5 ms·

From TFA: "Several cyber experts at the symposium became frustrated late into the first day with not being provided with packet captures." I'm not sure they're

From TFA: "Several cyber experts at the symposium became frustrated late into the first day with not being provided with packet captures." I'm not sure they're experts if they were expecting Mike Lindell to actually deliver on something.

busterarm 5y ago
I mean, CrowdStrike are supposedly experts and their "proof" of Russian involvement in the DNC hack was complete bullshit[1], except "trust us, guys, we promise." Their president even had to testify in Congress to that effect admitting so. If they could get away with that, might as well anyone should try to. [1]: Some spurious web request logs probing for PHP vulnerabilities leading back to Russian IPs that literally everyone also would have in their logs (as I do for every website I've operated ever).
- jlmorton 5y ago
  That is a tiny fraction of the stated evidence. Notably, there was specific known malware installed on DNC computers communicating with IP addresses in Russia. I don't think the evidence released is overwhelming, but it's much more than you've suggested. [1] https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...
  - busterarm 5y ago
    Their evidence was completely inconclusive of anything and they stated so in front of Congress.
    - tptacek 5y ago
      Calvinball. That wasn't your argument; it was that the evidence was "Some spurious web request logs probing for PHP vulnerabilities leading back to Russian IPs that literally everyone also would have in their logs". Turns out, no.
- dvogel 5y ago
  Their evidence consisted of more than web server logs. I personally don't think their claims matched their evidence but they did provide details about the exploits found, corroborated by the FBI. The primary implant found on the DNC network had been linked by multiple other security companies to other hacks that were almost definitely carried out by Russia-affiliated hackers. These links have been well-documented and have supporting links in the Wikipedia article.
  - busterarm 5y ago
    I'm much more in-the-know and connected to real world whitehats and blackhats than not just your average person but also your average infosec person. It's complete bullshit.
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      You blame CrowdStrike for saying "trust us, we're experts", and then when someone argues with you, you say "trust me, I'm an expert".
      - busterarm 5y ago
        No not at all. Unlike CrowdStrike, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. You can believe me or not and I don't care. I've got my bonafides and I have no intention of doxxing myself. There's a lot of very clued in people on this board in lots of areas and nobody really owes you anything or needs to explain themselves. You can listen or not, it's up to you.
    - tptacek 5y ago
      This would be more credible if you hadn't tried to present a technical argument about Crowdstrike's analysis that was trivially refuted in a 2-line reply.
      - busterarm 5y ago
        It doesn't matter -- we're in a post truth era where political affiliation matters more than facts and every side will circle the wagons with their own. Evidence has become less credible than who is supplying it and why. Thanks though, I just won a $100 bet with the guy next to me that you'd be making a reply in this thread and here we are.
floren 5y ago
I for one would love to get my hands on whatever they offer. If it's actual packet data, that's gravy, maybe I can find something interesting. If it's /dev/random, that's also hilarious.
ggggtez 5y ago
You're missing the fact there was a $5 million bounty to disapprove the claims. Some cyber security experts were probably hoping for an easy pay day. They probably were foolish to think he'd actually pay though. Con artists never pay when they make these big "prove me wrong" bets.

busterarm 5y ago

I mean, CrowdStrike are supposedly experts and their "proof" of Russian involvement in the DNC hack was complete bullshit[1], except "trust us, guys, we promise." Their president even had to testify in Congress to that effect admitting so. If they could get away with that, might as well anyone should try to. [1]: Some spurious web request logs probing for PHP vulnerabilities leading back to Russian IPs that literally everyone also would have in their logs (as I do for every website I've operated ever).

jlmorton 5y ago
That is a tiny fraction of the stated evidence. Notably, there was specific known malware installed on DNC computers communicating with IP addresses in Russia. I don't think the evidence released is overwhelming, but it's much more than you've suggested. [1] https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democratic-national-committee/ https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/bears-midst-intrusion-democ...
- busterarm 5y ago
  Their evidence was completely inconclusive of anything and they stated so in front of Congress.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    Calvinball. That wasn't your argument; it was that the evidence was "Some spurious web request logs probing for PHP vulnerabilities leading back to Russian IPs that literally everyone also would have in their logs". Turns out, no.
dvogel 5y ago
Their evidence consisted of more than web server logs. I personally don't think their claims matched their evidence but they did provide details about the exploits found, corroborated by the FBI. The primary implant found on the DNC network had been linked by multiple other security companies to other hacks that were almost definitely carried out by Russia-affiliated hackers. These links have been well-documented and have supporting links in the Wikipedia article.
- busterarm 5y ago
  I'm much more in-the-know and connected to real world whitehats and blackhats than not just your average person but also your average infosec person. It's complete bullshit.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    You blame CrowdStrike for saying "trust us, we're experts", and then when someone argues with you, you say "trust me, I'm an expert".
    - busterarm 5y ago
      No not at all. Unlike CrowdStrike, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. You can believe me or not and I don't care. I've got my bonafides and I have no intention of doxxing myself. There's a lot of very clued in people on this board in lots of areas and nobody really owes you anything or needs to explain themselves. You can listen or not, it's up to you.
  - tptacek 5y ago
    This would be more credible if you hadn't tried to present a technical argument about Crowdstrike's analysis that was trivially refuted in a 2-line reply.
    - busterarm 5y ago
      It doesn't matter -- we're in a post truth era where political affiliation matters more than facts and every side will circle the wagons with their own. Evidence has become less credible than who is supplying it and why. Thanks though, I just won a $100 bet with the guy next to me that you'd be making a reply in this thread and here we are.

floren 5y ago

I for one would love to get my hands on whatever they offer. If it's actual packet data, that's gravy, maybe I can find something interesting. If it's /dev/random, that's also hilarious.

ggggtez 5y ago

You're missing the fact there was a $5 million bounty to disapprove the claims. Some cyber security experts were probably hoping for an easy pay day. They probably were foolish to think he'd actually pay though. Con artists never pay when they make these big "prove me wrong" bets.