Anyone who has taken the time to watch Bill Binney knows the DNC server was accessed directly. Download speeds are 4 times faster than what a remote hack (even from data center to data center) are capable of producing. Speeds do match up with a thumb drive - likely done by Seth Rich - for which he was killed.
Nonsense. You CANNOT tell anything about the method of file extraction by examining the metadata of files that were posted live sometime AFTER they were extracted.
If the metadata speeds indicate copying to a thumb drive, you have NO WAY OF KNOWING when that occurred. It could have happened any time after extraction and this is assuming there was only single copy of the extracted files.
If the file creation timestamp says 5/30/2019, you cannot say this files were taken from the DNC on 5/30/2019.
You only know that they were created on this storage device on 5/30/2019 IF the computer's time is accurate.
But you have no way of knowing if this is the 100th copy of the files since they were taken from the DNC. You have no information about chain of possession.
LIAR! I hold patents in storage technology and the meta data DOES show various information which can determine virtually all aspect about the data and it's access. Much depends on the underlying files systems, but generally they all do the same thing but in different ways. Was it a "thumb drive" - don't know. Was it LOCAL STORAGE yes (based on Binney - who knows a lot more than you.)
You completely miss the point. You have no idea at all if the LOCAL STORAGE occurred at the point of extraction or later, like when the hackers gave it to the political folks or the translators. Saying it's local storage tells us zero about how the files were taken from DNC network
You're missing the point. You think Bill Binney would "miss" a fact like using timestamps that are not relevant to the initial data transfer from internal (server) to external storage? You have some proof that Binney did not analyze the proper meta data? If that were the case he would have been laughed off the internet.
You think Bill Binney would "miss" a fact like using timestamps that are not relevant to the initial data transfer from internal (server) to external storage?
NO. I have Bill Binney saying EXACTLY what I said.
And you are making a GIANT ASSUMPTION not in evidence. You are assuming the timestamps show the transfer from the DNC/internal servers (it wasn't a single server, but well over a hundred) to external storage. The timestamps tell us nothing about the DNC/internal servers because we don't know how many steps those files took between the DNC servers and the final storage medium they were on before uploading. You don't know if they passed around zero times or 100 times. You don't know if they were copied along the way. The final metadata cannot tell you anything about the extraction method, because you have no way of knowing what happened after they were extracted from the DNC/internal servers.
Again that tells us NOTHING about how the files were extracted. Everything else is a smokescreen. In fact, Binney goes on to say this
The forensics we examined shed no direct light on who may have been behind the leak.
That sentence completely destroys their argument. And notice they deceptively call it a leak.....which their ANALYSIS CAN NOT SAY IT WAS OR WAS NOT. We both recognize it's
really the initial data transfer from internal (server) to external storage.
And they follow that sentence that destroys their conclusions by blowing a lot of smoke
The only thing we know for sure is that the person had to have direct access to the DNC computers or servers in order to copy the emails
Yeah, somebody copied the emails off the DNC servers and the data had been transferred to an external storage device, such as a thumb drive, before WikiLeaks posted them. The only thing we know to be true from Binney's analysis.
Mueller's indictment goes into much, much more detail. Two different units of Russian military intelligence (GRU) were involved in the hack and leaking of the material. The GRU gained access to the DNC, by first spearphishing the DCCC. They were able to gain DCCC credentials and they used to send emails to the DNC that contained the X-agent malware that had been customized in such a way that security researchers from several cybersecurity companies had identified as a Russian government hacking team. This malware allowed them to gain control of the DNC network. They then used a second malware X-Tunnel to extract the files from the DNC network to two server in the US they had rented. The indictment of the GRU teams is filled with details of how it worked.
https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download
Of course you can see WHEN, assuming the computer itself had the correct time set.
The metadata established several facts in this regard with granular precision: On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.
Correct. However, you can calculate the speed based on the written/modified dates. Example: If the first file was created/updated at 08:25:16 and the last file was at 08:25:18, you can tell the transfer took about 2 seconds. This is how they calculate the transfer rate.
view the rest of the comments →
18892032? ago
Anyone who has taken the time to watch Bill Binney knows the DNC server was accessed directly. Download speeds are 4 times faster than what a remote hack (even from data center to data center) are capable of producing. Speeds do match up with a thumb drive - likely done by Seth Rich - for which he was killed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv0-Lnv0d0k
18892129? ago
Nonsense. You CANNOT tell anything about the method of file extraction by examining the metadata of files that were posted live sometime AFTER they were extracted.
If the metadata speeds indicate copying to a thumb drive, you have NO WAY OF KNOWING when that occurred. It could have happened any time after extraction and this is assuming there was only single copy of the extracted files.
18960553? ago
Still going with Binney over your SCREAMING.
18977485? ago
Binney agrees with what I said, he just tries to bury that information.
18905751? ago
you can, by comparing creation timestamps of files (which is considered metadata).
18916323? ago
If the file creation timestamp says 5/30/2019, you cannot say this files were taken from the DNC on 5/30/2019.
You only know that they were created on this storage device on 5/30/2019 IF the computer's time is accurate.
But you have no way of knowing if this is the 100th copy of the files since they were taken from the DNC. You have no information about chain of possession.
18894708? ago
i didn't think scared faggots actually browsed this board until i read this comment
18893838? ago
nonsense faggot
18893232? ago
You are FUCKING WRONG moron. The time it takes to transfer files reveals the speed of data transfer. Now go suck some more shill cock.
18898496? ago
What he is saying is that the files could've been downloaded remotely and then copied again onto a thumb drive.
18893174? ago
LIAR! I hold patents in storage technology and the meta data DOES show various information which can determine virtually all aspect about the data and it's access. Much depends on the underlying files systems, but generally they all do the same thing but in different ways. Was it a "thumb drive" - don't know. Was it LOCAL STORAGE yes (based on Binney - who knows a lot more than you.)
18894730? ago
You completely miss the point. You have no idea at all if the LOCAL STORAGE occurred at the point of extraction or later, like when the hackers gave it to the political folks or the translators. Saying it's local storage tells us zero about how the files were taken from DNC network
18897612? ago
You're missing the point. You think Bill Binney would "miss" a fact like using timestamps that are not relevant to the initial data transfer from internal (server) to external storage? You have some proof that Binney did not analyze the proper meta data? If that were the case he would have been laughed off the internet.
18900308? ago
NO. I have Bill Binney saying EXACTLY what I said.
And you are making a GIANT ASSUMPTION not in evidence. You are assuming the timestamps show the transfer from the DNC/internal servers (it wasn't a single server, but well over a hundred) to external storage. The timestamps tell us nothing about the DNC/internal servers because we don't know how many steps those files took between the DNC servers and the final storage medium they were on before uploading. You don't know if they passed around zero times or 100 times. You don't know if they were copied along the way. The final metadata cannot tell you anything about the extraction method, because you have no way of knowing what happened after they were extracted from the DNC/internal servers.
So Bill Binney says this
Again that tells us NOTHING about how the files were extracted. Everything else is a smokescreen. In fact, Binney goes on to say this
That sentence completely destroys their argument. And notice they deceptively call it a leak.....which their ANALYSIS CAN NOT SAY IT WAS OR WAS NOT. We both recognize it's really the initial data transfer from internal (server) to external storage.
And they follow that sentence that destroys their conclusions by blowing a lot of smoke
Yeah, somebody copied the emails off the DNC servers and the data had been transferred to an external storage device, such as a thumb drive, before WikiLeaks posted them. The only thing we know to be true from Binney's analysis.
Mueller's indictment goes into much, much more detail. Two different units of Russian military intelligence (GRU) were involved in the hack and leaking of the material. The GRU gained access to the DNC, by first spearphishing the DCCC. They were able to gain DCCC credentials and they used to send emails to the DNC that contained the X-agent malware that had been customized in such a way that security researchers from several cybersecurity companies had identified as a Russian government hacking team. This malware allowed them to gain control of the DNC network. They then used a second malware X-Tunnel to extract the files from the DNC network to two server in the US they had rented. The indictment of the GRU teams is filled with details of how it worked. https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download
And Binney is not infallible, he fell for the Adam Carter/forensicator hoax. It's far down in this story. https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252445769/Briton-ran-pro-Kremlin-disinformation-campaign-that-helped-Trump-deny-Russian-links
18897480? ago
It DOES tell that they were NOT transferred via the internet.
18900322? ago
it only says that about the last transfer. it tells you nothing about how many transfers or copies occurred.
18892516? ago
Depends on what metadata you have.
18892374? ago
Of course you can see WHEN, assuming the computer itself had the correct time set.
18894776? ago
You can only see the WHEN of the last movement of the files. It tells you nothing about if there were previous movements or multiple copies made.
It's scientifically invalid.
18899739? ago
date might match up with exfiltration, or something
18900378? ago
how do you determine when the exfiltration occurred? You can't.
Not from the metadata
18893198? ago
The speed of the transfer does not depend on the date. It's relative. The speed is the speed despite the date.
18893972? ago
Correct. However, you can calculate the speed based on the written/modified dates. Example: If the first file was created/updated at 08:25:16 and the last file was at 08:25:18, you can tell the transfer took about 2 seconds. This is how they calculate the transfer rate.