Stories Claiming DNC Hack Was 'Inside Job' Rely Heavily On A Stupid Conversion Error No 'Forensic Expert' Would Make
from the don't-trust-anonymous-sources-unless-you-agree-with-them dept
While we wait for the Mueller investigation to clearly illustrate if and how Russia meddled in the last election, there's no shortage of opinions regarding how deep this particular rabbit hole goes. While it's pretty obvious that Putin used social media and media propaganda to pour some napalm on our existing bonfires of dysfunction, just how much of an impact these efforts had on the election won't be clear until a full postmortem is done. Similarly, while Russian hackers certainly had fun probing our voting systems and may have hacked both political parties, clearly proving state involvement is something else entirely.
Quite fairly, many folks have pushed for caution in terms of waiting for hard evidence to emerge, highlighting the danger in trusting leaks from an intelligence sector with a dismal track record of integrity and honesty. There's also the obvious concern of ramping up tension escalation between two nuclear powers. But last week, many of those same individuals were quick to highlight several new stories that claimed to "completely debunk" Russia's involvement in hacking the DNC ahead of last year's election. The problem? These reports were about as flimsy -- if not flimsier -- than the Russian hacking theories they supposedly supplanted.
In fact, these reports took things one step further by claiming that the hack of the DNC was something committed solely by someone within the DNC itself. This particularly overlong, meandering piece by The Nation, for example, claimed to cite numerous anonymous intelligence sources who have supposedly grown increasingly skeptical over the "Russian hacking narrative." Quite correctly, the report starts out by noting that while there's oodles and oodles of smoke regarding Putin's involvement in the election hacks, the fire (hard evidence) has been hard to come by so far:
"Lost in a year that often appeared to veer into our peculiarly American kind of hysteria is the absence of any credible evidence of what happened last year and who was responsible for it. It is tiresome to note, but none has been made available. Instead, we are urged to accept the word of institutions and senior officials with long records of deception. These officials profess “high confidence” in their “assessment” as to what happened in the spring and summer of last year—this standing as their authoritative judgment.
But it's then that's where things get a little weird. The report repeatedly proclaims that a laundry list of anonymous "forensic investigators, intelligence analysts, system designers, program architects, and computer scientists of long experience and strongly credentialed" have been hard at work "producing evidence disproving the official version of key events last year." But one of the key conclusions by these experts -- and a key cornerstone for of all of these stories -- makes absolutely no sense.
The reports lean heavily on anonymous cybersecurity experts calling themselves "Forensicator" and "Adam Carter," who purportedly took a closer look at the metadata attached to the stolen files. Said metadata, we're breathlessly informed, indisputably proves that the data had to have been transferred from inside of the DNC network and not over the internet, since the internet isn't supposedly capable of such transfer speeds:
"Forensicator’s first decisive findings, made public in the paper dated July 9, concerned the volume of the supposedly hacked material and what is called the transfer rate—the time a remote hack would require. The metadata established several facts in this regard with granular precision: On the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server. The operation took 87 seconds. This yields a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.
These statistics are matters of record and essential to disproving the hack theory. No Internet service provider, such as a hacker would have had to use in mid-2016, was capable of downloading data at this speed. Compounding this contradiction, Guccifer claimed to have run his hack from Romania, which, for numerous reasons technically called delivery overheads, would slow down the speed of a hack even further from maximum achievable speeds."
That reads like a semi-cogent paragraph, but it's largely nonsense. 22.7 megabytes per second (MB/s) sounds impossibly fast if you don't know any better. But if you do the simple conversion from megabytes per second to megabits per second necessary to determine the actual speed of the connection used, you get a fairly reasonable 180 megabits per second (Mbps). While the report proclaims that "no internet service provider" can provide such speeds, ISPs around the world routinely offer speeds far, far faster -- from 500 Mbps to even 1 Gbps.
And despite the report oddly pooh pooh'ing Romanian broadband's "delivery overheads," many Romanian cities actually have faster internet connectivity than either Russia or in the States (check out Akamai's global broadband rankings). Bernie Sanders learned this last year when he unintentionally pissed off many Romanians when trying to highlight the dismal state of U.S. connectivity. Even then, the hacker in question could have used any number of tricks to hide his or her location and real identity from a high-bandwidth vantage point, so the claim that the hacker couldn't achieve 180 Mbps through a VPN is simply nonsense.
Obviously this raises some questions about what kind of cyber-sleuths we're talking about when they can't do basic conversions or look at some fairly obvious broadband speed availability charts. And it also raises some questions about why reporters thought flimsy anonymous experts were the perfect remedy to the other flimsy anonymous leaks they hoped to debunk. While The Nation couldn't even be bothered to do the simple calculation to determine the speed of the connection used by the hacker was relatively ordinary, in a story titled "Why Some U.S. Ex-Spies Don't Buy the Russia Story," Bloomberg actually did the conversion to get the 180 Mbps speed, and still somehow told readers that such speeds were impossible:
"The VIPS theory relies on forensic findings by independent researchers who go by the pseudonyms "Forensicator" and "Adam Carter." The former found that 1,976 MB of Guccifer's files were copied from a DNC server on July 5 in just 87 seconds, implying a transfer rate of 22.6 megabytes per second -- or, converted to a measure most people use, about 180 megabits per second, a speed not commonly available from U.S. internet providers. Downloading such files this quickly over the internet, especially over a VPN (most hackers would use one), would have been all but impossible because the network infrastructure through which the traffic would have to pass would further slow the traffic."
Yes, all but impossible! Provided you ignore that DOCSIS 3.1 cable upgrades and fiber connections deliver speeds consistently faster than that all around the world every day -- including Romania. False claims and sloppy math aside, after the Bloomberg column ran, several actual, identifiable intelligence experts also came forward doubting the legitimacy of the supposed intelligence sources for these stories altogether:
Where else besides twitter can you find two former CIA officers with experience in Russia knocking down a dodgy Bloomberg column? pic.twitter.com/t9zPk7tGG9
— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) August 12, 2017
Surrounded by raised eyebrows, The Nation is now apparently reviewing its story for accuracy after numerous people highlighted that a major cornerstone of the report was little more than fluff and nonsense. Bloomberg has so far failed to follow suit.
So again, there's certainly every reason to not escalate hostility between the United States and Russia with many details still obfuscated and investigations incomplete. And there's also every reason to view reports leaning heavily on anonymous intelligence insiders skeptically after generations of distortions and falsehoods from those same agencies. That said, if you want to debunk the anonymous claims of a growing number of intelligence insiders who claim Russia played pinball with our electoral process, perhaps running into the arms of even more unreliable, anonymous intelligence sources -- without checking your math -- isn't your best path toward the truth.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Pai in the Sky
As everyone knows, "10Mbps downstream and 1Mbps upstream is all one needs."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which speeds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Which speeds
Or, gee, maybe the hackers would have transferred the files to any of the multiple Russia properties they had in the country before Obama closed them under sanctions as a response to this very same hack....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
try again
Everyone makes the dumbest errors. You cannot assign inhuman qualities to people just because the word "expert" appears next to their name. The entire premise that "because an expert said so" is bankrupt.
Same as the "no true Scotsman" malarkey.
Expert only means that human is less likely to make that mistake, not that is is impossible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: try again
The statement that such speeds are impossible is wrong, but that has nothing to do with conversion and actually works against the "conversion error" argument because it results in a smaller number.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: try again
Whatever... its okay for you to use a fallacy when it suits your needs. This problem sets the stage where each new bit of hyperbole must top the last one until they are so stratospheric that sneezing towards the south could be taken as a nod to the racist past where people automatically assume they are a racist and therefor a Nazi and shot dead on the spot just trying to get home from work with a little hay-fever!
Ya noe... kinda like what this very article is trying to explain?
"Quite fairly, many folks have pushed for caution in terms of waiting for hard evidence to emerge, highlighting the danger in trusting leaks from an intelligence sector with a dismal track record of integrity and honesty. There's also the obvious concern of ramping up tension escalation between two nuclear powers."
So chillax BITCH and stop being a butthurt hoe over it!
See what I did there?
It works entirely towards the conversation!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: try again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: try again
Not really--but OK, let's say it's needed. How did this lead to an incorrect analyis, and where's the evidence of that? The only obvious mistake would be to assume 22.7 Mbit/s was needed, but that mistake goes in the wrong direction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: try again
This means he knows nothing about networks and should be prevented from presenting himself as an expert in any related field immediately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: try again
I think it's more likely that he:
The first critical error lies in the second (or possibly second-and-a-halfth) step: either assuming that the speeds available to him are representative, or failing to check the speeds being advertised more generally, even in the USA. (Because trans-180Mbps services are certainly available, even here. Look at all those gigabit-fiber-service projects that get so much news attention, however illusionary they sometimes turn out to be; for that matter, I'm pretty sure I've seen a 300Mbps service advertised by one of the big-name providers.)
Even better would have been actually checking the speeds advertised by providers in Romania, but I'm not sure whether that would be practical for someone who doesn't know the local language, and by sheer statistical probability the "expert" in question probably didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: try again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: try again
"Same as the "no true Scotsman" malarkey."
Not at all. "Expert" is by definition a title that's earned. Scotsman is a title given to every man born in Scotland, it's not earned through action thus the fallacy.
If a person does things that mean that they have not earned the title of "expert", then they are not an expert. This is not a fallacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: try again
There was no conversion mistake - as is being suggested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For example, an organization behind one of the two major political parties in the United freaking States might perhaps splurg on top of the line internet in order to not be restricted when it comes to getting or sending important information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Strange arbitrary limitations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if you had, disproving a disproof proves less than zero.
You still need positives, kids, to support your wild claims.
But glad to see the totally unsubstantiated assertions on Trump-Russia revived! Techdirt never disappoints me. Been a while since a copyright article re-written here, so I eagerly await more "give away and pray" and "sell T-shirts".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Even if you had, disproving a disproof proves less than zero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Download vs Upload
You're right that download speeds of 180Mbps were prevalent in 2016, but this ignores the consideration that the upload could also be a bottleneck. In this case, I would have liked to see a little more detail on where the DNC servers are located because I don't know that part, or at least an admission that the lack of that information leaves open the possibility that the DNC handle their email about as well as Hilary Clinton did. If her server was on US consumer grade internet service, its intirely possible that an upload from such a server would be unlikely to transfer data at a rate of 180Mbps. That's just as relevant to debunking the "security experts" as the fact that their download speed could easily have been higher.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Download vs Upload
They won't have a residential connection and most business Internet services provide symmetric speeds.
Even Clinton's connection was almost certainly a business connection because it's not practical to run a mail server on most residential connections. If incoming and outgoing email to and from a residential connection is not blocked by the ISP,(quite likely) then most SPAM filtering dumps email from residential connections as SPAM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Download vs Upload
People who break into servers often do it via other servers they've cracked. Even the NSA were found to do this. So the copy would go from datacenter to another; the attacker can get the files through their home connection at their leisure. (It's good to work quickly—to have the transfer finished before anyone's noticed or acted on a security alert. And if in a few months they still haven't noticed, that's a good server to route other attacks through.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wasserman Hired Pakistani IT Workers
You can find the story around: Here is Fox New's report. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/25/feds-arrest-it-staffer-for-wasserman-schultz-trying-to-le ave-country.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wasserman Hired Pakistani IT Workers
1. He did not work for the DNC. He worked for the House of Representatives and/or specific Democratic members, including Debbie Wasserman Schultz. So connecting this to the DNC hack makes no sense.
2. His arrest had nothing to do with his work. He apparently lied on a loan application, and was arrested for that.
3. I can't find anything about a warrant being out for his brother.
Most of it is just a bunch of conjecture claiming these guys had been stealing computers or something, which ended up getting them fired.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wasserman Hired Pakistani IT Workers
We are going to have to wait until the trial begins and the FBI audits all the equipment and harddrives they captured for evidence. I have a feeling the whole supposed eastern country involvement is going to point at the CIA/NSA. The CIA is already on record hacking the Senates network while Diane Feinstein was head of the intelligence committee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A big database sitting on a slow consumer line.
The network is only ever as fast as it's slowest link.
This situation would have also impacted any use of that database by any actual authorized end users or applications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Primary source
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4530996/Kim-Dotcom-claims-Wikileaks-Clinton-storm.htm l
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can you prove it wasn't space aliens ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So the Russians revealed bad information and intentions of Hillary and the DNC. Maybe they shouldn't have written those communications in the first place.
Of course, they blame Snowden for revealing NSA misdeeds as well, but me, I believe he is a patriot and a hero. If Russians revealed the DNC tricks they played on their own supporters, so be it. Thanks for that Russia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can't speak to tech side
This is their excuse, and for 10 months they've stonewalled any attempt at autopsy in their dead on arrival campaign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unit of measure for "influence"??
But how does one measure the attribute of "influence?"
What is the unit of measure for "influence?"
How do you collect "influence" data, other than pre-election polls?
How do you devise formulas to predict measurements or formulate Standards?
How do you calculate "influence" values or establish Standards of "Influence?"
How do you compare measured values with calculated values of "influence" in order to make comparisons?
What would be an example of 1 unit of influence?
What would be an example of greater or lesser influence?
Where is the math?
The unit of measure for school funding is the number of students. The measured value is derived by counting the number of students. The calculated value is derived by using the census. And the money always comes up short. Maybe somebody should ask Copernicus about the school funding formula.
The same questions arise when discussing the weather. Is the measured value inconsistent with the calculated value? How do you calculate the weather? What is the formula? Is it based on a collection of measured values? What will the weather be next month? Next year? What is the Standard? What happens when the measured value does not live up to the Standard?
Is there something wrong with the formula, or is there something wrong with the measurements?
Where is the math?
To even talk about "Influence" in an election, it seems that there should at least be a "greater than" or "less than" factor, even if there are no units of measure to provide actual or calculated values? The most junkiest of junk science will at least have that. But with this election influence, I can't even find out what is greater or lesser.
Where is the math?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So now what? I should forget that the DNC hosed their own voters in rigging the primary because Russians revealed it?
Convince me that the DNC didn't act this way and I will be pissed that the Russians made up information to influence our election.
Problem is, neither Hillary or the DNC have ever tried to do that, they just focus on the messenger.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The answer is obvious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The answer is obvious
(We're talking a total batch of files at around 19Gb, of which the NGP-VAN archive's contents appear to be a subset of)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And at least where I live (considered urban) there basically aren't any non-datacenter plans faster than 100d/10u today unless your location is pretty much next to main fiber backbone downtown where all the colos are. And I'm not even clear on whether the machine in question was on-prem at a business location or in a datacenter or what.
So you could totally be right. I have no idea. All I'm saying is the reporting has been terrible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also worth noting - compression and resumption
Note also that common tools like rsync incorporate the concept of incremental transfers: it's possible -- with the right rsync options -- to run a partial transfer, stop it, then start another one that picks up where the first one left off.
If I were trying to exfiltrate a significant corpus of email data, then I'd use both these. The first to optimize use of the available bandwidth, the second to avoid having to start completely over if the connection dropped. This is definitely NOT esoteric stuff: any competent Linux/Unix admin uses it without even thinking about it.
Bottom line: the "forensic experts" behind this nonsense lack basic sysadmin skills. Ignore them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Also worth noting - compression and resumption
The transfer rate is known, so there is only one question: was that transfer rate feasible over the pipes that the DNC used? Yes or no?
No Google fiber in DC, btw.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Also worth noting - compression and resumption
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Also worth noting - compression and resumption
http://theforensicator.wordpress.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Picking apart what they say makes you some kind of "-ist" I think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid Conversion Error
> "22.7 megabytes per second (MB/s) sounds impossibly fast if you don't know any better."
No, it sounds slower - if you don't know any better. 22.7M is smaller than 180M, right?
So the headline for your story is exactly opposite what you claim.
Note: I don't dispute any of the other points you make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hocus Pocus Alakazam
This particularly overlong, meandering piece by The Nation, for example, claimed to cite numerous anonymous intelligence sources who have supposedly grown increasingly skeptical over the "Russian hacking narrative."
The only anonymous source was the Forensicator. The other persons involved are from a group by name of VIPS (ie Veteran Inteligence Professionals For Sanity).
These are a few of persons involved with VIPS they are not anonymous:
William Binney, former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder of NSA’s Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center
Skip Folden, independent analyst, retired IBM Program Manager for Information Technology US (Associate VIPS)
Edward Loomis, Jr., former NSA Technical Director for the Office of Signals Processing
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Kirk Wiebe, former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA
So again, there's certainly every reason to not escalate hostility between the United States and Russia with many details still obfuscated and investigations incomplete.
There have been no forensic investigations of DNC's servers by the US government. FBI has deferred to a group by name of Cloudstrike to examine the servers. Cloudstrike was hired by DNC and it's co-founder Dimiti Alperovitch has ties to the Ukrainian government and is vehemently anti-Russian (conflict of interest?)
Italicized/bold text below was excerpted from the website www.consortiumnews.com a report titled:
Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence
Full Disclosure: Over recent decades the ethos of our intelligence profession has eroded in the public mind to the point that agenda-free analysis is deemed well nigh impossible. Thus, we add this disclaimer, which applies to everything we in VIPS say and do: We have no political agenda; our sole purpose is to spread truth around and, when necessary, hold to account our former intelligence colleague
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/
Italicize d/bold text below was excerpted from the website www.zerohedge.com a report titled:
What Is CrowdStrike? Firm Hired By DNC Has Ties To Hillary Clinton, A Ukrainian Billionaire, And Google
Recall that the FBI was denied access to the DNC servers by the DNC itself, and simply agreed to rely on the results provided by CrowdStrike, which as you can see has ties to all sorts of anti-Russia organizations and individuals. I find it absolutely remarkable that James Comey head of the FBI outsourced his job to CrowdStrike.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-24/what-crowdstrike-firm-hired-dnc-has-ties-hilla ry-clinton-ukrainian-billionaire-and-g
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Forensicator
The Need for Speed
Some reviewers have questioned the following conclusion in the Guccifer 2.0 NGP/VAN Metadata Analysis study.
Conclusion 7. A transfer rate of 23 MB/s is estimated for this initial file collection operation. This transfer rate can be achieved when files are copied over a LAN, but this rate is too fast to support the hypothesis that the DNC data was initially copied over the Internet (esp. to Romania).
Below, performance data is tabulated that demonstrate that transfer rates of 23 MB/s (Mega Bytes per second) are not just highly unlikely, but effectively impossible to accomplish when communicating over the Internet at any significant distance. Further, local copy speeds are measured, demonstrating that 23 MB/s is a typical transfer rate when writing a USB-2 flash device (thumb drive).
Below, are some representative discussions on the subject of the 23 MB/s rate cited in the study.
As we can see above, there was some confusion regarding the MB/s notation used in the analysis. The analysis uses MB/s as a short form of “Mega Bytes per second” as detailed in MB: Mega Bytes or Mega Bits? There is also some confused thinking that very fast local Internet transfer speeds in Romania will somehow make up for the very slow rates seen when traveling across Europe and then going trans Atlantic to Washington, DC. To further complicate matters, various independent experts have asserted that Guccifer 2 used a Russian-based VPN service (through an end point in France) to communicate with various people.
In practice, actual transmission rates will fall well below the theoretical rates, because packets transmitted over the Internet have to transit many switches and must share bandwidth with other users. Further, copying multiple small files will increase the need for “hand-shaking” messages which further decreases the effective transmission speed. The only way to find the actual speeds that can be achieved is to run tests. The typical ISP provided “speed test” will show optimistic speeds, but they’re a start. The following graphic shows the result of a cable provider’s speed test.
Link to full report:
https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/2017/08/01/the-need-for-speed/#more-342
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This article is not correct
His point is not that you can't find high speed Internet. Indeed, 17 percent of the US population have access to Gigabit Ethernet to the home and business. Other countries, as noted including Romania, have higher speeds available. And you can also use 802.11n wireless to get the reported speeds.
His point is that the speed cited - 23-28Mbps - is consistent with USB 2.0 flash drive speeds. And the date/time stamps, although capable of being modified, pretty well establish for logical reasons that the files were downloaded on the East Coast.
What that does is make the Guccifer 2.0 narrative of hacking across the Atlantic from Romania come under serious question.
You really need to read all The Forensicator's articles and updates to get the full picture. Don't rely on The Nation article alone.
Guccifer 2.0 NGP/VAN Metadata Analysis
https://theforensicator.wordpress.com/guccifer-2-ngp-van-metadata-analysis/
You also need to read over the extensive analysis of the alleged "Guccifer 2.0" entity at Adam Carter's blog:
Guccifer 2.0: Game Over
http://g-2.space/
The evidence does not prove that a DNC hack did not take place. It has, however, good circumstantial evidence that the story peddled by CrowdStrike/threatConnect/the government and Guccifer 2.0 is simply wrong.
And that doesn't even address Sy Hersh's revelation that the FBI has a report that explicitly states that Seth Rich was in contact with Wikileaks and offered them DNC documents in exchange for money, and that Wikileaks had access to Rich's DropBox account. We will know more once Hersh finishes his "long form journalism" piece on the entire event. Hersh explicitly said that the entire Russiagate/DNC hack story was a disinformation campaign run by John Brennan at CIA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This story is an inside job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rebuttal
http://g-2.space/distortions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here are many points from this article debunked by Adam Carter: http://g-2.space/techdirt/
Also title of this article is completely wrong. There was no "Conversation error"
22.7 megabytes per second (MB/s) sounds impossibly fast if you don't know any better. But if you do the simple conversion from megabytes per second to megabits per second necessary to determine the actual speed of the connection used, you get a fairly reasonable 180 megabits per second (Mbps).
Bloomberg actually did the conversion to get the 180 Mbps speed, and still somehow told readers that such speeds were impossible.
This is pure nonsense. MB/s and Mbps are both the actual speed
And all this transfer speed is only part of Forensicators argument. Second part is timestamps in 2 seconds intervals that prove that files were copied to FAT 32 media, which is most likely USB storage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Popular ISP Hacking Guide
Nowadays it is very popular in 2018. I have also interested it. Many people don't know how its work. People are surprised to know that using free internet at any cost. I make a tutorial about basic knowledge on Hacking ISP. In Future, I will write down my personal blog about it. You can visit and gather knowledge about it. My first article is Basic Knowledge About Hacking ISP For Unlimited Internet. A few days later I will write down about the different type of ISP Hacking on it. In my 1st article, I published about basic things. If you are interested in it than, you can follow my blog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ISPs routinely offer speeds far, far faster --
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is no way you would be able to transfer at advertised speeds. A hacker who is using multiple VPN's, proxies etc would have major latency issues affecting speed. Also you have to factor in the upload speed of the DNC's internet server. Lastly the average transfer speed of a USB external hard drive is 20 Megabytes per second, almost the same speed as reported.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just look at the 2016 data for internet speeds...
Lets even move forward to Q1 of 2017 and look at world wide speeds-
'In Q1 of 2017:, South Korean internet speeds are again significantly faster than the rest of the world. This is despite a small YoY speed decrease of -1.7%.
Average South Korean internet speeds of 28.6Mbps, exceed that of 2nd place Norway by 5.1Mbps' (FastMetrics, 2017).
FastMetrics (2017). Retrieved from https://www.fastmetrics.com/internet-connection-speed-by-country.php#top-10-worldwide
United States Speed Test Market Report (2016). Speedtest.net retrieved from http://www.speedtest.net/reports/united-states/2016/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Possible Explanations
There are many reasons that 22.7 megabytes/second could be unobtainable for this server.
Firstly, the server may have not been public facing, meaning a hacker would have to compromise the machine on the edge of the network and use it to communicate with the server. If this communication takes place over a 100 megabit switch or lower then the download couldn't reach 180 Mbps.
Secondly, the specific ISP for their connection might not have had 180 Mbps capability, but this is unlikely.
Thirdly, the router that traffic passes through at the DNC could have not supported over 100 Mbps, which is very likely.
They would need to provide more info on what their topography is like to come to a solid conclusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Possible Explanations
Why refer to 'the server'? That sounds singular.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tardy to the party
this got linked in a recent piece on the intercept so i just saw it.
tl;dr - you're talking about download speeds. the files were uploaded. it was also close to 2gb and a file or set of files that size would move slower (especially a large set of small files as anyone moving a ton of jpgs or pngs knows). so even assuming peak upload speeds from the DC area in 2016 (and having worked in IT in dc for years i can tell you things aren't always set up optimally) that still stretches your theory quite a bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]