Company That 'Proved' Russia Hacked The DNC Was Wrong

DNC Hackers

Crowdstrike is the IT company the DNC hired to investigate the hacking of their computer network. Crowdstrike was brought in because the DNC refused to give the FBI access to their computers

Crowdstrike attributed the DNC hack to Russia simply because of the tools the hackers used, nothing else. But investigators have found those same 'Russian hacking tools' are available from a variety of sources. 

This discovery nullifies significant portions of Crowdstrike's initial report. So there is absolutely no proof Russians hacked the DNC after all. 

And now Crowdstrike is refusing to cooperate with the congressional investigation that was created, in part, because of Crowdstrike's assertions.     

Commenters all over the web are discussing Russian hacking, Crowdstrike and the Intelligence Community's inexplicable behavior. Some examples are below...


Read the article explaining exactly how Crowdstrike was proven wrong.

Here's the conclusion of the report:

"Part of the evidence supporting Russian government involvement in the DNC and related hacks (including the German Bundestag and France’s TV5 Monde) stemmed from the assumption that X-Agent malware was exclusively developed and used by Fancy Bear. We now know that’s false, and that the source code has been obtained by others outside of Russia."


William Bayer's comment at VOA News:

The final two paragraphs say it all. The alleged digital "evidence" that Russia did the hacking is highly questionable.

And our "intelligence community" has known ALL ALONG that it's not only possible to plant fake evidence --- that is, leave a fake digital "fingerprint" --- implicating some other party as having conducted a hack.

But that our own CIA designed, constructed, and possesses a hacking tool which does exactly THAT --- commit a hack while simultaneously planting a fake digital "fingerprint" implicating some other party as having conducted the hack.

I find it disturbing that our intelligence community would go to the trouble it went to, in stating that it had digital "evidence" that Russians hacked the DNC, while WITHHOLDING information concerning how dubious its reliance upon digital "evidence" really is.

And I find it especially disturbing in the context of the FBI never having had access to the allegedly-hacked devices in order to conduct a proper forensic analysis.

Instead it relied upon the alleged forensic analysis of CrowdStrike --- a firm hired by the DNC --- a firm hired by the ALLEGED victim of the hack.

This is the FIRST time I've ever heard of a national security investigation (or any type of criminal investigation) allowing the alleged victim to control the evidence.

Under the law, the government is REQUIRED to control the evidence. What kind of legal system allows an alleged victim to control the evidence?

Answer: A thoroughly corrupt legal system.
.
.
This comment was left by William Bayer at VOANews.com - No commenter link for William was available.
.
Read the article at VOA News http://www.voanews.com/a/crowdstrike-comey-russia-hack-dnc-clinton-trump/3776067.html 


Stinkytofu's comment at Zero Hedge:

"Nobody "hacked" anything!"

You are incorrect. Everything was "hacked". But what about the rest of the story? 

1. The materials given to Wikileaks were not hacked. They were leaked. An inside job. But that says nothing about whether the systems were hacked. 

2. Yes, Virginia, they were hacked. Absolutely, guaranteed. And by multiple entities. The intel services (China, Russia, Israel, Germany, Bolivia, USA...) all hacked into the servers for Podesta, the DNC, RNC and Hillary. That's what they do, it's their job. But they don't leave traces....unless they want to...or are extremely amateurish. 

3. I can confirm that Russia (and China and France and USA, etc) DID "hack" into all those servers. But they did NOT leak the info. Their job is to collect intel for strategic planning.

Consider they had access to ALL info crossing Hillary's multiple servers for years, but nothing was leaked. No way would they sacrifice short-term gains for long-term access.

Nope, they may have preferred Trump, but in no way feared a Clinton presidency. Not with terabytes of juicy blackmail material.....AND ongoing access to the servers.
.
.

This comment was left by Stinkytofu at ZeroHedge.com - No commenter link for Stinkytofu was available.
.
Read the ZeroHedge article http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-28/something-stinks-here-crowdstrike-revises-retracts-parts-explosive-russian-hacking-r


Al Beback's comment at VOA News:

It's disheartening to see so many people leave their critical thinking skills at the door over this total Russia fabrication. Even this piece assumes facts not in evidence, such as; "the firm was the first to link last year’s hacks of Democratic Party computers to Russian actors..."

In contrast, Wikileaks has publicly stated the information was obtained from a DNC insider.

As an IT cyber security professional, as opposed to 'expert', I can tell you that such attribution is, prima facia, not only not possible, but if asserted with certainty, then the certainty is a lie.

Ergo, the entire Crowdstrike "finding" is a lie, motivated by political agendas.

If you swallow such lies and then promulgate them, absent factual determinations, then you severely compromise your own credibility.

It is high time that the intelligence community and "press" stop acting like a gang of fifth graders and begin the difficult process of due diligence to report the facts without such patently obvious political favoritism. Or they'll become even less relevant to the discussion.
.
.
This comment was left by Al Beback at VOANews.com - No commenter link for Al was available.
.
Read the article at VOA News http://www.voanews.com/a/crowdstrike-comey-russia-hack-dnc-clinton-trump/3776067.html  

 




Comment Category Tags