Noted Hacker Makes Explosive Claims About DNC WikiLeaks

exGOPer said:
I am not denying that but that doesn't support the claim that the DNC stopped FBI from investigating the crime which is what jem said. If they wanted to stop the investigation then they wouldn't have let Crowdstrike give FBI any information at all. Even NewYorkTimes followed the same procedure when they were hacked, nobody is saying NYT stopped FBI from investigating the hack.
More...
I agree. I don't think anyone is saying the NYT stopped the FBI.

CrowdStrike also claimed that Russia hacked Ukrainian artillery.
 
exGOPer said:
I am not denying that but that doesn't support the claim that the DNC stopped FBI from investigating the crime which is what jem said. If they wanted to stop the investigation then they wouldn't have let Crowdstrike give FBI any information at all. Even NewYorkTimes followed the same procedure when they were hacked, nobody is saying NYT stopped FBI from investigating the hack.
More...
The problem is that the FBI is relying on information from CrowdStrike. CrowdStrike's credibility is in question.

Why would the FBI rely on 3rd party information with respect to an issue that is so important?

Also, why did the DNC deny the FBI access to the servers?

Why didn't the FBI subpoena the servers?

http://www.voanews.com/a/crowdstrike-comey-russia-hack-dnc-clinton-trump/3776067.html

WASHINGTON —

An influential British think tank and Ukraine’s military are disputing a report that the U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has used to buttress its claims of Russian hacking in the presidential election.

The CrowdStrike report, released in December, asserted that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app, resulting in heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine’s war with Russian-backed separatists.

But the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) told VOA that CrowdStrike erroneously used IISS data as proof of the intrusion. IISS disavowed any connection to the CrowdStrike report. Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense also has claimed combat losses and hacking never happened.

A CrowdStrike spokesperson told VOA that it stands by its findings, which, they say, "have been confirmed by others in the cybersecurity community.”

The challenges to CrowdStrike’s credibility are significant because the firm was the first to link last year’s hacks of Democratic Party computers to Russian actors, and because CrowdStrike co-founder Dimiti Alperovitch has trumpeted its Ukraine report as more evidence of Russian election tampering.

Alperovitch has said that variants of the same software were used in both hacks.
 
Last edited:
WeToddDid2 said:
The problem is that the FBI is relying on information from CrowdStrike. CrowdStrike's credibility is in question.

Why would the FBI rely on 3rd party information with respect to an issue that is so important?
.
More...

CrowdStrike is run by ex-chief of FBI's Cybersecurity division, their credibility is not in question by anyone important, just your usual six degrees of Clinton body count idiots.

FBI relied on 3rd party information with regards to NYT hacks too, nobody questioned that, why is this case special. This is standard protocol when dealing with hacks as already reported.
 
exGOPer said:
CrowdStrike is run by ex-chief of FBI's Cybersecurity division, their credibility is not in question by anyone important, just your usual six degrees of Clinton body count idiots.

FBI relied on 3rd party information with regards to NYT hacks too, nobody questioned that, why is this case special. This is standard protocol when dealing with hacks as already reported.
More...
Was Crowdstrike correct or wrong regarding Russian hacking of Ukrainian artillery?
 

UPDATE (21 MAR 2017): VOA News published new information that “the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) told VOA that CrowdStrike erroneously used IISS data as proof of the intrusion. IISS disavowed any connection to the CrowdStrike report. Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense also has claimed combat losses and hacking never happened.” Read the follow article here.
 
VOA also published this

"In its report last June attributing the Democratic hacks, CrowdStrike said it was long familiar with the methods used by Fancy Bear and another group with ties to Russian intelligence nicknamed Cozy Bear. Soon after, U.S. cybersecurity firms Fidelis and Mandiant endorsed CrowdStrike’s conclusions. The FBI and Homeland Security report reached the same conclusion about the two groups"

http://www.voanews.com/a/crowdstrike-comey-russia-hack-dnc-clinton-trump/3776067.html
 
exGOPer said:
CrowdStrike is run by ex-chief of FBI's Cybersecurity division, their credibility is not in question by anyone important, just your usual six degrees of Clinton body count idiots.

FBI relied on 3rd party information with regards to NYT hacks too, nobody questioned that, why is this case special. This is standard protocol when dealing with hacks as already reported.
More...
Are you inferring that the NYT and the DNC are basically one and the same? If yes, then I agree.

Is the NYT a political entity? Last time I checked, there haven't been any candidates running as a member of the NYT party.

If standard protocol, why did the FBI state the following that directly contradicts your statement?

“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.”
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top