I answered your question by speaking to its premise. Yours was typical dumbed down and I won't give it credence by answering it any other way.
You can call it a dodge if it makes you feel better about it but I see you as dodging my answer because you aren't getting the one you like.
You did not answer the question. But don't worry I won't RandomGuy you.
Sure, the NSA didn't, and the NSA had the least amount of confidence attributing to Russia.And of course they didn't need to look at the DNC servers to know the network that the attack came from.
Are you comfortable with the other agencies basing their report on a DNC funded CrowdStrike report that was riddled with errors?
Speaking about dodging questions, how about this one you ran from:
And you are going to have to show proof that the NSA had no confidence in the link. The NSA was the one that reported in May that Russia attacked the voting centers.
Oh and btw why don't you link your source that the Crowdstrike report was "riddled with errors" It would be good for people to see where you get your takes from.
I never said they had no confidence, I said the NSA had the least amount of confidence. Did you not read the ODNI report?
CrowdStrike retraction
http://www.investors.com/politics/ed...st-fall-apart/
https://theintercept.com/2017/06/27/...russia-threat/
https://www.voanews.com/a/cyber-firm...t/3781411.html
https://medium.com/theyoungturks/cro...i-c6f884c34189
Nice googling. Now read them and quote the relevant portions and you will be on your way to supporting your argument.
You asked for links you got them.
I've discussed the errors in the CrowdStrike report for months in this very same thread. Not my fault you were a pussy pretending to have me on ignore.
Oh I know you hope them retracting a portion of the report invalidates the whole thing but you have yet to make a cogent argument to that effect. To me the amount of artillery casualties is irrelevant.
And I really like you linking Greenwald citing RT and Breitbart. That is exactly what I was talking about earlier. It's so cute how you GOPo s try to hide your sources. Shame demonstrated through action.
There are plenty of articles that tore apart the CrowdStrike report before they even made the retractions and I've posted them all here. Arestechnica, wired, techcrunch etc.
It's all in this thread if you cared to look, or you could just research it on your own.
Who said I haven't? If you are unwilling to support your claims with anything more I am satisfied.
BTW what I asked for was proof that the NSA was the least sure or however you characterized it. Still nothing.
It's amusing that you find the artillery casualties irrelevant yet the founder of CrowdStrike used those same artillery casualties to boost his assessment of a Russian intrusion from medium confidence to high confidence.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.b5287cd54d8e
wapo link for s and giggles
If you'd read the ODNI report you wouldn't be asking for a link to the NSA being the least sure, assuming your memory is as good as you claim.
https://www.dni.gov/files/do ents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
Confidence in the Sources Supporting Judgements
Moderate confidence generally means that information is credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence
Questions To Consider About That WSJ Collusion Article
You’ve no doubt seen the Wall Street Journal article about the GOP operative and money man who assembled a team to get a hold of Russia-hacked Clinton emails and claimed he was working in concert with disgraced Trump advisor Mike Flynn. From my read, this is one of those articles which is as interesting for what it doesn’t say as what it does. It raises all sorts of questions, a number of which the Investigations Desk will be digging into today.
Here are some basic questions I had.
First, if I’m understanding the calendar right, the Journal’s interview with Peter W. Smith was almost two months before the article appeared, at some time in very early May. That’s a significant period of time. Obviously, big articles take time. But why the big gap? I suspect there was a lot the reporters were working on that couldn’t be confirmed or hasn’t been confirmed yet that took up that time.
Second, Smith wasn’t some random GOP operative with some time on his hands. He had been deep in the the ‘Arkansas Project’ back in the 90s, the money operation that brought us ‘troopergate’ back in the day and to a great extent brought us ‘Whitewater’. Smith had long histories with a lot of big GOP players who are still very active and a number of people who are now top people in the Trump world.
Third, and counter to a lot of the speculation about the Russia story, if Trump or close Trump associates had some de facto understanding with Russian government officials, why would they need Smith to be hiring computer people to reach out to Russian operatives on hacker forums? I can think of a number potential answers to this. But it’s a pretty important question.
Fourth, why did Smith talk to the Journal at all? This may seem like it’s obvious. But it’s really not that obvious to me. One possibility is that the Journal already had a lot of the information and he felt he didn’t have any choice. But remember, Smith apparently died less than two weeks after the interview. If he was gravely ill or even in poor health, he may simply not have cared. He pointed the finger pretty clearly at himself but not clearly at anyone else.
Let’s also remember that this isn’t the first case of this. A month ago two other reporters from the Journal published a story about Aaron Nevins, a GOP political consultant in Florida who reached out to Guccifer 2.0 (now widely believed to have been a front of fictive personality used by Russian intelligence operatives) looking for more operational data for campaigns he was running last year.
Shane Harris, the reporter on the new story, also contributed reporting to that story about Aaron Nevins. (There are reasons which I’ll discuss in a subsequent post why Nevins quite likely already stipulated to a criminal act in his interview with the Journal.) When I read this article a month ago, I was struck by the concluding two grafs …
He isn’t convinced the Russians were behind it, Mr. Nevins said, but even if they were, it doesn’t matter to him because the agenda of the hackers seemed to match his own.
“If your interests align,” he said, “never shut any doors in politics.”
This seems to have been a widespread belief among the more adventurous run of GOP political operatives last year:
if your interests align with Russian intelligence operatives, it’s not a problem.
I doubt this is the last or even the 10th from last story we’ll hear like this.
Fifth, for all the tantalizing details in the piece, this is the most important.
The operation Mr. Smith described is consistent with information that has been examined by U.S. investigators probing Russian interference in the elections.
Those investigators have examined reports from intelligence agencies that describe Russian hackers discussing how to obtain emails from Mrs. Clinton’s server and then transmit them to Mr. Flynn via an intermediary, according to U.S. officials with knowledge of the intelligence.
We may have suspected this. But to the best of my knowledge, we did not know of the existence of such intelligence until now.
That is a very big deal.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/...+%28TPMNews%29
Have to love people that think they have accomplished something by doing what should have been done in the first place.
And the report indicates they observed Russian actors hacking local election centers
Oh and you should look up what high confidence means.Russian intelligence accessed elements of multiple state or local electoral boards. Since early 2014, Russian intelligence has researched US electoral processes and related technology and equipment.
DHS assesses that the types of systems we observed Russian actors targeting or compromising are not involved in vote tallying.
andWe assess with high confidence that the GRU used the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com, and WikiLeaks to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets
andWe assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks. Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its selfproclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries.
We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.
I really like how he posts that contradicts what he was claiming before. Discredit CrowdWatch and then link an intelligence report that they believe with high confidence what Crowdwatch was claiming.
Critical thinking is a lost skill in our local GOP contingent.
You walked yourself right back into the question you've been dodging.
Of the 4 agencies who compiled the ODNI report, which one's had physical access to the DNC server to run their own forensics?
So they shouldn't believe it to be the case with high confidence? You cannot even keep up with you own bull .
The article subsumes the point you are trying to make. I even quoted the relevant portions for you.
Have fun bleating a flawed question that no one cares about.We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks.
“Unlike Crowdstrike, ESET doesn’t assign APT28/Fancy Bear/Sednit to a Russian Intelligence Service or anyone else for a very simple reason. Once malware is deployed, it is no longer under the control of the hacker who deployed it or the developer who created it. It can be reverse-engineered, copied, modified, shared and redeployed again and again by anyone.
https://medium.com/@jeffreycarr/fbi-...t-b6a98fafe2fa
https://medium.com/@jeffreycarr/fait...n-30f4a658eabc
You should care about it and question why our top intelligence agencies were not allowed to run forensics and had to rely on a DNC funded highly flawed and then revised report.
The article subsumes the point you are trying to make. I even quoted the relevant portions for you.
Have fun bleating a flawed question that no one cares about.
I see you've given up trying to defend the CrowdStrike report
I'm not getting mired in the round and round you got RG to bite on. It's a red herring.
The crowdstrike report was corroborated by the NSA, dimwit. That is a defense that you linked for us.
NSA says Crowdstrike is right and that Russian intelligence hacked the DNC and Dem leadership. That subsumes all of what you are trying to do here. Are you too stupid to understand that?
I get that you want to rehash the arguments you got from breitbart 6 months ago but that ship sailed in May when the NSA report came out. You are another that struggles to assimilate new information. Seeing that you have to be led by the nose in the first place this is not surprising.
Hopefully, they have more info than what was publicly reported by Crowdstrike. Their evidence for attribution to Russia wasn't very compelling.
Surely you have more from the NSA than the ODNI that was widely laughed at by the security community.
After the Vault 7 release attribution became nearly impossible for any hack unless hackers were caught in the act.
So now you are going to trash your own report? Logical consistency is not your strong suit.
So when you want something you laud the medium certainty of the report. When you don't want something, you make up stories about how the "security industry" laughs at it.
You're so full of .
Via the tools used sure but there are other ways to trace the source particularly for an en y like the NSA who has their thumb on the telecom industry as outlined by Snowden.
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote