Jump to content

Why didn’t the DNC turn over their server!?!?


Starkiller

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, JakePA_Titan said:

Contradictory.

 

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

 

But 100% the same, correct?

 

#BELIEVEIT

Clone then. It's an exact clone, bit for bit. A bit is the "indivisible atom" of information technology.

 

It's a virtual atom though, and not a clone at the quantum particle level, so you got me there I guess?

 

I appreciate the Googling but that quote isn't suggesting it's a crap shoot on whether you get a true forensic image. It's saying the process isn't trivial - you can't just run some backup software and hope for the best. There's a bit of work involved to prove your copy is bit level exact.

 

Obviously in my statement it is 100% exact, I'm referring to when done appropriately for forensics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I figured this deserved it’s own thread, just so any time the Trumptards bring it up we can point back to it...   https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/zmkxp9/dnc-server-conspiracy-theo

The in-memory point is a good one - remember the episode of Seinfeld when George wanted to move the Frogger machine without turning it off? You want to keep systems up and running because what they ha

1 hour ago, JakePA_Titan said:

No, just a quick analogy to prove a point. If it makes a difference, if you take a mold of a bitches pussy and put it in a doll, is it the same as the real thing? Does that work better for you?

 

Unlike reos dumbass thoughts, I read the entire italicized wording. I knew it was talking about computer memory.

I bet you didn't. 

 

Lol oh I know you read it. You just obviously didn't understand it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, JakePA_Titan said:

Whatever you say chief. Just a quick analogy to prove that a replica is never better than the original.

 

Of course libs would buy into it though.

Says the guy that keeps proving that he doesn't know wtf he's talking about.

 

And to get back to the original point, the server itself doesn't really matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, JakePA_Titan said:

You can sit here and pretend to its the same all you want but its carries risk.

 

Let me ask you, what invesitgator allows ppl to do anything to a piece of evidence before it is examined?

 

Why couldn't they hand it over a d have them do a forensic image and give it back? 

 

And how exactly could it be more useful than the server itself? Come on. Does that really male sense? You believing that?

 

https://chernoff.law/what-can-forensic-imaging-of-hard-drives-reveal/

 

So tell me what makes you think its ok that a hired hand by the DNC should have any right to do ANTYHING with that server if it was subpoenaed?

 

We all know had this shoe been on the other foot, "they're hiding something, they're guilty!"

 

But of course not with the DNC and Clinton. Always on the up and up. They can be trusted. Ok.

 

#BELIEVEIT

 

 

I have basically no comment on most of that, as I'm not interested in what the DNC did or didn't do. I don't recall commenting on any of that. I'm pretty sure I even said who actually has the images is unclear, but that there is a very strong likelihood images were taken (and I have no reason to assume they weren't done so in a forensic manner). If the FBI has them, then as far as investigations on software level hacking goes, that is the same as having the server.

 

My point simply is, images are fine for investigations, and the reason they are more useful is because you can then really easily make more copies, spread the copies out infinitely across your team of analysts to speed up analysis, not worry about doing something that could ruin it as evidence, virtualize the contents so you can chop and play around with things, simulate actions that cause the same results you're seeing etc.

 

Furthermore, it's better than the real thing, because the image and dumps you take are point in time, to when you took them. You don't want to touch the actual system more than absolutely necessary because you can't just undo things and get it back to how it was. This has all been covered in the OP but I'm assuming you didn't read it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, OzTitan said:

I have basically no comment on most of that, as I'm not interested in what the DNC did or didn't do. I don't recall commenting on any of that. I'm pretty sure I even said who actually has the images is unclear, but that there is a very strong likelihood images were taken (and I have no reason to assume they weren't done so in a forensic manner).

 

My point simply is, images are fine for investigations, and the reason they are more useful is because you can then really easily make more copies, spread the copies out infinitely across your team of analysts to speed up analysis, not worry about doing something that could ruin it as evidence, virtualize the contents so you can chop and play around with things, simulate actions that cause the same results you're seeing etc.

 

Furthermore, it's better than the real thing, because the image and dumps you take are point in time, to when you took them. You don't want to touch the actual system more than absolutely necessary because you can't just undo things and get it back to how it was. This has all been covered in the OP but I'm assuming you didn't read it.

Well that makes sense... Let me sit on this for a month (and clean it up --- you know the FISA database contractors access)… Hand it over to Crowdstrike with Perkins Coie involved (dang more Mueller boys and same law offices)… But, no one in the government can see this --- and we'll give the FBI an image when we're ready... 

 

Oh yes, don't forget the Russians did it...   and they probably used Google File System to boot... LOL!!!

 

Crowdstrike CEO --- has Mueller called for that info I promised my old boss???

Edited by thor
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, JakePA_Titan said:

Ok, we'll go in this direction.

 

You're an investigator. You need that image/server. You know how to do it yourself.

 

You would be comfortable with someone else, whom you don't know, doing it?  Especially when that someone else was hired by the ppl you are investigating?

 

Let me ask you this. Is it possible for them to delete anything off the hard drive before they make their 100% exact replica? It is, right?

If I was an investigator and handed an image and told that's the server, don't worry about confirming it - yes, I'd be skeptical. I'm not sure that accurately describes the situation here (did they really not know or trust who did it? was it really them they were investigating, or were they just part of the investigation?), but assuming it is accurate, I'd want to make my own copy.

 

And no, it's not really likely to delete like that. Deleting data is not gone from a forensic perspective, especially when you're talking about a subset of data on a system (vs the entire disk). It's often just gone from your perspective as a user of the operating system. It gets complex, and depends on the type of media and filesystem etc, but it would be quite difficult if not impossible to do that reliably. There's a reason companies and departments with sensitive data must magnetically wipe and often incinerate hard drives - it's the nuclear option and the only one you can safely rely on.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, JakePA_Titan said:

Its also funny that you believe the FBI would have not known its better to take an image and use that.

 

But yall are quick to believe them in other findings as if they are always 100% accurate.

 

Funny. Think they cant do one job right, but ise them for something they find that favors your argument. Fascinating.

I don't understand - what makes you think I believe this? I can't recall saying I don't think the FBI would know to do this. As I stated, images are computer forensics 101, something students would learn about possibly on day 1.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JakePA_Titan said:

You mean like Hillary did? She wanted to make sure, huh?

I guess? but it would be standard procedure for most areas of government to dispose of disks like this, at least those from servers.

 

1 minute ago, JakePA_Titan said:

You mean like Hillary did? She wanted to make sure, huh?

 

So cpu savy ppl, can they alter anything on there with their coding abilities?

 

Change dates on files, change the names of files, maybe make something invisible for an image?

Images are just data and files. You can do whatever you want to them (except make something "invisible" - it's bit for bit, if it exists on a disk it's being copied too). Any change no matter how small would render it changed from the source, which is provable/testable using cryptographic hashing. Changes can leave trails though, it's all very conditional.

 

1 minute ago, JakePA_Titan said:

So what would have been the harm in them handing it over so the FBI can do their own imaging?

 

If there would be no harm, why keep it from them and insist on doing it yourself?

Well there would be considerable forensic harm in turning it off and physically handing it to them - as covered, you don't want to lose the volatile memory content from RAM. So you may want to do it yourself if you don't want to move it and it's time critical, and you have the capabilities to do it.

 

How all this relates precisely to the DNC case is hard to say without knowing intimate details or every step taken. The usefulness of even a forensic image obviously depends on when it was taken. I'd argue though it's really unlikely to be completely useless, even if someone tried to make it useless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, OzTitan said:

I guess? but it would be standard procedure for most areas of government to dispose of disks like this, at least those from servers.

 

Images are just data and files. You can do whatever you want to them (except make something "invisible" - it's bit for bit, if it exists on a disk it's being copied too). Any change no matter how small would render it changed from the source, which is provable/testable using cryptographic hashing. Changes can leave trails though, it's all very conditional.

 

Well there would be considerable forensic harm in turning it off and physically handing it to them - as covered, you don't want to lose the volatile memory content from RAM. So you may want to do it yourself if you don't want to move it and it's time critical, and you have the capabilities to do it.

 

How all this relates precisely to the DNC case is hard to say without knowing intimate details or every step taken. The usefulness of even a forensic image obviously depends on when it was taken. I'd argue though it's really unlikely to be completely useless, even if someone tried to make it useless.

1) Especially after all the Foreign countries got what they needed...

2) Hence why you don't show them to anyone else... 

3) Hell, it sat there for a month while being cleaned --- what the heck --- got to get rid of that illegal FISA access

4) Yeah, we should just believe them after all they didn't tap, spy, conspire, or do anything illegal... ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OzTitan said:

I don't understand - what makes you think I believe this? I can't recall saying I don't think the FBI would know to do this. As I stated, images are computer forensics 101, something students would learn about possibly on day 1.

 

*** Taken from the TIMELINE I posted for you ***

 

Every action taken by the DNC --- the secrecy, lack of server access, and material omissions of events... Points to something deeper than outside hacking...

 

I'm particularly troubled by the lack of detail concerning events in 2015...

 

And I find the timing of actions by the DNC extremely coincidental in light of Admiral Rogers' discoveries in late March of 2016...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...