Jump to content

Helsinki Summit


Recommended Posts

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

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

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

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 by 26CornerBlitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

5 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Redundancy is built into these database systems to guard against data compromise and/or corruption. 

 

Then why are you worried that the image could be compromised?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Like that would prevent them. :lol:

 

That's what makes them the wacko fringe.

 

Keeps them from getting as much traction as they otherwise would, though.  Conspiracy theories start with crazy, but they feed on ambiguity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The alternative though is feeding them. Which the FBI did by not doing their own due diligence. Isn't it? 

 

AFAIK the FBI was satisfied with everything that was provided to them for them to conduct an examination which seems pretty comprehensive in light of the 12 indictments this past Friday. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

AFAIK the FBI was satisfied with everything that was provided to them for them to conduct an examination which seems pretty comprehensive in light of the 12 indictments this past Friday. 

 

And they didn't have the server in their possession, and the OIG's released a report finding significant deficiencies in the FBI's investigative practices.  

 

But I'm sure it's all just peachy.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

The crackpot AKA joecrappack chimes in with nonsense.

 

Joe, before you respond to this, remember three words:

 

Finger painting horse.

 

Aspire to that.  Now you may reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

The crackpot AKA joecrappack chimes in with nonsense.

 

Tell us bot, was the image taken of the server before or after it was tampered with by the DNC?

 

Can you answer that question? Can anyone?

 

No. So you're operating on FAITH then. News flash: faith and 50 cents won't buy you a cup of coffee.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, joesixpack said:

 

Tell us bot, was the image taken of the server before or after it was tampered with by the DNC?

 

Can you answer that question? Can anyone?

 

No. So you're operating on FAITH then. News flash: faith and 50 cents won't buy you a cup of coffee.

 

 

Goddammit, I meant "aspire to quip as deftly as 'finger painting horse.'"  Not "aspire to be the finger painting horse."  You idiot.  :wallbash:

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, joesixpack said:

 

Tell us bot, was the image taken of the server before or after it was tampered with by the DNC?

 

Can you answer that question? Can anyone?

 

No. So you're operating on FAITH then. News flash: faith and 50 cents won't buy you a cup of coffee.

 

 

Right on cue again with the wacko fringe element coo coo for cocoa puffs thinking.  12 indictments B word!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

Goddammit, I meant "aspire to quip as deftly as 'finger painting horse.'"  Not "aspire to be the finger painting horse."  You idiot.  :wallbash:

 

I replied before your reply.

 

I am, however, genuinely interested in seeing his pithy response to THAT simple question. Apparently he knows little to nothing about server management.

 

Just now, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Right on cue again with the wacko fringe element coo coo for cocoa puffs thinking.  12 indictments B word!

 

And there it is.

 

In a world where horses fingerpaint, the bot isn't even able to open his cannister of paste his mother packed him for lunch.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

I replied before your reply.

 

I am, however, genuinely interested in seeing his pithy response to THAT simple question. Apparently he knows little to nothing about server management.

 

 

And there it is.

 

In a world where horses fingerpaint, the bot isn't even able to open his cannister of paste his mother packed him for lunch.

 

You think your stupid assed question that you don't know the answer to means anything regarding my credentials. It just shows further evidence you're a whacko who poses dumb gotcha questions that don't mean anything. 

Edited by 26CornerBlitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

I replied before your reply.

 

I am, however, genuinely interested in seeing his pithy response to THAT simple question. Apparently he knows little to nothing about server management.

 

 

Not for nothin', but I'd like to manage a few servers from Hooters.

  • Haha (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

the IC =/= your country.

 

 

We all saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears the President of the United States say that the intelligence service of his own country is not to be believed over a murdering dictator.  If you prefer to stand with Putin vs. our people feel free.  Ironically living in a great country like ours vs. what Putin runs gives you that right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...