26CornerBlitz Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Would you though, wait ten days before alerting the FBI to the breach - and only inform them after you've dismantled the server, scrapped it for parts, and (allegedly) used those parts in several other servers as CrowdStrike did? Or would you want to wait for the authorities first? The question for me is about the integrity of the image that the FBI examined and not the physical server itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 26 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said: Because an image of the server was provided to the FBI. Don't be an idiot! I thought you were being funny, hence my laugh like. You were SERIOUS!? That is even funnier. And sad. Very, very, very sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 17, 2018 Author Share Posted July 17, 2018 1 minute ago, 26CornerBlitz said: The question for me is about the integrity of the image that the FBI examined and not the physical server itself. That, then, is really a question about the integrity of the company which provided the image then, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Wyatt Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 1 minute ago, 26CornerBlitz said: The question for me is about the integrity of the image that the FBI examined and not the physical server itself. Wouldnt you then need to see the actual server if you thought the image was compromised? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: I thought you were being funny, hence my laugh like. You were SERIOUS!? That is even funnier. And sad. Very, very, very sad. What do you know about digital images with respect to Information Security? If you aren't in the field the fact that you make any commentary at all here is what is sad. 3 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said: Wouldnt you then need to see the actual server if you thought the image was compromised? Not really. That's why companies and governments have plans for disaster recovery and continuity of operations. Edited July 17, 2018 by 26CornerBlitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said: What do you know about digital images with respect to Information Security? If you aren't in the field the fact that you make any commentary at all here is what is sad. Given this statement, your analysis of global steel markets is hilarious, given what each of us do for a living. Or does this standard only apply to others? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Wyatt Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 4 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said: What do you know about digital images with respect to Information Security? If you aren't in the field the fact that you make any commentary at all here is what is sad. Not really. That's why companies and governments have plans for disaster recovery and continuity of operations. So if you thought the image was compromised, and you dont need to see the actual server to determine that, how would you find out if it was? Honest question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said: What do you know about digital images with respect to Information Security? If you aren't in the field the fact that you make any commentary at all here is what is sad. In another life, I knew quite a bit. Let me put it to you this way, NOT being allowed to physically examine it is extraordinarily suspicious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 Just now, Bray Wyatt said: So if you thought the image was compromised, and you dont need to see the actual server to determine that, how would you find out if it was? Honest question Redundancy is built into these database systems to guard against data compromise and/or corruption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 Moving the topic away from the chief executive of our country saying in full view of the world that he does not accept the findings of his own intelligence team vs. a murderous dictator is disingenuous at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: In another life, I knew quite a bit. Let me put it to you this way, NOT being allowed to physically examine it is extraordinarily suspicious. It isn't at all from a data POV with an image exactly the same as an original. It's suspicious for the wacko fringe crowd of course subject to conspiracy theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 18 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said: Your point makes no sense as the contents of a physical server itself can be manipulated. IMO it's better to lock down and preserve an original and instead provide an exact digital copy for an examination. As a CISSP, that's exactly what I would do. Because you're thinking in technical terms of data integrity. It's a procedural requirement for maintaining the chain of evidence: you need the original in your possession, in essence to demonstrate the copies you work with are faithful. It's not a technical requirement. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 17, 2018 Author Share Posted July 17, 2018 Just now, 26CornerBlitz said: Redundancy is built into these database systems to guard against data compromise and/or corruption. Again, doesn't the trustworthiness of that information entirely depend upon who is running those systems and providing the images to the FBI? In this case, CrowdStrike - a private contractor with heavy ties to both the FBI and DNC. Considering the partisan nature of this investigation and scandal, wouldn't it be in everyone's benefit for the FBI to have insisted they do their own analysis - if only so they could tell the American people in their report to trust the FBI, rather than an unknown private entity like CrowdStrike? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Gal Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 Just now, 26CornerBlitz said: It isn't at all from a data POV with an image exactly the same as an original. It's suspicious for the wacko fringe crowd of course subject to conspiracy theories. SMH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 Just now, 26CornerBlitz said: It isn't at all from a data POV with an image exactly the same as an original. It's suspicious for the wacko fringe crowd of course subject to conspiracy theories. THIS IS WHY you need the original. To prevent wacko fringe crowd conspiracy theories. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: Moving the topic away from the chief executive of our country saying in full view of the world that he does not accept the findings of his own intelligence team vs. a murderous dictator is disingenuous at best. Stick a sock in your piehole old man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 Just now, Buffalo_Gal said: SMH Same here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 44 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Really? That's...stupid. What about the heroism of Russia in 2003 opposing the invasion of Iraq, and in 2007 when they invaded Georgia but were evil and Bush didn't do anything but levy sanctions...then in 2008, US-Russia relations were at a crisis because of Bush's antagonistic policies, leading to a "reset" button and the lifting of Bush's Georgia sanctions. Then the dismissal of Romney's 2012 observation that Russia was are greatest geopolitical foe, and Obama having "more flexibility after the elections" to treat with Putin. Then 2013, the "red line" fiasco leads to the virtual abandonment of Middle Eastern policy to Russian interests. Only after that, with the annexation of the Crimea and invasion of Eastern Ukraine does Russia suddenly become a "foe" again, leading to even stronger sanctions. And now, with Trump arming Ukraine, implementing even greater sanctions, expelling Russian diplomats, and bombing Russians in Syria...he's "weak" dealing with our "enemy." That's a much better string of examples of Democratic hypocrisy. And it's not even remotely a complete set of examples. Fifteen years of blatant foreign policy inconsistency for no other reason than to chase a domestic principle of "Everything a Republican ever does is wrong." I have no doubt that, if Trump broke off relations with Russia, the Democrats would rail against it for no reason other than to be anti-Trump. So you'll pardon me if I stopped taking them seriously. But my Facebook feed — littered today with “Impeach” messages and posts showing the definition of the word “traitor” — doesn’t mention any of that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 Just now, DC Tom said: THIS IS WHY you need the original. To prevent wacko fringe crowd conspiracy theories. Like that would prevent them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 17, 2018 Author Share Posted July 17, 2018 Just now, 26CornerBlitz said: Like that would prevent them. The alternative though is feeding them. Which the FBI did by not doing their own due diligence. Isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts