3 ms·
> DNC-associated cyber-security firm which had actual access to the servers. Why use the wording "DNC-associated firm" instead of "firm hired by DNC"? They'r
by FDSGSG 7y ago
> DNC-associated cyber-security firm which had actual access to the servers.
Why use the wording "DNC-associated firm" instead of "firm hired by DNC"?
They're working with the GOP too https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-cybersecurity-202/2019/11/04/the-cybersecurity-202-gop-house-campaign-arm-uses-crowdstrike-despite-trump-conspiracy-theories/5dbf22d488e0fa10ffd20b34/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-cyb...
- einpoklum 7y agoThat's stronger than a mere association actually, at least w.r.t. this issue. The DNC was interested in deflecting criticism regarding the leaked information, and arguing "We're under attack by Russia!" is very useful to that end. So, the firm they hired reaches this conclusion, opaquely, and based on exclusive access to the machines, which are then not examined by any other party.
- FDSGSG 7y agoThat's literally standard practice. It really sounds like you're accusing CrowdStrike of lying with zero evidence to back that up.
- einpoklum 7y agoI'm not accusing them of lying, I'm just saying that CrowdStrike claims are not uninterested third-party claims. On this matter they are not much more trustworthy than their contractors; and they need to present evidence to make their case to the public.