• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: Breaking: Mueller Grand Jury charges filed, arrests as soon as Monday pt 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stacyhs said:
The DNC should be ashamed of themselves for allowing themselves to be hacked. They had bad defenses, and they were able to be hacked. I heard they were trying to hack the Republicans, too. But, and this may be wrong, but they had much stronger defenses.
I heard that they were trying, or people were trying, to hack into the RNC, too. The Republican National Committee. But we had much better defenses. I've been told that by a number of people. We had much better defenses, so they couldn't.
Click to expand...
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/15/trump-russia-hack-democrats-dnc-722228

I bet Trump blames girls for being raped because they were wearing short skirts and walking in a bad neighborhood. What a putz.
Click to expand...


I don't think he should be so confident that the RNC wasn't hacked. All that can be known for certain is that nothing was released to show that. But the people who hacked the DNC wouldn't have had any reason to try and torpedo the RNC. That isn't who they were trying to screw over. They could have plenty of stuff from the RNC and just haven't brought it out.

And it isn't like the RNC would step forward and admit they were hacked, even if they knew. It wouldn't fit their narrative.
 
quadraginta said:
I don't think he should be so confident that the RNC wasn't hacked. All that can be known for certain is that nothing was released to show that. But the people who hacked the DNC wouldn't have had any reason to try and torpedo the RNC. That isn't who they were trying to screw over. They could have plenty of stuff from the RNC and just haven't brought it out.

And it isn't like the RNC would step forward and admit they were hacked, even if they knew. It wouldn't fit their narrative.
Click to expand...
Hacked is such a strong word. With spearfishing the target willingly gives up their information by being duped in some form. It's tough to figure out if someone gains access. You can have the best net security in the world, but if someone gives out a direct path through that security it doesn't much matter.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
 
quadraginta said:
I don't think he should be so confident that the RNC wasn't hacked. All that can be known for certain is that nothing was released to show that. But the people who hacked the DNC wouldn't have had any reason to try and torpedo the RNC. That isn't who they were trying to screw over. They could have plenty of stuff from the RNC and just haven't brought it out.

And it isn't like the RNC would step forward and admit they were hacked, even if they knew. It wouldn't fit their narrative.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. There is no way to know if the RNC wasn't hacked. But we should all take great comfort in knowing that they probably weren't because Trump was "told that by a number of people" that they weren't. I wonder if these were the same (unidentified) "people" who also tell him lots of other (unsubstantiated and often made up) things.
 
plague311 said:
Hacked is such a strong word. With spearfishing the target willingly gives up their information by being duped in some form. It's tough to figure out if someone gains access. You can have the best net security in the world, but if someone gives out a direct path through that security it doesn't much matter.
Click to expand...

I remember a sign on the wall at work:

"Amateurs hack systems. Professionals hack people."
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
Hacked is such a strong word. With spearfishing the target willingly gives up their information by being duped in some form. It's tough to figure out if someone gains access. You can have the best net security in the world, but if someone gives out a direct path through that security it doesn't much matter.

<Snip Tapatalk sig>
Click to expand...


I fully understand that, and I don't disagree, but quibbling about the precision of computer jargon misses the point. In this usage the meaning is clear. Unauthorized access is obtained.

I'm more than willing to exercise precision where it avoids confusion, but in this case it doesn't do that. (I'm still miffed that "hacker" has been co-opted into a term for computer bad guy, so let's not get too deep into that. :))

My point is that we don't really know that illicit access to the RNC systems was not obtained ... whichever words you prefer to describe that access.

Do you disagree with that?
 
Stacyhs said:
I absolutely agree. There is no way to know if the RNC wasn't hacked. But we should all take great comfort in knowing that they probably weren't because Trump was "told that by a number of people" that they weren't. I wonder if these were the same (unidentified) "people" who also tell him lots of other (unsubstantiated and often made up) things.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Trump knows that the RNC was hacked, that Putin told him as much. This is why Trump is very confident that the Republicans will protect him.
 
quadraginta said:
I fully understand that, and I don't disagree, but quibbling about the precision of computer jargon misses the point. In this usage the meaning is clear. Unauthorized access is obtained.

I'm more than willing to exercise precision where it avoids confusion, but in this case it doesn't do that. (I'm still miffed that "hacker" has been co-opted into a term for computer bad guy, so let's not get too deep into that. :))

My point is that we don't really know that illicit access to the RNC systems was not obtained ... whichever words you prefer to describe that access.

Do you disagree with that?
Click to expand...
My comment was more to say that this wasn't a hack, so they wouldn't even know if they had been compromised. Someone earlier complimented the RNC's net security, but in this case it wouldn't have even mattered. There is no security against people, like Miller said.



Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
 
Fudbucker said:
It's possible there's a teacup orbitting Jupiter. Obviously my point was I think there's no other plausible reason for why Rosenstein said what he said except that high-level people are going to be indicted.
Click to expand...

I understand that. And my point is that you're wrong. There's a very plausible alternative.

"High-level" would refer to any officials currently serving in high office and/or members of the Trump family (a non-exhaustive list: cabinet members, Trump, senators, congressmen, governors). Any indictment that comes out of the Mueller investigation would suffice. It could be money laundering, lying to the feds, conspiracy, etc.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not taking that bet. There's a very high probability that Mueller will hit someone with a bull **** process charge, like what his pall Comey did to Martha Stewart, with no actual underlying crime. That won't impress me.
 
Ziggurat said:
....
Yeah, I'm not taking that bet. There's a very high probability that Mueller will hit someone with a bull **** process charge, like what his pall Comey did to Martha Stewart, with no actual underlying crime. That won't impress me.
Click to expand...

Stewart's underlying crime was insider trading. The feds might -- or might not -- have been able to prove it to a jury. She went to jail for lying about it. If you think lying to the FBI is just a "process" charge, you have a peculiar view of how the law works.
 
Ziggurat said:
Because it has never actually been about Russia, it has always been about getting Trump.
Click to expand...
You need to add IMO to the end of that.

As far as I am aware, it has been established that there was in fact Russian meddling going on with the election. I would have thought it would be high priority that any conclusion by any American politician should be investigated and uncovered.

And I would think that Republicans especially would want to know if their top man (Trump) was involved with ball cupping the Russians in anyway - since they are the only true patriots an all.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Because it has never actually been about Russia, it has always been about getting Trump.
Click to expand...


If Trump is President because V. Putin wanted him to be, and Trump officials -- including Jr. -- worked with him to that end, maybe Trump richly deserves to be "gotten."
 
plague311 said:
My comment was more to say that this wasn't a hack, so they wouldn't even know if they had been compromised. Someone earlier complimented the RNC's net security, but in this case it wouldn't have even mattered. There is no security against people, like Miller said.


<snip tapatalk sig>
Click to expand...


And after spearfishing exploits gained access to the DNC and DCCC computers, that access was used to install malware.

So, hacked. At that point the means of ingress became moot.

They detected that the malware was installed. They did know that they had been compromised. It's just that the horse was already out of the barn.

If they had been doing regular, strict monitoring of the systems they probably would have known earlier. They wouldn't have needed wikileaks to tell them.

Do we know if the RNC has had their systems checked by professionals, or what the results were? No. And I doubt we will, unless there is the same sort of involuntary public exposure that the attacks on the DNC systems got.

They aren't going to go to the media and say, "Hey. We got caught the same way." It wouldn't fit in with their talking points.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom