additional information other than physical evidence like fingerprints, which are irrelevant here. Additionally, as I already said, you lose the contents of the memory of the physical machine when you power it down. An image will include the memory content. This is all industry-standard procedure when it comes to handling digital forensic evidence.

Crowdstrike has reliability issues.

No one has a perfect track record. But what you're suggesting goes beyond "reliability issues". You're suggesting they tampered with the images that they took from the DNC.

 

[NickFire]

That's just his gaslighting through 2016. For complete list of quotes from the mushmouth that goes all the way to the other day- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...in-2016/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2838c9fba961

I guess we disagree on what covering up means. I see it as actively hiding info, not expressing disagreement with findings / beliefs.

 

[Pumpkin Seeds]

I figured people understood this, but maybe I assumed too much.

There is an important difference between curated reports/evidence and a wholly independent investigation of the original supposed crime. Once you bring that curation element in, then you're opening the door for corruption. This is why I want real evidence that can be independently checked. Curated evidence can't be independent because you don't know its true relation to the whole. By this nature, the original machine is better than a non-mirror image.

 

[rokkerkory]

Wow the first meeting was such a huge bigly success, that we're getting another one this fall!

Perfect in time for mid terms

 

[lil puff]

Wow the first meeting was such a huge bigly success, that we're getting another one this fall!

Perfect in time for mid terms

You will be tired of the winning! So much win.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

This is why I want real evidence that can be independently checked.

Independently checked by...? "Wholly independent investigation" conducted by...?

It already was" independently checked" by a 3rd party. So you clearly have something more specific in mind. You have to place your trust in someone. They're not going to hand it over to you personally, nor are they going to make the server image public.

By this nature, the original machine is better than a non-mirror image.

True, but luckily what CrowdStrike took and analyzed was a mirror image. I don't really even know what you mean by a "non-mirror image". Like copying some of the data but not all of it? Copying just the files rather than imaging the entire drive?