• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Now Says He Accepts U.S. Intelligence Reports on Russian Election Meddling

To identify it, affirm that it's there, and that it was used.
Why weren't they allowed to examine it?

If you have video of someone planting a bomb, and then later have video of that bomb exploding, you don't need to recover the detonator or blueprints to make a case.
 
If a man's word, is his bond, then surely Donald Trump's bond was with Vladimir Putin- not America- not the American people! [fishnthec]
 
edit: Different backup reference.

So why do we need this data?

The data from the physical disk? Because a hacker requires a payload to be delivered to a local drive, and needs elevated privilege to run that payload.. on completion of the attack, the hacker will purge the logs of that capture the elevation of privileged, and delete the payload. A backup of the server would capture the nature of the disk after the that cleanup was done, while the hacker can't actually clean the magnetic residue on the disks where any purged logs were written, or the payload that was written to the server.

With the physical server you can reconstruct a lot of deleted data, and can see, with the right equipment up to 6 previous block states for any given block. These tools will read all the block states for every block and the move up and down the stack of previous writes searching for file header traces like piecing together up to six jigsaw puzzles, each with billions of pieces all dumped in the same box and the only clues you have is that certain puzzles were dumped in the box later, and so those pieces would likely be closer to the top.

It's a daunting task, but these devices create essentially a 3D image of the disk and the various block states, and then upload them into blinding fast computers that reconstruct previous disk states. From that you can usually find enough of a file (usually not the whole files) to grab a bit pattern than is a telltale sign of the payload used, as well and usually entire log entries as they tend to be much smaller, and require fewer blocks.

There is no way for a hacker to combat this really, if their goal is to steal information without detection. Any real clean up of the crime scene becomes too time consuming.

Now, there are plenty of cases of smash and grab where the hacker will take what they want and then kick off a bleach bit style wipe with the understanding that the system in question will be unattended for long enough to thoroughly kill the disk, at which point you are left with a black box reconstruction and can only track the case from network logging... but then there are ways around that as well, and the big players take care of that, usually, as well. You determine big players more from the lack of evidence and profiling from the choice of target. But before you get to that step you need the physical server in order to know the next step in the investigative process... if you make an assumption on what you expected to find on a non-available server then you're likely starting in the wrong direction.

tl;dr Disk write forensics.
 
If you have video of someone planting a bomb, and then later have video of that bomb exploding, you don't need to recover the detonator or blueprints to make a case.

Lousy metaphor because a video of planting a bomb is not the same as no video of planting malware, there is no video of anyone planting malware, authorities would absolutely look to make every connection of the perp to the bomb, and most significantly authorities would seal off the bomb site.
That last point brings us back to what I asked you a couple of times and you avoided answering ... why weren't they allowed to examine the servers?
 
That's his goal. Lie so often and so poorly that when people call him out on it, it becomes white noise to the cultists. Now they believe he always tells the truth.

There's nothing more convincing than a bad liar right? :roll:
 
The questions are:
  • Is he lying now, telling us what we want to hear, or was he lying yesterday, telling everyone what nobody wanted to hear?
  • If he realized he made a mistake and is backtracking today, yesterday he couldn't anticipate backing Putin over U.S. intelligence was a mistake?

Let's just remember, he reverses himself constantly. He specializes in telling people just what they want to hear. And he possesses demonic gifts for getting people to imagine that he’ll give him exactly whatever it is they they want.

It’s just the way his Trump University manual taught salespeople what to say to bamboozle their victims: “We will show you how to thrive in real estate and control your own financial destiny, and the best part is: when you double your income from real estate part time, you can quit your job, work twenty five hours a week, and create more wealth than you have ever dreamed of.” Trump has always known how to zero in on people’s hopes, fears, and vulnerabilities, to set up a zero-sum game where he wins at everyone else’s expense.

Did you perhaps forget most of "the right", devotees of a Randian selfish Utopia, find these perfectly admirable, fully ethical and all around wonderful traits in a "human being"; you are aware of this I hope?[/sarcasm off]
 
Trumps political career was nurtured with a lie about Obama's birth place. A fib tailor made to attract racist.

Not believing someone was born in the US, is not lying.
 
The questions are:
  • Is he lying now, telling us what we want to hear, or was he lying yesterday, telling everyone what nobody wanted to hear?
  • If he realized he made a mistake and is backtracking today, yesterday he couldn't anticipate backing Putin over U.S. intelligence was a mistake?

Let's just remember, he reverses himself constantly. He specializes in telling people just what they want to hear. And he possesses demonic gifts for getting people to imagine that he’ll give him exactly whatever it is they they want.

It’s just the way his Trump University manual taught salespeople what to say to bamboozle their victims: “We will show you how to thrive in real estate and control your own financial destiny, and the best part is: when you double your income from real estate part time, you can quit your job, work twenty five hours a week, and create more wealth than you have ever dreamed of.” Trump has always known how to zero in on people’s hopes, fears, and vulnerabilities, to set up a zero-sum game where he wins at everyone else’s expense.

That's because Putin isn't standing right next to him. Funny how his story changes depending on who is in his face. Like how he trashed Prime Minister Theresa May... until he was standing next to her then he denied everything he had said. Trump's an awful lot like his sheep. Oh so much e-tough talk. But absolute wimps IRL.
 
Blah, blah, blah.

Spin it. Hyperbolize it. Add in some innuendo and speculation. Yep...you have something to be outraged about...if you are a useful idiot or a person with an anti-Trump agenda.

Dismissed.

Translation: TRUMP DIDN'T SAY WHAT HE SAID@!!!!1 VIDEOS ARE FAKE NOOOS!!
 
Without actually examining any of the servers, nobody knows if anything was even hacked.

Hell, that's like saying someone is guilty of murder when you don't even know if the victim is dead.

First of all, what are you qualifications to assert this? Computer forensics expert, or listen to right wing talking heads and repeat their talking points? How do you know what they have examined? Are you part of the investigation team, have inside knowledge of what they examined?

Second, take a stand. Did the FBI make up the details, the real actual evidence, in the indictment or didn't they? Are DNI Coates and FBI Director Wray, both Trump appointees, engaged in a fraud on America and the Presidency or aren't they? Do you know more than those two men, appointed by Trump?
 
“To be fair, he did fire his cybersecurity chief, then eliminated the position.”

Firing his cybersecurity chief and then eliminating the position is just the opposite of taking aggressive measures against Russian meddling and consistent with the examples I gave in my post. The phrase “To be fair” means “used for making your criticism of someone or something seem less strong”. What you posted as I quoted is wrong, whether by intent or mistake. I'm guessing it's the latter.

Sorry, it was meant as sarcasm. I agree with you - he's done nothing. I read this morning the NSA and the military intelligence are coming up with their own strategies after getting no guidance on how to protect our elections from the Trump White House. Pretty shocking, actually - disgraceful.
 
Not believing someone was born in the US, is not lying.
Reminds me of a quote: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" - Voltaire
 
Sorry, it was meant as sarcasm. I agree with you - he's done nothing. I read this morning the NSA and the military intelligence are coming up with their own strategies after getting no guidance on how to protect our elections from the Trump White House. Pretty shocking, actually - disgraceful.
And some will say that even failing to protect the country, after red light warnings, is not treasonable behavior.
 
We know they never examined the DNC files. Comey had long conceded this. The claims that the DNC was hacked had been based upon a conclusion from the DNC 's own internal investigation on the matter, and the FBI's acceptance of it-- from the standpoint and standards of their counterintelligence investigation.

Are you sure? The stories I've seen is the DNC did a mirror of the server, that's what Crowdstrike looked at. Do you know if FBI has a copy? What credentials do you have to indicate that a mirror is insufficient?

Those standards are not the same as the standards in criminal justice. It would be akin to saying that the report of a private eye hired by Trump that stated that Trump knew nothing in 2016 of Russian efforts is evidence of anything.

Still, people have been convicted of murder without an actual dead body as evidence a murder actually occured-- or even that the person was dead. So I suppose its possible to prosecute without the actual servers.

If you know because you're an expert, or want to link to someone who is an expert in cyber forensics that concludes the information in the indictment cannot have been legitimately verified, do it. I don't see how that's possible because none of us know what the FBI examined. All I see is people repeating right wing talking points. For some reason Trump's IC accepts the findings, including DNI Coates and FBI Director Wray. Do you know more than they do?
 
Did you see anything in that slew that indicated what the FBI found on the hacked DNC servers? Or that they even examined the DNC servers?

It's amazing how many cyber forensics experts we have on the forum!! Either that or a bunch of people blindly repeat right wing talking points they heard on Hannity or read on a Trump tweet. :roll:

And can you be specific what you're alleging here. The indictment has a lot of details - when, where, how, what files were inserted, what files were accessed, where the GRU servers were located in the U.S., how they paid for them. Are you suggesting FBI fabricated that evidence?
 
Last edited:
We know they never examined the DNC files. Comey had long conceded this. The claims that the DNC was hacked had been based upon a conclusion from the DNC 's own internal investigation on the matter, and the FBI's acceptance of it-- from the standpoint and standards of their counterintelligence investigation.

It's common practice to use firms like Crowdstrike for these portions of investigations. Crowdstrike is a company with an impeccable reputation. Your insinuation that they were somehow involved in a coverup with the DNC belongs in the Conspiracy Theory forum.

Still, people have been convicted of murder without an actual dead body as evidence a murder actually occured-- or even that the person was dead. So I suppose its possible to prosecute without the actual servers.

The FBI had images of the server. There was no physical "server" to confiscate. Servers nowadays are stored across networks of computers for the most part. An image of the server is a complete and true copy of the server. That's all the FBI needed.
 
I don’t know. What did Putin have on Obama to cause #44 to dismantle anti missle batteries in Poland, to invite Russia into Middle East 40 years after being driven out, to stand down during Russian interference in the election?

LOL Deflection will not change how Trump behaved with Putin. Trump helped Putin in his denial of his meddling in democracies all over the world. You need to understand that our freedoms are all under attack.
 
Best comment: "He looked like a hostage reading a note he was given."
 
Yeah, the idea that forensics can be complete without the server in question is just people making excuses.

A backup of a server has no ability to reconstruct deleted files. The amount of data that can be recovered from spinning disk media would blow most people's minds. The nature of the block writes to old media leaves magnetic residue, like tree rings, that can be read and reconstructed. The reason services like Bleach Bit overwrite blocks on a disk multiple times is to overcome this weakness of spinning disk drives as it usually takes 5 to 7 overwrites to sufficiently mask the block traces.

A backup doesn't capture any of that. It captures the current state of the block and nothing else. The only foreignsic data you can always recover from a backup, even a block level backup, are the logs.. but then most hackers know to purge the logs on exit (or suspend logging during the hack)... so...

If you find something in the logs then there are two most likely conclusions: 1) You are dealing with an amateur 2) The hacker left them on purpose to point you in the wrong direction.

So forensic imaging of the hard drive is impossible.... Are you an expert? The experts I've read say it's possible to make an exact copy of a hard drive, bit by bit. In fact what I've read is the first step in examining a hard drive is to make that forensic mirror image and examine the COPY so as to leave the original intact as the effective backup. So the analysis isn't of the original.

E.g. https://www.forensicon.com/resources/articles/what-is-forensic-hard-drive-imaging/

Imaging the subject media by making a bit-for-bit copy of all sectors on the media is a well-established process that is commonly performed on the hard drive level, hence often referred to as hard drive imaging, bit stream imaging or forensic imaging.

I'm no expert, but I'm not sure anyone else is either and no one is providing any links to anything. I'm also not sure, and I'm not sure how anyone is sure, what hard drives the FBI examined. Hillary turned over her email server to the FBI at some point, for example. I have no idea what computers in the DNC or Hillary campaign were made available to FBI.
 
Last edited:
Funny to see that asshole trump groveling and back peddling......Looking like a clueless idiot
 
We know they never examined the DNC files. Comey had long conceded this. The claims that the DNC was hacked had been based upon a conclusion from the DNC 's own internal investigation on the matter, and the FBI's acceptance of it-- from the standpoint and standards of their counterintelligence investigation.

Those standards are not the same as the standards in criminal justice. It would be akin to saying that the report of a private eye hired by Trump that stated that Trump knew nothing in 2016 of Russian efforts is evidence of anything.

Still, people have been convicted of murder without an actual dead body as evidence a murder actually occured-- or even that the person was dead. So I suppose its possible to prosecute without the actual servers.

Incorrect

“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 FBI declined comment for this story, but in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee last year, then-director James Comey said that Crowdstrike “ultimately shared with us their forensics.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-missing-dnc-server-is-neither-missing-nor-a-server
 
It's common practice to use firms like Crowdstrike for these portions of investigations. Crowdstrike is a company with an impeccable reputation. Your insinuation that they were somehow involved in a coverup with the DNC belongs in the Conspiracy Theory forum.



The FBI had images of the server. There was no physical "server" to confiscate. Servers nowadays are stored across networks of computers for the most part. An image of the server is a complete and true copy of the server. That's all the FBI needed.

There is no claim on my end that Crowdstrike was involved in some conspiracy. I am sure their claim that the servers were hacked is accurate.

My point is that Crowdstrike is a private hired by the DNC. In a court of law, it is ridiculous to suppose people will be convicted using such evidence.

Defendents are allowed to examine evidence against them. People hereabouts are claiming copies are no different than the real mccoy. In a court, that might be a tough sell.
 
Back
Top Bottom