||Home||Switchboard||Unix Administration||Red Hat||TCP/IP Networks||Neoliberalism||Toxic Managers|
|(slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and bastardization of classic Unix|
For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section
Dec 29, 2017 | 50shadesofpissedoff.com
The alleged Russian computer Hacker named Guccifer 2.0 whom the Democrat National Committee has publicly blamed for hacking its emails and giving them to WIkiLeaks before the Election in order for Russia to help Donald Trump, was really a fiction created by an Obama White House Staffer in order to prevent the exposure of why DNC Staffer Seth Rich was murdered and also try to pin the exposure of DNC emails on Russia and Trump.
Democrat operatives had pushed the fictional Guccifer 2.0 story as the supposed Russian hacker who broke into DNC servers and downloaded thousands of emails, then sent them to the Russians, who then sent them to Wikileaks so Hilary Clinton could be defeated.
Never mind that it has now been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the download speed was far too great to have been done by anyone but a DNC insider like Seth Rich. Because Internet speeds are not nearly sufficient to support download speed that the meta data, embedded in the emails, reported.
Never mind that the same meta data shows that the download came from the eastern time zone of the US, not Romania or Russia.
A five minute video (below) proves Guccifer 2.0 was an invention of someone using a version of Microsoft Word that was originally registered to a DNC / White House Staffer named Warren Flood.
Here are two screen shots from warren floods Facebook page. Notice that warren worked for "Obama for America," the DNC, and the White House . He lives in LaGrange, GA.
The video below does a great job explaining who is behind the original Trump opposition research leaked via WikiLeaks AND the later (same) document allegedly obtained by Guccifer 2.0 by "hacking."EVIDENCE OF DNC/WHITE HOUSE STAFFER BEING "RUSSIAN HACKER GUCCIFER 2.0″
If you have ever accidentally tried to open a Microsoft Word document in a simple text editor like Notepad, you can see the meta data behind each word document, including WHO that copy of Word belongs to.
The video below explains who the author of the original opposition research document was and how we know:
. . . it also includes who the AUTHOR of the document of is. It gets that information from the name that was entered when you installed your copy of Microsoft Office. Inside the original trump opposition research, the document later released by WikiLeaks, the author of the document is listed as Lauren Dillon , DNC Research Director.
This is Lauren Dillion from the DNC:
The metadata in the WikiLeaks release of Trump Opposition research shows that it was created by Lauren Dillon, as show below:
HOWEVER, that same document later released by Guccifer 2.0 shows a CHANGE in who authored Document; this later copy showing the Author as Warren Flood . . . . who worked in the White House!
Thus, the entire claim by Guccifer 2.0 that he was a Russian Hacker who stole the DNC emails, was a deliberate deception attributable to a staffer in the Obama White House: Warren Flood.
Here's the kicker, the version of Trump's opposition research file that was originally released by WikiLeaks, and later released to the Main-Stream-Media (MSM), was never attributed to the DNC, it was attributed to the Russian Hacker "Guccifer 2.0 -- A man jailed in Romania for hacking.THE DNC/WHITE HOUSE "FATAL MISTAKE"
It just wouldn't do, to have the head of research for the DNC be the Leaker to WikiLeaks or to have the later Guccifer 2.0 release to come from a White House staffer, it had to be attributable to someone connected to the Russians. The Romanian guy was the FALL GUY.
The one fatal mistake the DNC and the Obama White House made was that no one remembered about the Microsoft Word metadata which reveals the owner of that particular copy of the Word software. So, according to the evidence, Guccifer 2.0 was actually DNC/White House Staffer, Warren Flood.
Yes, you read that correctly: EVIDENCE. Not speculation, or rumor, or innuendo. Actual real life, hard copy EVIDENCE.
Guccifer 2.0 was an invention of the DNC/White House to cover-up who the real leaker was; and at the same time start the Russian Hacking rumors that persist today.
INTERESTINGLY, the Wikipedia entry for Guccifer 2.0, describes an interview he did with MotherBoard via an online chat. Guccifer 2.0 insisted he was Romanian but, when pressed to use the Romanian language in an interview with an Interview with Motherboard via an online chat, he used such clunky grammar and terminology that experts believe he was using an online translator.
Bottom line: The Obama White House invention of Guccifer 2.0, apparently through its Staffer Warren Flood, accomplished three things:
1) It covered DNC research director Lauren Dillon. Whatever sort of opposition research she authored was later claimed by Guccifer 2.0.
2) It covered for Seth Rich. This is the BIG ONE, because he was killed in an obvious assassination staged to look like street robbery -- the only problem is, the robbers didn't take anything. He still had all his cash and his Rolex watch when police arrived. And Guccifer 2.0 took also credit for the Podesta emails which were actually downloaded by Seth Rich and given to WikiLeaks.
3) It created the conduit to "Russian Intelligence" to fortify the claim that it was the Russians who leaked the DNC emails to WikiLeaks, and therefore Trump "was in collusion with the Russians" to defeat Clinton.
The whole claim of "Russian Hacking" and "Trump colluding with Russians" has come unraveled because it was ALL a complete fraud.
What remains is how this fraud is STILL affecting our nation to this very day, and how the Congress of the United States, acting late last month upon this totally FALSE "Russian Hacking" claim, has now enacted further sanction upon Russia – sanctions that will very likely lead to war.VIDEO EVIDENCE
Here is the video containing the EVIDENCE that the Wikileaks original Trump Opposition document was created by a user whose Microsoft Word software was registered to DNC Research Director Lauren Dillon, and the later exact same document, allegedly hacked by "GUccifer 2.0″ was done by DNC/White House Staffer William Flood
Dec 28, 2017 | theduran.com
André De Koning , December 28, 2017 3:59 AM
Getting closer all the time, but Mueller's job will continue till the mid-term elections just to see if they can get away with their scheming. The tale within a tale: FBI investigates and discovers they themselves are also part of this tale. The story will have a tail: will it be a tragic, Shakespearean end or repentance by Hillary and Mueller (Duh...).
Trauma2000 -> André De Koning , December 28, 2017 4:28 AMAM Hants -> Trauma2000 , December 28, 2017 6:53 AM
I love the forensics of all this. It's what gets me riveted to my computer screen.
For anyone who likes the forensics of this whole DNC Hack fiasco, you need to read this: https://50shadesofpissedoff...
It's about the date / time stamps on the files, and the HACKER (Guciffer 2.0) was acutely an Obama aid called: WARREN FLOOD. Warren Flood pretended to hack the DNC and made himself out to be Russian with an alias of Guciffer 2.0. That was the smoke screen the Democrats put out on top of the Crowdstrike false evidence job. It's excellent reading.André De Koning -> Trauma2000 , December 28, 2017 5:08 AM
Thank you for the link and must admit it has made me laugh. A line I will use in the future. '50 Shades of Pissed Off' - no doubt I will use it as my Mantra for 2018.Trauma2000 -> André De Koning , December 28, 2017 5:23 AM
Yes, that Guccifer 2.0 stuff and the clear evidence that it was not a hack was published before but you are now updating us by identifying the guy who did it, which should also change the process. Thanks for that!
Update: Just see what Libby and Trauma2000 mean: yes, that makes sense!AM Hants -> Trauma2000 , December 28, 2017 6:57 AM
In actual fact, it was Seth Ritch who 'leaked' the material (if you believe that Huma Abdeen was the original leaker and used Seth as a 'go between' then that is up to you). When the DNC found out Seth was the leaker, the murdered him and had to 'think up a story' hence Guccifer 2.0. There are several DNC employees involved but Warren Flood is the 'fall guy' along with a girl (her name is out there) whom had her name on the software licenses that were used to doctor the emails.
It's very interesting. But there is one thing that is certain according to McAffee (the McAffee) "If it looked like it was the Russians, then I can guarantee it WASN'T the Russians."André De Koning -> AM Hants , December 28, 2017 9:48 PM
Good comment and reading the last line, it has just reminded me of 'Vault 7' and what Wiki Leaks had to say.
Vault 7 CIA Hacking Tools Revealed.docx... https://www.scribd.com/docu...
Now why does CIA, Google, Crowd Strike, Clintons and Atlantic Council keep twerking around my grey cells?libby -> André De Koning , December 28, 2017 5:11 AM
For me it is because of the truth: there is not much point being on this or that "side", but when the truth is so twisted it becomes perversion and that should be uncovered.Trauma2000 -> libby , December 28, 2017 5:24 AM
Flood wasn't involved directly.
see http://g-2.spacelibby -> Trauma2000 , December 28, 2017 7:58 PM
Correct. He was just a 'foot soldier.' But he still left his name all over everything as a fall guy. Someone else used his computer.
EDIT: Actually, someone at the DNC used his computer. They were on the eastern seaboard of the U.$. according to the time stamp on the documents.André De Koning -> libby , December 28, 2017 5:15 AM
Flood had already stopped working as Biden's IT director back in 2011, the only place he'd likely have had his name on a license under the company name GSA based on his work history - was there.
So, Guccifer 2.0's first docs were most likely constructed using a computer that had resided in the West Wing office on June 15, 2016 at the exact same time as Pyatt, Nuland and others (also connected to the Ukraine coup in 2014) were meeting there.
(the person behind it is the person who originally wrote this "Fancy Fraud, Bogus Bears..." article too)
RE: The Eastern timezone. - If referring to the NGP-VAN analysis, the timestamps themselves don't show timezones but the timezone can be evaluated due to how timestamps on files (that appear to be part of the same batch transfer on July 5, 2016) are displayed in the 7zip archive root versus those in various RAR files contained within (and the different methods of timestamp storage used by the different archive formats) and how this changes depending on what your computer's timezone is set to (the time changes in the 7zip but not in the RARs and the only timezone in which these have a close correlation is Eastern).
But I prefer your explanation as a TLDR version. :)AM Hants -> André De Koning , December 28, 2017 6:52 AM
Seth Rich was the one who leaked it and yes, makes sense to have distractions to cover up his murder.Gr8 White Caulk , December 28, 2017 8:34 AM
There was an article, that I read, just before Christmas Day, that supports what you say. That Mueller has got to keep the narrative running, until they have sorted out the Mid-Term Elections, that the Dems believe will work to their advantage. Is it something to do with the Dems hoping to control Congress and managing to close any investigations that Trump is working on?jmg , December 28, 2017 5:11 AM
like Putin told Meghan Kelly, it could've been made to look like her 3 yr old daughter had hacked the dnc from her bedroom.AM Hants -> jmg , December 28, 2017 7:34 PM
More details. As mentioned before, it's technically verified as a whistleblower's leak, not a hack:
Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence - Consortium News
A quick summary:
Ex-NSA official: Spies don't believe Russia collusion story - Fox News
https://cdn.embedly.com/widgets/media.html?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FvA0HK_I-Hps%3Ffeature%3Doembed&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DvA0HK_I-Hps&image=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FvA0HK_I-Hps%2Fhqdefault.jpg&key=21d07d84db7f4d66a55297735025d6d1&type=text%2Fhtml&schema=youtubeAndré De Koning , December 28, 2017 5:06 AM
Surprised with Fox. Considering old Murdoch has a problem with Russia, no doubt owing to his interests in Genie Energy. However, not complaining, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and now the ex-NSA on Fox News. Nice.AM Hants -> André De Koning , December 28, 2017 7:31 PM
This is just the beginning: just read New Trump Executive Order Targets Clinton-Linked Individuals, Lobbyists And Perhaps Uranium One on Zerohedge.com
1. It will have huge consequences for all those who made shady deals with dictators and criminals (adding to the coffers of the Clinton Foundation etc.etc.). Perhaps this is what Trump was waiting for to start in the new year:his fireworks response to all the mud slung around?
2. Seth Rich and distraction by Guccifer 2.0: Trauma200 comments below is BIG and makes the connection to SETH RICH's murder, which also shows how Assange made it necessary for the complete the search and expose with evidence what was going on.André De Koning -> AM Hants , December 28, 2017 9:51 PM
What I am curious about, is will he use it for that or will he go for any foreigner that Washington DC has a problem with. Such as anybody who is a friend of President Putin, just to cause problems, before the Russian Presidential Campaign.
Or am I being cynical. I seriously hope he uses it for the Russia Gate crowd and no doubt, he has good reason and he is not known to like being insulted, with no payback. However, I can also see him using it as another form of punishment on non-nationals.richardstevenhack , December 28, 2017 4:48 PM
He likes Putin but has to pretend for a while to be tough on him, so he'll probably limit it to the BS-ers (he is a maverick but does not like BS).André De Koning -> richardstevenhack , December 28, 2017 9:57 PM
One additional point: Thomas Rid and most of the mainstream media keeps saying that German intelligence fingered Russia for the German Parliament attacks. While this is partly true, German intelligence in fact never said directly that APT 29 or "Fancy Bear" WAS DEFINITELY Russian state sponsored. They said they ASSUMED Russia was conducting hacks on Germany.
Digital Attack on German Parliament: Investigative Report on the Hack of the Left Party Infrastructure in Bundestag
Jeffrey Carr made this point early on in his Medium article:
Can Facts Slow The DNC Breach Runaway Train?
Thomas Rid wrote:
One of the strongest pieces of evidence linking GRU to the DNC hack is the equivalent of identical fingerprints found in two burglarized buildings: a reused command-and-control address -- 176.31.112[.]10 -- that was hard coded in a piece of malware found both in the German parliament as well as on the DNC's servers. Russian military intelligence was identified by the German domestic security agency BfV as the actor responsible for the Bundestag breach. The infrastructure behind the fake MIS Department domain was also linked to the Berlin intrusion through at least one other element, a shared SSL certificate.
This paragraph sounds quite damning if you take it at face value, but if you invest a little time into checking the source material, its carefully constructed narrative falls apart.
The IP address 176.31.112[.]10 used in the Bundestag breach as a Command and Control server has never been connected to the Russian intelligence services. In fact, Claudio Guarnieri, a highly regarded security researcher, whose technical analysis was referenced by Rid, stated that "no evidence allows to tie the attacks to governments of any particular country."
Problem #2: The Command & Control server (184.108.40.206) was using an outdated version of OpenSSL vulnerable to Heartbleed attacks. Heartbleed allows attackers to exfiltrate data including private keys, usernames, passwords and other sensitive information.
The existence of a known security vulnerability that's trivial to exploit opens the door to the possibility that the systems in question were used by one rogue group, and then infiltrated by a second rogue group, making the attribution process even more complicated. At the very least, the C2 server should be considered a compromised indicator.
Problem #3: The BfV published a newsletter in January 2016 which assumes that the GRU and FSB are responsible because of technical indicators, not because of any classified finding; to wit: "Many of these attack campaigns have each other on technical similarities, such as malicious software families, and infrastructure -- these are important indicators of the same authorship. It is assumed that both the Russian domestic intelligence service FSB and the military foreign intelligence service GRU run cyber operations."
Professor Rid's argument depended heavily on conveying hard attribution by the BfV even though the President of the BfV didn't disguise the fact that their attribution was based on an assumption and not hard evidence.
End QuoteAM Hants , December 28, 2017 6:48 AM
Very good analysis! Thanks.André De Koning -> AM Hants , December 28, 2017 9:56 PM
Thanks for the article and reminding us of Crowd Strike. Must admit, I read an interesting article, over on Oped News, by George Eliason, with regards Crowd Strike. Plus a few other reminders.
Does anybody remember the Awan Brothers from Pakistan and what they were arrested for, with regards the DNC and computers?
BREAKING : Democrat Awan Brothers (NOT RUSSIANS) Allegedly Hacked Congress... http://truthfeed.com/breaki...
Then you have Google and Soros and their links into Crowd Strike. Hasn't the CEO of Google just stepped down, the same day that Trump signed a Presidential Order, that might prove a problem for some, in the future?
QANON EXPOSES DEM CONSPIRACY TO FRAME TRUMP, CLAIMS GOOGLE'S SCHMIDT PLAYED PIVOTAL ROLE
QAnon also claims Debbie Wasserman Schultz contracted MS-13 gang to kill Seth Rich... https://www.infowars.com/qa...
DNC 'Russian Hacking' Conclusion Comes from Google-Linked Firm... http://www.breitbart.com/bi...
Remember, Crowd Strike, Dmitry Alperovic and his links back to The Atlantic Council? Then you have the Ukrainian Oligarch Pinchuk, who happily invested $25 million in the Clinton Foundation. Remember his Yalta Summits and the one back in September 2013? Now who attended and what were the various topics that they discussed?
Then you have Obama giving Crowd Strike a White House Commission for Cyber Security. Plus, the DNC refusing the FBI access to their servers, but, having no problem giving Crowd Strike full access. Now why was that? Funny how often Ukraine comes up, when looking into Clinton, Fusion, Crowdstrike, Old Ukrainian Malware and The Trump Dossier? Coincidence or what?
Why Crowdstrike's Russian Hacking Story Fell Apart- Say Hello to Fancy Bear... http://www.washingtonsblog....
Another good article by George Eliason.
A Tale of 2 Ukraines- Health Care in War-Torn Lugansk and Peaceful Kiev... https://www.opednews.com/ar...
In their attack (best defense motto) the real truth is slowly unfolding and yes, the Awan brothers etc. are all part of it.
I think they arrested one of those Awans (?) but we have not heard about them much lately.
The plot thickens and the time for the démasqué is here....
Dec 28, 2017 | theduran.com
Of course the DNC did not want to the FBI to investigate its "hacked servers". The plan was well underway to excuse Hillary's pathetic election defeat to Trump, and CrowdStrike would help out by planting evidence to pin on those evil "Russian hackers." Some would call this entire DNC server hack an "insurance policy."
... ... ...
Sep 05, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com
Notwithstanding the conventional wisdom that Russia hacked into the DNC computers, downloaded emails and a passed the stolen missives to Julian Assange's crew at Wikileaks, a careful examination of the timeline of events from 2016 shows that this story is simply not plausible.
Let me take you through the known facts:1. 29 April 2016 , when the DNC became aware its servers had been penetrated (https://medium.com/homefront-rising/dumbstruck-how-crowdstrike-conned-america-on-the-hack-of-the-dnc-ecfa522ff44f). Note. They apparently did not know who was doing it. 2, 6 May 2016 when CrowdStrike first detected what it assessed to be a Russian presence inside the DNC server. Follow me here. One week after realizing there had been a penetration, the DNC learns, courtesy of the computer security firm it hired, that the Russians are doing it. Okay. Does CrowdStrike shut down the penetration. Nope. The hacking apparently continues unabated. 3. 25 May 2016. The messages published on Wikileaks from the DNC show that 26 May 2016 was the last date that emails were sent and received at the DNC. There are no emails in the public domain after that date. In other words, if the DNC emails were taken via a hacking operation, we can conclude from the fact that the last messages posted to Wikileaks show a date time group of 25 May 2016. Wikileaks has not reported nor posted any emails from the DNC after the 25th of May. I think it is reasonable to assume that was the day the dirty deed was done. 4. 12 June 2016, CrowdStrike purged the DNC server of all malware. Are you kidding me? 45 days after the DNC discovers that its serve has been penetrated the decision to purge the DNC server is finally made. What in the hell were they waiting for? But this also tells us that 18 days after the last email "taken" from the DNC, no additional emails were taken by this nasty malware. Here is what does not make sense to me. If the DNC emails were truly hacked and the malware was still in place on 11 June 2016 (it was not purged until the 12th) then why are there no emails from the DNC after 26 May 2016? an excellent analysis of Guccifer's role : Almost immediately after the one-two punch of the Washington Post article/CrowdStrike technical report went public, however, something totally unexpected happened -- someone came forward and took full responsibility for the DNC cyber attack. Moreover, this entity -- operating under the persona Guccifer 2.0 (ostensibly named after the original Guccifer , a Romanian hacker who stole the emails of a number of high-profile celebrities and who was arrested in 2014 and sentenced to 4 ½ years of prison in May 2016) -- did something no state actor has ever done before, publishing documents stolen from the DNC server as proof of his claims.Hi. This is Guccifer 2.0 and this is me who hacked Democratic National Committee.
With that simple email, sent to the on-line news magazine, The Smoking Gun , Guccifer 2.0 stole the limelight away from Alperovitch. Over the course of the next few days, through a series of emails, online posts and interviews , Guccifer 2.0 openly mocked CrowdStrike and its Russian attribution. Guccifer 2.0 released a number of documents, including a massive 200-plus-missive containing opposition research on Donald Trump.
Guccifer 2.0 also directly contradicted the efforts on the part of the DNC to minimize the extent of the hacking, releasing the very donor lists the DNC specifically stated had not been stolen. More chilling, Guccifer 2.0 claimed to be in possession of "about 100 Gb of data" which had been passed on to the online publisher, Wikileaks, who "will publish them soon." 7. Seth Rich died on 10 July 2016. I introduce Seth Rich at this point because he represents an alternative hypothesis. Rich, who reportedly was a Bernie Sanders supporter, was in a position at the DNC that gave him access to the emails in question and the opportunity to download the emails and take them from the DNC headquarters. Worth noting that Julian Assange offered $20,000 for information leading to the arrest of Rich's killer or killers. 8. 22 July 2016. Wikileaks published the DNC emails starting on 22 July 2016. Bill Binney, a former senior official at NSA, insists that if such a hack and electronic transfer over the internet had occurred then the NSA has in it possession the intelligence data to prove that such activity had occurred. Notwithstanding the claim by CrowdStrike not a single piece of evidence has been provided to the public to support the conclusion that the emails were hacked and physically transferred to a server under the control of a Russian intelligence operative. Please do not try to post a comment stating that the "Intelligence Community" concluded as well that Russia was responsible. That claim is totally without one shred of actual forensic evidence. Also, Julian Assange insists that the emails did not come from a Russian source.
Fool , 05 September 2017 at 09:01 AMWhere was it reported that Rich was a Sanders supporter?Publius Tacitus -> Fool... , 05 September 2017 at 09:15 AMThis is one of the reports, http://heavy.com/news/2016/08/seth-rich-julian-assange-source-wikileaks-wiki-dnc-emails-death-murder-reward-video-interview-hillary-clinton-shawn-lucas/.Anna -> Publius Tacitus ... , 05 September 2017 at 10:56 AM
Wikileaks, the protector of the accountability of the top, has announced a reward for finding the murderers of Seth Rich. In comparison, the DNC has not offered any reward to help the investigation of the murder of the DNC staffer, but the DNC found a well-connected lawyer to protect Imran Awan who is guilty (along with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) in the greatest breach of national cybersecurity: http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/29/wasserman-schultz-seemingly-planned-to-pay-suspect-even-while-he-lived-in-pakistan/Stephanie -> Publius Tacitus ... , 06 September 2017 at 12:12 PMSeth Rich's family have pleaded, and continue to plead, that the conspiracy theorists leave the death of their son alone and have said that those who continue to flog this nonsense around the internet are only serving to increase their pain. I suggest respectfully that some here may wish to consider their feelings. (Also, this stuff is nuts, you know.)Richardstevenhack -> Stephanie... , 07 September 2017 at 07:43 PM
"We also know that many people are angry at our government and want to see justice done in some way, somehow. We are asking you to please consider our feelings and words. There are people who are using our beloved Seth's memory and legacy for their own political goals, and they are using your outrage to perpetuate our nightmare."
"Wheeler, a former Metropolitan Police Department officer, was a key figure in a series of debunked stories claiming that Rich had been in contact with Wikileaks before his death. Fox News, which reported the story online and on television, retracted it in June."I'm afraid you're behind the times. Wheeler is no longer relevant now that Sy Hersh has revealed an FBI report that explicitly says Rich was in contact with Wikileaks offering to sell them DNC documents.Anna , 05 September 2017 at 09:20 AM
It's unfortunate for the Rich family, but now that the connection is pretty much confirmed, they're going to have to allow the truth to come out.Mr. Dmitri Alperovitch, of Jewish descent (and an emigre from Russia), has been an "expert" at the Atlantic Council, the same organization that cherishes and provides for Mr. Eliot Higgins. These two gentlemen - and the directorate of Atlantic Council - are exhibit one of opportunism and intellectual dishonesty (though it is hard to think about Mr. Higgins in terms of "intellect").LeaNder , 05 September 2017 at 09:59 AM
Here is an article by Alperovitch: http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/russian-cyber-attacks-in-the-united-states-will-intensify
Take note how Alperovitch coded the names of the supposed hackers: "Russian intelligence services hacked the Democratic National Committee's computer network and accessed opposition research on Donald Trump, according to the Atlantic Council's Dmitri Alperovitch.
Two Russian groups ! codenamed FancyBear and CozyBear ! have been identified as spearheading the DNC breach." Alperovitch is not just an incompetent "expert" in cybersecurity - he is a willing liar and war-mongering, for money.
The DNC hacking story has never been about national security; Alperovitch (and his handlers) have no loyalty to the US.PT, I make a short exception. Actually decided to stop babbling for a while. But: Just finished something successfully.LondonBob , 05 September 2017 at 03:27 PM
And since I usually need distraction by something far more interesting then matters at hand. I was close to your line of thought yesters.
But really: Shouldn't the timeline start in 2015, since that's supposedly the time someone got into the DNC's system?
One could of course start earlier. What is the exact timeline of the larger cyberwar post 9/11, or at least the bits and pieces that surfaced for the nitwits among us, like: Stuxnet?
But nevermind. Don't forget developments and recent events around Eugene or Jewgeni Walentinowitsch Kasperski?The Russia thing certainly seems to have gone quiet.Richardstevenhack , 05 September 2017 at 06:23 PM
Bannon's chum says the issue with pursuing the Clinton email thing is that you would end up having to indict almost all of the last administration, including Obama, unseemly certainly. Still there might be a fall guy, maybe Comey, and obviously it serves Trump's purposes to keep this a live issue through the good work of Grassley and the occasional tweet.
Would be amusing if Trump pardoned Obama. Still think Brennan should pay a price though, can't really be allowed to get away with itScott Ritter's article referenced in PT's post is terrific, covering a ton of issues related to CrowdStrike and the DNC hack. You need to read it, not just PT's timeline. In case you missed the link in PT's post:
Dumbstruck: How CrowdStrike Conned America on the Hack of the DNC https://medium.com/homefront-rising/dumbstruck-how-crowdstrike-conned-america-on-the-hack-of-the-dnc-ecfa522ff44f
The article by Jeffrey Carr on CrowdStrike referenced from back in 2012 is also worth reading: Where's the "Strike" in CrowdStrike? https://jeffreycarr.blogspot.com/2012/09/wheres-strike-in-crowdstrike.html
Also, the article Carr references is very important for understanding the limits of malware analysis and "attribution". Written by Michael Tanji, whose credentials appear impressive: "spent nearly 20 years in the US intelligence community. Trained in both SIGINT and HUMINT disciplines he has worked at the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the National Reconnaissance Office. At various points in his career he served as an expert in information warfare, computer network operations, computer forensics, and indications and warning. A veteran of the US Army, Michael has served in both strategic and tactical assignments in the Pacific Theater, the Balkans, and the Middle East."
Malware Analysis: The Danger of Connecting the Dots: https://www.oodaloop.com/technology/2012/09/11/malware-analysis-the-danger-of-connecting-the-dots/
His article echoes and reinforces what Carr and others have said about the difficulty of attribution of infosec breaches. Namely that the basic problem of both intelligence and infosec operations is that there is too much obfuscation, manipulation, and misdirection involved to be sure of who or what is going on.
The Seth Rich connection is pretty much a done deal, now that Sy Hersh has been caught on tape stating that he knows of an FBI report based on a forensic analysis of Rich's laptop that shows Rich was in direct contact with Wikileaks with an attempt to sell them DNC documents and that Wikileaks had access to Rich's DropBox account. Despite Hersh's subsequent denials - which everyone knows are his usual impatient deflections prior to putting out a sourced and organized article - it's pretty clear that Rich was at least one of the sources of the Wikileaks email dump and that there is zero connection to Russia.
None of this proves that Russian intelligence - or Russians of some stripe - or for that matter hackers from literally anywhere - couldn't or didn't ALSO do a hack of the DNC. But it does prove that the iron-clad attribution of the source of Wikileaks email release to Russia is at best flawed, and at worst a deliberate cover up of a leak.
And Russiagate depends primarily on BOTH alleged "facts" being true: 1) that Russia hacked the DNC, and 2) that Russia was the source of Wikileaks release. And if the latter is not true, then one has to question why Russia hacked the DNC in the first place, other than for "normal" espionage operations. "Influencing the election" then becomes a far less plausible theory.
The general takeaway from an infosec point of view is that attribution by means of target identification, tools used, and "indicators of compromise" is a fatally flawed means of identifying, and thus being able to counter, the adversaries encountered in today's Internet world, as Tanji proves. Only HUMINT offers a way around this, just as it is really the only valid option in countering terrorism.
Aug 24, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
Robert Beal | Aug 24, 2017 12:47:02 PM | 17"Only recently did the "collusion with Russia" nonsense suddenly die down."
My short letter to the editor of The New Yorker (see last sentence):
Raffi Katchadourian ("Julian Assange, a man without a country," Aug. 21, 2017) didn't mention Wikileak's Vault 7 release includes revelation of CIA capability to allow it to misdirect the attribution of cyber attacks. According to Wikileaks, the U.S. false-flag technology consists of "leaving behind the 'fingerprints' of the very groups that the attack techniques were stolen from."
Karchadourian's omission belies his assertion: "Whatever one thinks of Assange's election disclosures, accepting his contention that they shared no ties with the two Russian fronts requires willful blindness."
His article, of near-record length for the magazine, exhaustively attempts to resuscitate speculation about a Russian cyber connection to the Clinton meltdown.
Mar 28, 2017 | libertyblitzkrieg.com
Michael Krieger Posted Tuesday Mar 28, 2017 at 3:53 pm 3 Comments
Last week, I published two posts on cyber security firm CrowdStrike after becoming aware of inaccuracies in one of its key reports used to bolster the claim that operatives of the Russian government had hacked into the DNC. This is extremely important since the DNC hired CrowdStrike to look into its hack, and at the same time denied FBI access to its servers.
Before reading any further, you should read last week's articles if you missed them the first time.
Credibility of Cyber Firm that Claimed Russia Hacked the DNC Comes Under Serious Question
What is CrowdStrike? Firm Hired by DNC has Ties to Hillary Clinton, a Ukrainian Billionaire and Google
Now here are the latest developments courtesy of Voice of America :
U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has revised and retracted statements it used to buttress claims of Russian hacking during last year's American presidential election campaign. The shift followed a VOA report that the company misrepresented data published by an influential British think tank.
In December, CrowdStrike said it found evidence that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app, contributing to heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine's war with pro-Russian separatists.
VOA reported Tuesday that the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), which publishes an annual reference estimating the strength of world armed forces, disavowed the CrowdStrike report and said it had never been contacted by the company.
CrowdStrike was first to link hacks of Democratic Party computers to Russian actors last year, but some cybersecurity experts have questioned its evidence. The company has come under fire from some Republicans who say charges of Kremlin meddling in the election are overblown.
After CrowdStrike released its Ukraine report, company co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch claimed it provided added evidence of Russian election interference. In both hacks, he said, the company found malware used by "Fancy Bear," a group with ties to Russian intelligence agencies.
CrowdStrike's claims of heavy Ukrainian artillery losses were widely circulated in U.S. media.
On Thursday, CrowdStrike walked back key parts of its Ukraine report.
The company removed language that said Ukraine's artillery lost 80 percent of the Soviet-era D-30 howitzers, which used aiming software that purportedly was hacked. Instead, the revised report cites figures of 15 to 20 percent losses in combat operations, attributing the figures to IISS.
Finally, CrowdStrike deleted a statement saying "deployment of this malware-infected application may have contributed to the high-loss nature of this platform" -- meaning the howitzers -- and excised a link sourcing its IISS data to a blogger in Russia-occupied Crimea.
In an email, CrowdStrike spokeswoman Ilina Dmitrova said the new estimates of Ukrainian artillery losses resulted from conversations with Henry Boyd, an IISS research associate for defense and military analysis. She declined to say what prompted the contact.
Dmitrova noted that the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community have also concluded that Russia was behind the hacks of the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the email account of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager.
Here's the problem. Yes, the FBI has agreed with CrowdStrike's conclusion, but the FBI did not analyze the DNC servers because the DNC specifically denied the FBI access. This was noteworthy in its own right, but it takes on vastly increased significance given the serious errors in a related hacking report produced by the company.
As such, serious questions need to be asked. Why did FBI head James Comey outsource his job to CrowdStrike, and why did he heap praise on the company? For instance, back in January, Comey referred to CrowdStrike as a "highly respected private company."
In a hearing with the Senate Intelligence Committee Tuesday afternoon outlining the intelligence agencies' findings on Russian election interference, Comey said there were "multiple requests at different levels" for access to the Democratic servers, but that ultimately a "highly respected private company" was granted access and shared its findings with the FBI.
Where does all this respect come from considering how badly it botched the Ukraine report?
Something stinks here, and the FBI needs to be held to account.
If you enjoyed this post, and want to contribute to genuine, independent media, consider visiting our Support Page .
btn March 30, 2017 at 11:58 am
As someone that prefers to see all the evidence before drawing conclusions, the latest Crowdstrike report is a step backwards.
One claim has been changed from
"Open-source reporting indicates losses of almost 50% of equipment in the last 2 years of conflict amongst Ukrainian artillery forces and over 80% of D-30 howitzers were lost, far more than any other piece of Ukrainian artillery."
"(from Henry Boyd,IISS): 'excluding the Naval Infantry battalion in the Crimea which was effectively captured wholesale, the Ukrainian Armed Forces lost between 15% and 20% of their pre-war D–30 inventory in combat operations.' "
This leads to more questions than answers. There is an elephant in the room that is not addressed: what happened to the the 80% reduction in D-30 towed-artillery inventories?
Now a casual observer may infer that the 80% number has been revised to 15-20%. However, thsese numbers are measuring **different metrics**: overall inventory reductions (80%) vs combat losses (15-20%). More importantly, the original 80% number was ALSO provided by IISS (indirectly) and **has not been disputed** by them (to further muddy the water, Crowdstrike has deleted the reference to their original IISS data source from which the 80% loss was derived).
The only thing that has really changed is that Crowdstrike had originally attrtibuted 100% of the inventory decline to combat losses, while now they are going with the IISS assessment which attributes more than 75% of the inventory decline to non-combat reasons (including the capture of the Naval Infantry Battalion).
Also lost in the new report is any comparison of the D-30 howitzer losses to the losses for other artillery, so we have no way of knowing if this loss is proportionately higher than for other artillery pieces (which would support Crowdstrike's assertions about a compromised app).
With direct access to an IISS expert, this report could be easily improved. All it would need is a chart or table showing D-30 and other artillery losse from 2007-2017, as well as IISS's attributions of the breakdown of the year-to-year inventory changes (combat losses, non-combat capture, sales, disrepair, etc). Then we could tell whether D-30 combat losses were abnormally high or not.
Jul 29, 2017 | en.wikipedia.orgVoice of America (VOA) which is the largest U.S. international broadcaster and also according to the not-for-profit and independent Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), CrowdStrike were recently exposed with their misattribution of quotes and fake information.
In other words, CrowdStrike lied to you.
CrowdStrike, the cyber-security firm that initially claimed Russia hacked the DNC and tilted the 2016 election in Donald Trump's favor, is being accused of misattribution of quotes in a December report. CrowdStrike have since walked back key and central claims in said report, calling their credibility into serious question.
Related articles and sources
- http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/23/cybersecurity-firm-that-attributed-dnc-hacks-to-russia-may-have-fabricated-russia-hacking-in-ukraine/ -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Francewhoa ( talk • contribs ) 00:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Related video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKJ7SRJuz-A&feature=youtu.be
Francewhoa ( talk ) 22:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)Michael Alperovitch/ Papa Bear/ Fancy Bear
- That article doesn't mention Wikileaks at all, so this is not the really the best place to discuss it. But in any case, my response is: the VOA news article is a good source for the article Fancy Bear , where it is already appropriately cited.
- The VOA article or something like it might also be appropriate for the CrowdStrike article, so long as we were extremely careful to follow the source and avoid undue emphasis . (We would, for instance, have to note CrowdStrike's defense, that its update to the report "does not in any way impact the core premise of the report...").
- Citation in almost any other article (except maybe Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present) , in which the original report isn't even mentioned) would be a violation of a whole bunch of principles, including, variously, WP:SYNTH , WP:UNDUE , and WP:COATRACK . Neutrality talk 00:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hi all :) For those interested to join or continue this discussion, I suggest we resume in that other talk page . This would centralize discussion related to that news about CrowdStrike who walked back some of their key and central claims. Thanks to contributor Neutrality for that suggestion :)
- Francewhoa ( talk ) 01:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this is a good place to discuss it because whether Wikileaks was specifically mentioned at all or not, the fact is it's a central component of what CrowdStrike was investigating so to say it's not appropriate to the article is ridiculous. As for "does not in any way impact the core premise"...) that's the typical dissembling by entities caught making false claims and conclusions. It's not a "defense." -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 ( talk ) 21:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- "Michael Alperovitch – Russian Spy with the Crypto-Keys - Essentially, Michael Alperovitch flies under the false-flag of being a cryptologist who works with PKI. A public key infrastructure (PKI) is a system for the creation, storage, and distribution of digital certificates which are used to verify that a particular public key belongs to a certain entity.
The PKI creates digital certificates which map public keys to entities, securely stores these certificates in a central repository and revokes them if needed. Public key cryptography is a cryptographic technique that enables entities to securely communicate on an insecure public network (the Internet), and reliably verify the identity of an entity via digital signatures.
Digital signatures use Certificate Authorities to digitally sign and publish the public key bound to a given user. This is done using the CIA's own private key, so that trust in the user key relies on one's trust in the validity of the CIA's key. Michael Alperovitch is considered to be the number one expert in America on PKI and essentially controls the market."
- At present, it looks a LOT like Shawn Henry & Dmitri Alperovitch (CrowdStrike executives), working for either the HRC campaign or DNC leadership were very likely to have been behind the Guccifer 2.0 operation." -- 18.104.22.168 ( talk ) 17:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Dec 12, 2016 | dailywire.com
In an interview with Fox News' Eric Shawn, the former ambassador used the phrase "false flag operation" in reference to the CIA's purported assessment which concluded that Russia deliberately interfered with this year's US election to help Donald Trump secure the White House.
Suggesting that the Obama administration's lack of transparency makes it impossible to definitively conclude that the Russians were behind the hacking of US political parties, Bolton, who was reportedly appointed as Trump's deputy secretary of state (the second highest position at the State Department), appeared to break away from his characteristically national security-first philosophy to assert a theory about foul play at the highest levels of government,
"It is not at all clear to me, just viewing this from the outside, that this hacking into the DNC and the RNC was not a false flag operation," he told Fox News.
When asked to explain what he meant by the highly suggestive phrase "false flag," Bolton gave a hazy answer.
"We just don't know," stated Bolton, refusing to say whether the US government was purposely misleading the public, or worse, had a hand in the "false flag operation."
"But I believe that intelligence has been politicized in the Obama administration to a very significant degree," said Bolton, adding:
If you think the Russians did this, then why did they leave fingerprints
We would want to know who else might want to influence the election and why they would leave fingerprints that point to the Russians. That's why I say until we know more about how the intelligence community came to this conclusion we don't know whether it is Russian inspired or a false flag
Here's the transcript, detailing the relevant part of Bolton's interview with Eric Shawn:
Bolton's comments reflected echo the skeptical attitude of the Trump team in the wake of The Washington Post's report on the CIA's unsettling findings about Russia's interference during the presidential election. Trump, himself, called the CIA's assessment "ridiculous" in a pre-taped interview that aired Sunday.
"I think it's just another excuse. I don't believe it," the president-elect told Fox News' Chris Wallace. "Every week it's another excuse." Trumped added that "nobody really knows" who was behind the hacking of emails belonging to top Clinton advisors and DNC officials.
Jun 14, 2017 | www.zerohedge.comBefore I get to the meat of this post, we need to revisit a little history. The cyber security firm hired to inspect the DNC hack and determine who was responsible is a firm called Crowdstrike. Its conclusion that Russia was responsible was released last year, but several people began to call its analysis into question upon further inspection.
Jeffrey Carr was one of the most prominent cynics, and as he noted in his December post, FBI/DHS Joint Analysis Report: A Fatally Flawed Effort :
The FBI/DHS Joint Analysis Report (JAR) " Grizzly Steppe " was released yesterday as part of the White House's response to alleged Russian government interference in the 2016 election process. It adds nothing to the call for evidence that the Russian government was responsible for hacking the DNC, the DCCC, the email accounts of Democratic party officials, or for delivering the content of those hacks to Wikileaks.
It merely listed every threat group ever reported on by a commercial cybersecurity company that is suspected of being Russian-made and lumped them under the heading of Russian Intelligence Services (RIS) without providing any supporting evidence that such a connection exists.
If ESET could do it, so can others. It is both foolish and baseless to claim, as Crowdstrike does, that X-Agent is used solely by the Russian government when the source code is there for anyone to find and use at will.
If the White House had unclassified evidence that tied officials in the Russian government to the DNC attack, they would have presented it by now. The fact that they didn't means either that the evidence doesn't exist or that it is classified.
Nevertheless, countless people, including the entirety of the corporate media, put total faith in the analysis of Crowdstrike despite the fact that the FBI was denied access to perform its own analysis. Which makes me wonder, did the U.S. government do any real analysis of its own on the DNC hack, or did it just copy/paste Crowdstrike?
As The Hill reported in January:
The FBI requested direct access to the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) hacked computer servers but was denied, Director James Comey told lawmakers on Tuesday.
The bureau made "multiple requests at different levels," according to Comey, but ultimately struck an agreement with the DNC that a "highly respected private company" would get access and share what it found with investigators.
"We'd always prefer to have access hands-on ourselves if that's possible," Comey said, noting that he didn't know why the DNC rebuffed the FBI's request.
This is nuts. Are all U.S. government agencies simply listening to what Crowdstike said in coming to their "independent" conclusions that Russia hacked the DNC? If so, that's a huge problem. Particularly considering what Voice of America published yesterday in a piece titled, Cyber Firm at Center of Russian Hacking Charges Misread Data :
An influential British think tank and Ukraine's military are disputing a report that the U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has used to buttress its claims of Russian hacking in the presidential election.
The CrowdStrike report, released in December , asserted that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app, resulting in heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine's war with Russian-backed separatists.
But the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) told VOA that CrowdStrike erroneously used IISS data as proof of the intrusion. IISS disavowed any connection to the CrowdStrike report. Ukraine's Ministry of Defense also has claimed combat losses and hacking never happened.
The challenges to CrowdStrike's credibility are significant because the firm was the first to link last year's hacks of Democratic Party computers to Russian actors, and because CrowdStrike co-founder Dimiti Alperovitch has trumpeted its Ukraine report as more evidence of Russian election tampering.
How is this not the biggest story in America right now?
Yaroslav Sherstyuk, maker of the Ukrainian military app in question, called the company's report "delusional" in a Facebook post . CrowdStrike never contacted him before or after its report was published, he told VOA.
VOA first contacted IISS in February to verify the alleged artillery losses. Officials there initially were unaware of the CrowdStrike assertions. After investigating, they determined that CrowdStrike misinterpreted their data and hadn't reached out beforehand for comment or clarification.
In a statement to VOA, the institute flatly rejected the assertion of artillery combat losses.
"The CrowdStrike report uses our data, but the inferences and analysis drawn from that data belong solely to the report's authors," the IISS said. "The inference they make that reductions in Ukrainian D-30 artillery holdings between 2013 and 2016 were primarily the result of combat losses is not a conclusion that we have ever suggested ourselves, nor one we believe to be accurate."
In early January, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense issued a statement saying artillery losses from the ongoing fighting with separatists are "several times smaller than the number reported by [CrowdStrike] and are not associated with the specified cause" of Russian hacking.
But Ukraine's denial did not get the same attention as CrowdStrike's report. Its release was widely covered by news media reports as further evidence of Russian hacking in the U.S. election.
In interviews, Alperovitch helped foster that impression by connecting the Ukraine and Democratic campaign hacks, which CrowdStrike said involved the same Russian-linked hacking group-Fancy Bear-and versions of X-Agent malware the group was known to use.
"The fact that they would be tracking and helping the Russian military kill Ukrainian army personnel in eastern Ukraine and also intervening in the U.S. election is quite chilling," Alperovitch said in a December 22 story by The Washington Post .
The same day, Alperovitch told the PBS NewsHour : "And when you think about, well, who would be interested in targeting Ukraine artillerymen in eastern Ukraine? Who has interest in hacking the Democratic Party? [The] Russia government comes to mind, but specifically, [it's the] Russian military that would have operational [control] over forces in the Ukraine and would target these artillerymen."
Alperovitch, a Russian expatriate and senior fellow at the Atlantic Council policy research center in Washington, co-founded CrowdStrike in 2011. The firm has employed two former FBI heavyweights: Shawn Henry, who oversaw global cyber investigations at the agency, and Steven Chabinsky, who was the agency's top cyber lawyer and served on a White House cybersecurity commission. Chabinsky left CrowdStrike last year.
CrowdStrike declined to answer VOA's written questions about the Ukraine report, and Alperovitch canceled a March 15 interview on the topic. In a December statement to VOA's Ukrainian Service, spokeswoman Ilina Dimitrova defended the company's conclusions.
In its report last June attributing the Democratic hacks, CrowdStrike said it was long familiar with the methods used by Fancy Bear and another group with ties to Russian intelligence nicknamed Cozy Bear. Soon after, U.S. cybersecurity firms Fidelis and Mandiant endorsed CrowdStrike's conclusions. The FBI and Homeland Security report reached the same conclusion about the two groups.If the company's analysis was "delusional" when it came to Ukraine, why should we have any confidence that its analysis on Russia and the DNC is more sound?
Answer: We shouldn't.
Jun 14, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
libezkova, June 14, 2017 at 11:20 AM""I did not have communications with the Russians," Mr. Sessions said in response to a question no one asked - and despite the fact that he had, in fact, met with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, at least twice during the 2016 presidential campaign. The omission raised questions not only about his honesty, but also about why he would not disclose those meetings in the first place."libezkova -> libezkova ... June 14, 2017 at 11:59 AM
That's neo-McCarthyism plain and simple. Congradulations! We got it. Now we need to fire all Russian sympathizers from the government service, assuming that they exist. A very nice 17th century witch-hunt.
The only thing we do not have is resurrected Senator McCarthy (McCain is not good enough -- he does not drink).
So from now on any contact with Russians officials are assumed to be poisonous, a threat to the USA security, and should be reported to Intelligence services. Like in the USSR were contacts with Western officials.
That means that the joke that Russia Foreign Ministry played on April 1 (Google it) about ordering Russian diplomat contact for your political opponent proved to be true.
But now some fragments of the picture of DNC hack fall into place and one interesting hypothesis is that it was a false flag operation performed by the CrowdStrike, the same firm which were later assigned to investigate the hack. Which would be in best CIA traditions, stemming from JFK murder investigation and Warren commission.
And I am now not surprised that nobody investigated Comey for outsourcing (or forced to outsource by threats) the "DNC hack" investigation to the very questionable firm with strong Ukrainian connections. Which might well be hired to perform the hack and blame it on Russian to hide Seth Rich story.
If Trump would not be such an idiot, he would site this as a reason of firing Comey (gross unprofessionalism and criminal negligence) and the level of fear in Clinton Mafia after that might help him to survive.
The truth is that FBI never has any access to DNC computers. None. Unlike in case of Hillary emailgate, they never were in possession of actual hardware. And they never explored Ukrainian connection, so to speak. They took all results from CrowdStrike investigation at face value.
So I suspect all opinions of US intelligence agencies about this hack are just a part of color revolution scenario: the attempt to delegitimize the sitting government and install a new government via a coup d'état.
The fighting against Russiagate is about the defense of remnants of Democracy in the USA.
Regurgitation of MSM stories, like Fred is doing, does not add much value to this blog. It is essentially a propaganda exercise. If your urge to share them is too strong, as Mr.Bill mentioned a simple link would be enough (actually the desire to read on this topic NYT might be considered as an early sign of dementia, or Alzheimer)
An interesting comment from Naked Capitalism
Skip Intro , June 12, 2017 at 4:36 pm
The NSA document was very important. It basically proved, according to Scott Ritter, that the NSA had no real evidence of any Russian involvement, and relied on speculation from a single source: DNC contractor CrowdStrike, which recently had to retract a similar claim about Russian hacking of Ukrainian artillery. The real story behind 'Reality Winner' remains, I am sure, unknown.
This might well be a ploy to undermine the anti-Russia hype, though the media cartel has trumpeted it uncritically for the short-term rush of goosing the Comey spectacle.
This makes the refusal of the DNC to let the FBI examine those servers even more suspect. OTOH, one can see the thought processes in the DNC: A breach was discovered. If we blame the Russians not only do we further the neo-con agenda, but we also get to call anyone who publishes or cites the material taken from the servers a Russian tool.
In fact, if they knew they had internal leakers, it would still be worth claiming to have been hacked by the Russians, so that internally leaked material could be 'poisoned' as part of a Russian plot.
Talking points to this effect were ubiquitous and apparently well coordinated, turning virtually every MSM discussion of the content of the leaks into a screed about stolen documents and Russian hackers. It also put a nice fresh coat of paint on the target painted on Assange, turning the undiscerning left against a once valuable ally.
Jun 13, 2017 | original.antiwar.com
Given the stakes involved in the Russia-gate investigation – now including a possible impeachment battle over removing the President of the United States – wouldn't it seem logical for the FBI to insist on its own forensics for this fundamental predicate of the case? Or could Comey's hesitancy to demand access to the DNC's computers be explained by a fear that FBI technicians not fully briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted?
Comey was asked again about this curious oversight on June 8 by Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Richard Burr:
BURR: "And the FBI, in this case, unlike other cases that you might investigate – did you ever have access to the actual hardware that was hacked? Or did you have to rely on a third party to provide you the data that they had collected?"
COMEY: "In the case of the DNC, and, I believe, the DCCC, but I'm sure the DNC, we did not have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done the work. But we didn't get direct access."
BURR: "But no content?"
BURR: "Isn't content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?"
COMEY: "It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks – the people who were my folks at the time is that they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016."
Burr demurred on asking Comey to explain what amounts to gross misfeasance, if not worse. Perhaps, NBC could arrange for Megyn Kelly to interview Burr to ask if he has a clue as to what Putin might have been referring to when he noted, "There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia."
Given the congressional intelligence "oversight" committees' obsequiousness and repeated "high esteem" for the "intelligence community," there seems an even chance that – no doubt because of an oversight – the CIA/FBI/NSA deep-stage troika failed to brief the Senate "oversight committee" chairman on WikiLeaks "Vault 7" disclosures – even when WikiLeaks publishes original CIA documents.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and CIA analyst for a total of 30 years and now servers on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). Reprinted with permission from Consortium News .
Jun 10, 2017 | medium.com
Claims of "Russian interference" have been ubiquitous in U.S. political discourse for almost a full year now; these often amount to a mélange of allegations ranging from "hacking" to "influence campaigns" to "online trolls" sent by the Kremlin to harangue unsuspecting Midwestern voters. "Hacking," however, remains the centerpiece of the narrative - the idea that Russian state actors "hacked" the Democratic National Committee and exfiltrated emails is routinely cited as the centerpiece of the overall "interference" thesis. After the alleged hacking, the DNC retained a private security firm - CrowdStrike - which made the determination that the Russian government was responsible, setting into motion a chain of Russia-related events that continue to unfold even now.https://medium.com/media/b15fd1fe3dbf2ead20873d6331996555?postId=c6f884c34189
TYT can report that at the same time CrowdStrike was working on behalf of the DNC, the company was also under contract with the FBI for unspecified technical services. According to a US federal government spending database, CrowdStrike's "period of performance" on behalf of the FBI was between July 2015 and July 2016. CrowdStrike's findings regarding the DNC server breach - which continue to this day to be cited as authoritative by everyone from former FBI Director James Comey, to NBC anchor Megyn Kelly - were issued in June 2016, when the contract was still active.
Last week at a forum with Vladimir Putin, Kelly listed all the authoritative American entities which she claimed have corroborated the conclusion that Russian state actors "interfered" in the 2016 presidential election. (Notwithstanding its vagueness and imprecision, the term "interference" has come to be the standard term American media personalities invoke when seeking to describe how "Russians" maliciously undermined the sanctity of the 2016 US election process.) Querying Putin, Kelly repeated the canard that "17 intelligence agencies" had all independently concluded that Russia indeed "interfered" - whatever that means, exactly. She then continued: "Even private, non-partisan security firms say the same that Russia interfered with the US election."
The most prominent "private, non-partisan security firm" is CrowdStrike, and despite Kelly's use of the term "non-partisan" to describe the firm, its fiduciary relationship with the DNC suggests otherwise. As the journalist Yasha Levine wrote in The Baffler,Far from establishing an airtight case for Russian espionage, CrowdStrike made a point of telling its DNC clients what it already knew they wanted to hear: after a cursory probe, it pronounced the Russians the culprits. Mainstream press outlets, primed for any faint whiff of great-power scandal and poorly versed in online threat detection, likewise treated the CrowdStrike report as all but incontrovertible.
In April 2016, two months before the June report was issued, former President Barack Obama appointed Steven Chabinsky, "general counsel and Chief Risk officer" for CrowdStrike, to a presidential "Commission for Enhancing Cybersecurity," further demonstrating CrowdStrike's intermingling with powerful Democratic Party factions.
Neither the FBI nor CrowdStrike responded to requests for comment on the nature of the services provided. As of yet, the only entity known to receive primary access to the DNC servers is CrowdStrike. At a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in January, Comey testified that the FBI had been denied access to the servers by the DNC after repeated requests. And unnamed FBI officials told reporters , "The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated."
Comey's long-awaited Congressional testimony on Thursday may provide additional insight into the FBI's reliance on the firm.
Effectively, information that is now central to massively consequential geopolitical disputes has been "privatized" and held exclusively by a profit-seeking entity. CrowdStrike's findings continue to be repeated by journalists and politicians with unflinching certainty - despite the fact that it was forced to retract a central element of another report involving related malware attribution, raising doubts about the reliability of its DNC conclusions. As Jeffrey Carr, a security researcher who has been critical of CrowdStrike's methods, told me: "The foundation of placing the blame on Russia was false."
Power to determine world events is increasingly being concentrated in the hands of a tiny group of self-proclaimed "experts" who aren't accountable to the public, but to clients and investors. CrowdStrike, evidently benefitting from the surge in PR, announced last month that it had been valued at one billion dollars.
Jun 08, 2017 | www.ashtarcommandcrew.net
CONFIRMED: DNC paid the 'Russian' founder of CrowdStrike to hack its server so it could be blamed on Russia!
DMITRI ALPEROVITCH, CTO, CrowdStrike
DNC Hackers Finally Identified
The Millennium Report
Would you trust this guy with technically verifying who perpetrated the alleged Russian hack? Believe it or not, the above photo of CTO Dmitri Alperovitch was taken directly from CrowdStrike's official website, the "American cybersecurity technology company" tasked with the digital sleuthing of the DNC server hack.
Key Point: CrowdStrike has since been proven to be a criminal hacking organization by Internet investigators. The shadowy cyber-firm was founded by a Russian-American so that the U.S. Intelligence Community could use it to perpetrate 'Russian' hacks. In this way, CrowdStrike methodically fabricates fake evidence on demand for the CIA/NSA/FBI which can then be blamed on Russia.
In the fictitious Russian election hack case, CrowdStrike was the CIA contractor paid to create digital evidence with fake Russian "signatures" in order to incriminate the Kremlin. This fabrication of evidence appears to have been perpetrated in collusion with the creators of Guccifer 2.0. Did Guccifer 2.0 Fake "Russian Fingerprints?"
Here's another fake report produced by CrowdStrike regarding a hacked "Ukrainian artillery app" during the Ukrainian War. It's important to note that the following mainstream media account was published by Voice of America (VOA) -- "a United States government-funded multimedia news outlet".
Cyber Firm Rewrites Part of Disputed Russian Hacking Report
What is particularly suspicious is that CrowdStrike is the only cybersecurity entity that has ever been given unfettered access to the DNC servers.
CrowdStrike can't even be trusted to perform illegal hacking proficiently, much less confirm the true source of the DNC email hack. Therefore, if CrowdStrike asserts that the hackers were Russian, we know that Russia had absolutely nothing to do with it.
As a matter of documented fact, it was actually CrowdStrike who hacked the DNC server before the 2016 election. The following exposé is a MUST READ for anyone who wants to know the real back story. DNC Russian Hackers Found!
HERE'S HOW THEY DID IT:
Source – " Bear Hunting: History and Attribution of Russian Intelligence Opera... " posted by CrowdStrike at slideshare.net
The plot to frame Russia -- for the DNC's own criminal conspiracy -- was closely coordinated between the DNC and the CIA and carried out with the full support of the Obama Administration. Given that the heads of virtually all 17 agencies within the U.S. Intelligence Community were ready and willing to support the necessary crime wave, it was an obvious brainchild of Deep State .
CTO Dmitri Alperovitch is a creation of Deep State , and was carefully set up as the point man for the hacking scheme. His entire family history reflects a pattern of double agents who were easily enlisted to work for the US government in order to maintain their "in-country status". All the evidence even points to Alperovitch working for Ukraine intelligence, which significantly demonstrates his motives to pin the hacking on the Kremlin.
The preceding graphic delineates the time frame according to which CrowdStrike was stealthily employed by the DNC to eventually identify the fictitious 'Russian' hackers. They even named the alleged state actor COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR. That's because all they do -- 24/7 -- is hunt Russian bear even where they don't exist.
There are very good reasons why this story will not go away, and only gets bigger with each passing day. When the CIA, DNC, CrowStrike et al. started off with such a flagra... Because this complex and convoluted criminal conspiracy is being used as a basis to instigate a war against Russia, it's really just another classic false flag operation. Such CIA-conceived black ops, that are then used as NSA-driven global PsyOps, can only come this far when Deep State so orders it. Their ultimate goal is to overthrow the Trump presidency before their New World Order agenda is thwarted any further.CONCLUSION
Perhaps these highly radioactive details explain the now-notorious grin worn by Dmitri Alperovitch in his company photo posted above.
Jun 07, 2017 | www.puppetstringnews.com
... ... ..
Key Point: CrowdStrike has since been proven to be a criminal hacking organization by Internet investigators. The shadowy cyber-firm was founded by a Russian-American so that the U.S. Intelligence Community could use it to perpetrate 'Russian' hacks. In this way, CrowdStrike methodically fabricates fake evidence on demand for the CIA/NSA/FBI which can then be blamed on Russia.
In the fictitious Russian election hack case, CrowdStrike was the CIA contractor paid to create digital evidence with fake Russian "signatures" in order to incriminate the Kremlin. This fabrication of evidence appears to have been perpetrated in collusion with the creators of Guccifer 2.0.
Well there you go America you have your Russian hacker, and it's a CIA contractor who is in charge of running the DNC computer system. This is how Democrats are claiming the Russian hack of the election and they're computer systems were rigged by Russia, because the owner of CrowdStrike who runs the DNC computer systems is Russian.
This officially destroys the Russia/Trump collusion Democrat conspiracy theory, because the DNC hired a Russian to run the parties computer system to make it look like a Russian hack just in case Trump won the election. Trump needs to bring up this man on Twitter, because the mentioning of this man by the President would absolutely destroy the Russia/Trump collusion. This kills the narrative by Democrats on Russia/Trump collusion for one reason only...The DNC has colluded with a Russian hacker to work on their computer system.
Jun 07, 2017 | www.ashtarcommandcrew.net
TYT Politics reporter Michael Tracey (http://www.twitter.com/mtracey) reports that CrowdStrike, the cyber-security firm retained by the DNC to analyze its "hacked" servers, had a contract with the FBI.
Apr 02, 2017 | strata-sphere.com
The fantasy story line inside the Political Industrial Complex* (PIC) is that Team Trump colluded with Russia to tilt last year's election to Trump. Of course the endless screw ups by Team Clinton, and the high level of frustration across this great land with PIC and its elites, had nothing to do with the election results. It has to be those pesky Russkies!
The story goes that the FBI – and all 16 intelligence agencies – concur that the Russians were targeting the Democrats, and this began with the exposure of DNC emails prior to the Democrat convention last year.
Well, that's ONE STORY
A fuller picture is becoming evident. One where nearly all the conclusions of Russian influence are based upon a report from one company – a company contracted by the DNC --
On Thursday, a senior law enforcement official told CNN that the DNC "rebuffed" the agency's request to physically examine its computer servers after the alleged hacking. Instead, the FBI relied on CrowdStrike's assessment that the servers had most likely been hacked by Russian agents.
"The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated," CNN quoted the senior law enforcement official as saying. "This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information.
Sounds just like Hillary Clinton and her email server – where the government cannot do a real investigation of the actual computer evidence. If this sounds fishy, it is. Because this company is not a middle of the road, independent agent.
It is, in fact, a young start-up with much of its prior success tied to the Obama administration (less now than when it began 6 years ago), and of course its future rests in the hands of the Intelligence Community and the niche community of federal cyber-security specialists. All who make their living off the federal government in one way or the other. They know who is lining their bank accounts
One of the founders is Dmitri Alperovitch who was born in Moscow, Russia in 1980 and who moved with his family to the US in 1990. Clearly he had not forged nefarious ties to Putin's regime by the age of 10 when he emigrated, so his Russian background is not really of much interest. But he does have an interesting past, which I will get to in a second.
While I was attempting to do some digging on all this I discovered someone had done all the work already. So let me give credit where credit is due: CrowdStrike leadership has significant ties to Obama and the Democrats:
Founder Dmitri Alperovitch has been the best known face of CrowdStrike, partly due to the profile feature done on him by Esquire in late 2016. But his co-founder, George Kurtz – like Alperovitch, a former executive at McAfee – has had a high professional profile as well.
Worth noting at the outset is that Kurtz obtained a $26 million financing deal for the CrowdStrike start-up in February 2012 from equity giant Warburg Pincus , after Kurtz had been serving there as the "entrepreneur in residence."
This equity firm is where the initial seed money for CrowdStrike came from (Warburg was the only capital investor at the beginning; Google came in with the $100 million in 2015).
Warburg Pincus remains a primary investor in CrowdStrike, along with Google and Accel Partners . In 2016, Warburg, whose president since 2014 has been Tim Geithner , Obama's former secretary of the treasury, raised $29,709 for Hillary Clinton , the largest single recipient of campaign funds raised by Warburg employees and PACs. (No contributions were made through Warburg-related entities to Donald Trump.)
Then there's the linked-ness of the CrowdStrike executive stable. Steven Chabinsky, CrowdStrike's General Counsel and Chief Risk Officer, was named to Obama's Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity in April 2016 .
That's partly because Chabinsky was Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI's Cyber Division and Chief of the FBI's Cyber Intelligence Section before he left the Bureau for private life in 2012 (the year he joined CrowdStrike ).
But there's more. [Shawn] Henry is the president of CrowdStrike Services, and the Chief Security Officer (CSO) for the company. But when he came on with CrowdStrike, in April 2012 , he was coming off his final position with the FBI: Executive Assistant Director of the Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Service Branch. (Or, as he was usually referred to, the "FBI's top cyber official.")
In other words, CrowdStrike scored the FBI's two biggest Obama-era cybersecurity names – Henry and Chabinsky – the year it was formed as a start-up .
Strong ties to Obama's FBI, and one would assume FBI Director Comey. Hmmm .
Let's get back to Dimitri now, and his connections to the Democrats :
Alperovitch's first big break in cyberdefense came in 2010 , while he was at McAfee. The head of cybersecurity at Google told Alperovitch that Gmail accounts belonging to human-rights activists in China had been breached. Google suspected the Chinese government. Alperovitch found that the breach was unprecedented in scale; it affected more than a dozen of McAfee's clients.
Three days after his discovery, Alperovitch was on a plane to Washington. He'd been asked to vet a paragraph in a speech by the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton . She'd decided, for the first time, to call out another country for a cyberattack. "In an interconnected world," she said, "an attack on one nation's networks can be an attack on all."
Now just hold on one second here. How in the world does a nobody at MacAfee get on a plane to meet the Secretary of State in just 3 days? No vetting? No preliminaries with underlings? Just fly out to DC to review a single paragraph??
This has to be fictional drama.
BTW, earlier in the same article we have this contrary story line:
In 2011, he was working in Atlanta as the chief threat officer at the antivirus software firm McAfee. While sifting through server logs in his apartment one night, he discovered evidence of a hacking campaign by the Chinese government. Eventually he learned that the campaign had been going on undetected for five years, and that the Chinese had compromised at least seventy-one companies and organizations, including thirteen defense contractors, three electronics firms, and the International Olympic Committee.
While Alperovitch was writing up his report on the breach, he received a call from Renee James, an executive at Intel, which had recently purchased McAfee. According to Alperovitch, James told him, "Dmitri, Intel has a lot of business in China. You cannot call out China in this report."
Alperovitch removed the word China from his analysis, calling the operation Shady Rat instead. He told me that James's intervention accelerated his plans to leave Intel.
So which story-line is the right one? Not sure, but let's just say not just anyone gets called to review Hillary's speeches.
So these guys had FBI contacts and they had Clinton contacts. What else did they have? Would anyone believe connections to DHS :
Through their common roots in McAfee, Alperovitch and Kurtz have an extensive history with top cyber expert Phyllis Schneck, who appears in the Esquire piece from October. In fact, Alperovitch and Schneck were at Georgia Tech together (see the Esquire article), and later were vice presidents of McAfee at the same time Kurtz was McAfee's chief technology officer (CTO). Alperovitch has obviously had a close professional relationship with Schneck; their names are both on four separate patent applications .
What is Schneck doing today? Since 2013, she's been the Deputy Under Secretary for Cybersecurity and Communications for the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD) – i.e., the chief cybersecurity official for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) .
To recap, all the claims of Russian involvement with DNC (and by extension Team Trump) is based on claims by a firm with roots back to the Obama FBI, to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and to DHS? This is the only evidence we have of Russian efforts to tilt this election (as opposed to efforts by Democrat operatives in the Deep State to tilt the election)?
Some final perspectives on how this is all playing out [ note: this site is a bit tinfoil hat for me, but I liked the way these paragraphs summarized where we are on this ]
Also remember that it is only Alperovitch and CrowdStrike that claim to have evidence that it was Russian hackers . In fact, only two hackers were found to have been in the system and were both identified by Alperovitch as Russian FSB (CIA) and the Russian GRU (DoD). It is only Alperovitch who claims that he knows that it is Putin behind these two hackers.
The ridiculously fake cyber-attack assessment done by Alperovitch and CrowdStrike naïvely flies in the face of the fact that a DNC insider admitted that he had released the DNC documents.
It is also absurd to hear Alperovitch state that the Russian FSB (equivalent to the CIA) had been monitoring the DNC site for over a year and had done nothing. No attack, no theft, and no harm was done to the system by this "false-flag cyber-attack" on the DNC – or at least, Alperovitch "reported" there was an attack.
I just seems crazy that all this diversion by the news media and Democrats is based on the unsubstantiated claims of a company that epitomizes what it means to be part of the Political Industrial Complex*
* The Political Industrial Complex encompasses all those elites whose livelihoods are predicated on central-control of resources and who determine who is allowed to succeed in society. It is a bipartisan exclusive club. It includes the Politicians and their career staffers. It includes crony donors and lobbyists who reap government windfalls and special treatment that average citizens cannot obtain. It includes the PIC industrial base of pollsters, consultants, etc. And it includes the pliant news media, whose success rest on access to those in power, and in return for access making sure no bad news will disrupt said power.
Tags: Clinton , CrowdStrike , DNC , Obama , Russian Hack , Trump
Apr 04, 2017 | www.breitbart.comSpeaking at a conference two weeks before the 2016 presidential election, Evelyn Farkas, a former top Obama administration official, predicted that if Donald Trump won the presidency he would "be impeached pretty quickly or somebody else would have to take over government," Breitbart News has found.
Farkas served as deputy assistant secretary of defense under the Obama administration. She has been in the spotlight since the news media last week highlighted comments she made on television that seemed to acknowledge efforts by members of the Obama administration to collect intelligence on Trump and members of his campaign.
Now it has emerged that at on October 26, 2016, Farkas made remarks as a panelist at the annual Warsaw Security Forum predicting Trump's removal from office "pretty quickly."
Asked at the event to address the priorities of a future Hillary Clinton administration, Farkas stated:
It's not a done deal, as you said. And so, to the Americans in the audience please vote. And not only vote but get everybody to vote. Because I really believe we need a landslide. We need an absolute repudiation of everything. All of the policies that Donald Trump has put out there. I am not afraid to be political. I am not hiding who I am rooting for. And I think it's very important that we continue to press forward until election day and through election day to make sure that we have the right results.
I do agree however with General Breedlove that even if we have the wrong results from my perspective America is resilient. We have a lot of presidential historians who have put forward very coherent the argument – they have given us examples of all of our horrible presidents in the past and the fact that we have endured. And we do have a strong system of checks and balances. And actually, if Donald Trump were elected I believe he would be impeached pretty quickly or somebody else would have to take over government. And I am not even joking.
Farkas was referring to General Philip Mark Breedlove, another panelist at the conference who served as Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) of NATO Allied Command Operations. The panel discussion was about what to expect following the Nov. 8 presidential election.
Farkas has also been in the news after remarks she made as a contributor on MSNBC on March 2 resurfaced last week. In the comments , she said that she told former Obama administration colleagues to collect intelligence on Trump and campaign officials.
"I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill, it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration," stated Farkas.
Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left, so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy that the Trump folks – if they found out how we knew what we knew about their the Trump staff dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.
The White House has utilized Farkas's statements to bolster the charge that Trump was being illicitly surveilled during the campaign.
White House Spokesman Sean Spicer last week stated :
[I]f you look at Obama's Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense that is out there, Evelyn Farkas, she made it clear that it was their goal to spread this information around, that they went around and did this.
They have admitted on the record that this was their goal - to leak stuff. And they literally - she said on the record "Trump's team." There are serious questions out there about what happened and why and who did it. And I think that's really where our focus is in making sure that that information gets out.
Farkas, a former adviser to Hillary Clinton's campaign, served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia until she resigned in 2015.
She told the Daily Caller last week that she had no access to any intelligence. "I had no intelligence whatsoever, I wasn't in government anymore and didn't have access to any," she said.
Speaking to the Washington Post, Farkas denied being a source of any leaks.
The Post reported:
Farkas, in an interview with The Post, said she "didn't give anybody anything except advice," was not a source for any stories and had nothing to leak. Noting that she left government in October 2015, she said, "I was just watching like anybody else, like a regular spectator" as initial reports of Russia contacts began to surface after the election.
Farkas currently serves as a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, which takes a hawkish approach toward Russia and has released numerous reports and briefs about Russian aggression.
The Council is funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc., the U.S. State Department, and NATO ACT. Another Council funder is the Ploughshares Fund, which in turn has received financing from billionaire George Soros' Open Society Foundations.
Farkas serves on the Atlantic Council alongside Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder of CrowdStrike, the third-party company utilized by the FBI to make its assessment about alleged Russian hacking into the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Alperovitch is a nonresident senior fellow of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council.
Last month, FBI Director James Comey confirmed that his agency never had direct access to the DNC's servers to confirm the hacking. "Well, we never got direct access to the machines themselves," he stated. "The DNC in the spring of 2016 hired a firm that ultimately shared with us their forensics from their review of the system."
National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers also stated the NSA never asked for access to the DNC hardware: "The NSA didn't ask for access. That's not in our job."
Google matched content
Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers : Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy
War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotes : Somerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose Bierce : Bernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes
Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law
Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds : Larry Wall : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOS : Programming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC development : Scripting Languages : Perl history : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history
The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-Month : How to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite
Most popular humor pages:
Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor
The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D
Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.
FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
|You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site|
Last modified: March, 01, 2020