This is a great example of what I’m talking about.
There’s nothing to learn from you. Only trolling.
1 Like
Your very posts right here are defining trolling…
I notice the word “rebuffed” is in quotes. Wonder why? And Gizmodo reports the FBI got an image of the server from Crowdstrike, so I’m not sure what your point really is.
This is exactly what I’d expect you to say.
Calling out a troll is not trolling.
You dont know what NSA and CIA can do to get overwritten data. You only know what vanilla disk forensics can and can’t do. And so you think (or try to make us think) that a disk image contains all the information that can be obtained.
But given what amounts to a national crisis in which words like treason and impeachment are being used, the withholding of that server is nothing but obstructionist with an aim to destroy the country.
So this is kind of like that Terminator movie, where John Connor were going to try to destroy the software, that was taking over the systems, and it turns out that software was already distributed throughout the internet (cloud servers)?
I’m sure they are as accurate as WMD’s in Iraq… So, thorough they’d never miss reports of people learning to fly jets but not to land. So, smart they’d never crash the economy, they ended the business cycle, remember? And how can you not expect wages to slowly drop for decades, just lower your expectations and shut up. Open the borders and have mass immigration or you are racist. The swamp knows all…
I actually think we learn a lot about our current situation from posters like him.
There was enough evidence not over-written to indict 12 Russian intelligence officers… Why are you fixated on the physical servers when it’s been explained over and over again that cyber forensics experts NEVER perform their analysis on the original system. They image the system, including MEMORY, to perform their analysis. Turning over the systems or hard drives would DESTROY evidence since anything in memory would be lost.
You underestimate hackers.
Question, are you an IT guy? Do you know anything about networking/routing, data storage, systems and Infosec?
You want the focus to he on endingvthe bloodshed on Syria?
Talk to President Trump. He’s the one that met with Putin without a working agenda.
Are you seriously trying to blame the lack of a deal on Syria on the media and the Dems? and
I’m not an expert on all facets. No one is. But I did design an infosec system for a national security network. And I was chief scientist at a government SCI computing facility for a few years. So you can’t bull ■■■■ me very easily.
Are you an expert on being POTUS? You certainly have posted alot of opinions on how that job is being performed.
1 Like
it’s actually a pretty decent diversion. there’s a lot of dumb people out there.
Quick lunchtime reply… looks like you guys have probably covered this, but. If the servers weren’t owned by the DNC, they’re still evidence. Just like the police might go and look at cameras in shops surrounding an event, even if they weren’t the target. I’ve seen enough instances in myriad scenarios where the will to investigate left justice (and/or users) unserved to raise my eyebrow at the idea that there didn’t appear to be more insistence toward having an official do the legwork.
I don’t necessarily think that they need to take the physical drives into custody, but my less trusting side believes that it should have at least been an official party to make the copies.
Think about what you are saying… Are you suggesting that every breach in the US results in placing the physical hardware into evidence? Think about the ramifications of that if it were true…
If this is the case then why is it so hard for you to understand that there is not a physical server to be turned over? The majority of the DNC servers were virtual servers, hosted in the cloud and the memory, disk, network, and cpu were shared among many, many other users.
If you have even a basic grasp of virtualization technology, you’d realize that there is no single server for the FBI to examine. Instead they get an image of the machine at the earliest point after an intrusion is noticed and then work from the OS+application logs that are available.
There can be only one conclusion - you have no ■■■■■■■ clue as to how modern cloud computing works.
I don’t necessarily think that they need to take the physical drives into custody.
Nice try. But if they made an image they made an image of some disk.
How are they going to take the “physical drives” into custody when the “drive” is nothing more than a collection of chunks of storage space allocated in a storage area network?
If I called Amazon and told them I need the “physical device media” for the 300 GB of Elastic Block Storage that hosts one of my database’s data files, they’d laugh their asses off. That storage is distributed across and array of drives with yet another virtual memory manager keeping track of the locations.
