According to the WaPo<\/a> (using CrowdStrike, DOJ, and their other usual hush-hush government sources in the know), the attack was perpetrated by a Russian unit lead by Lieutenant Captain Nikolay Kozachek<\/a> who allegedly crafted a malware called X-Agent and used it to get into the network and install keystroke loggers on several PCs. This allowed them to see what the employees were typing and take screenshots of the employees\u2019 computer.<\/p>\n This is pretty detailed information, but if this was the case, then how did the DOJ learn all of these \u2018details\u2019 and use them in the indictments<\/a> without the FBI ever forensically evaluating the DNC\/HRC computers? And since when does the DOJ, an organization that only speaks the language of indictments use hearsay and 3rd parties like the British national Matt Tait<\/a> (a former GCHQ<\/a> collector and a connoisseur of all things related to Russian collusion), CrowdStrike, or any other evidence lacking chain of custody certification as a primary source for prosecution?<\/p>\n The second point by Apelbaum was this-<\/p>\n \u2026 that three of the Russian GRU officers on the DOJ wanted list were allegedly working concurrently on multiple non-related projects like interfering with the 2016 United States elections<\/a> (both HRC and DNC) while at the same time they were also allegedly hacking anti-doping agencies<\/a> (Images 2-3).<\/p>\n\n Above are pictures of the individuals the FBI says were working on both the DNC\/HRC email hacking and the Olympic doping projects. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n The same guys were working on both projects which is all but impossible. (Do we really know if they\u2019re even Russians?)<\/strong><\/p>\n Apelbaum argues<\/a> \u2013<\/p>\n The fact that the three had multiple concurrent high impact and high visibility project assignments is odd because this is not how typical offensive cyber intelligence teams operate. These units tend to be compartmentalized, they are assigned to a specific mission, and the taskforce stays together for the entire duration of the project.<\/p>\n Next Apelbaum questioned the Mueller gang\u2019s assertion that the \u2018hacker\u2019 named Guccifer 2.0 was a Russian \u2013<\/p>\n Any evidence that Guccifer 2.0 is Russian should be evaluated while keeping these points in mind:<\/p>\n He used a Russian VPN service<\/a> to cloak his IP address, but did not use TOR<\/a>. Using a proxy to conduct cyber operations is a SOP [Standard Operating Procedure] in all intelligence and LEA [Law Enforcement Agency] agencies. [i.e. Russia would have masked their VPN service]<\/p>\n He used the AOL email service that captured and forwarded his IP address and the same AOL email to contact various media outlets on the same day of the attack. This is so overt and amateurish that its unlikely to be a mistake and seems like a deliberate attempt to leave traceable breadcrumbs.<\/p>\n He named his Office User account \u0424\u0435\u043b\u0438\u043a\u0441 \u042d\u0434\u043c\u0443\u043d\u0434\u043e\u0432\u0438\u0447 (Felix Dzerzhinsky<\/a>), after the founder of the Soviet Secret Police. Devices and accounts used in offensive cyberspace operations use random names<\/em> to prevent tractability and identification. Why would anyone in the GRU use this pseudonym (beside the obvious reason) is beyond comprehension.<\/p>\n He copied the original Trump opposition research document<\/a> and pasted it into a new .dotm<\/a> template (with an editing time of about 2 minutes). This resulted in a change of the \u201cLast Modified by\u201d field from \u201cWarren Flood\u201d to \u201c\u0424\u0435\u043b\u0438\u043a\u0441 \u042d\u0434\u043c\u0443\u043d\u0434\u043e\u0432\u0438\u0447\u201d and the creation of additional Russian metadata in the document. Why waste the time and effort doing this?<\/p>\n About 4 hours after creating the \u2018Russian\u2019 version of the document, he exported it to a PDF using LibreOffice 4.2<\/a> (in the process he lost\/removed about 20 of the original pages). This was most likely done to show additional \u2018Russian fingerprints\u2019 in the form of broken hyperlink error messages in Russian (Images 4 and 5). Why bother with re-formatting and converting the source documents? Why not just get the raw data out in the original format ASAP?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Apelbaum next discusses Guccifer 2.0 \u2013<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n In June 21, 2016, Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai from Vice Motherboard interviewed<\/a> a person who identified himself as \u201cGuccifer 2.0\u201d. During their on-line chat session, the individual claimed that he was Romanian (see transcript of the interview below). His poor Romanian language skills were later used to unmask his Russian identify.<\/p>\n \u2026I\u2019m not a scientific linguist nor do I even know where to find one if my life depended on it, but I\u2019m certain that you can\u2019t reliably determine nationality based on someone impersonating another language or from the use of fake metadata in files. This elaborate theory also has the obvious flaw of assuming that the Russian intelligence services are dumb enough to show up to an interview posing as Romanians without actually being able to read and write flaunt Romanian.<\/p>\n After providing a couple more examples of why the Russian story doesn\u2019t stick, Apelbaum closes with this \u2013<\/p>\n The bottom line is that if we want to go beyond the speculative trivia, the pseudo science, and the bombastic unverified claims, we have to ask the real tough questions, mainly: is Guccifer 2.0 even the real attacker and how did he circumvent all of the logs during several weeks of repeated visits while downloading close to 2 GB of data?<\/p>\n Esteemed NSA whistleblower Bill Binney<\/a> reported in June 2019 that there was no way Russians hacked the DNC based on the speed of the transfer of the data that was hacked. But according to Apelbaum the transfer speeds is a minor issue here. It\u2019s just an indicator that it would have been difficult for Guccifer 2 who was sitting in Romania to access the DNC system remotely.<\/p>\n Per an illustration from Apelbaum, Guccifer 2 is depicted as the red devil icon below:<\/p>\n\n This illustration shows the Crowdstrike was obviously false in its claims that Russia hacked the DNC. <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n This is because:<\/p>\n 1. If Guccifer 2 did it from Romania (the red devil icon on the left of the illustration), he needed a 23 Mbit\/s transfer rate. At the time of this hack in 2016, Romania was only supporting 16Mbit\/s speeds. But to do that he had to go through all of the red hell in the middle of the illustration, which I don\u2019t believe he did based on the poor technical skill set he demonstrated during his interview with Motherboard vice.<\/p>\n 2. If the leak came from the inside (the half green half red icon in the right side of illustration), he had the full 23 Mbit\/s transfer rate because he just plugged-in a USB drive to the computer. He also didn\u2019t need any hacking skills because he most likely had full system access.<\/p>\n Finally, we know that WikiLeaks stated numerous times that Russia did not provide them with the emails they leaked in 2016 and Julian Assange stated<\/a> that WikiLeaks had nothing to do with Russia.<\/strong><\/p>\n But of course the Mueller gang never interviewed WikiLeaks in an effort to determine how they received the Clinton emails. Of course the Mueller team could not risk WikiLeaks saying the emails were not received from Russia which would destroy their \u2018Russia hacked the DNC\u2019 fairy tale.<\/strong> Today, Crowdstrike is shutting down flights in America.<\/p>\n The post Flashback: Crowdstrike, the Company Behind the Russia Hacked Emails Scandal that Offered No Evidence During the Investigation, is Behind the IT Outages that Grounded Flights Across America the Day Following the RNC<\/a> appeared first on The Gateway Pundit<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Crowdstrike There were major \u201cIT outages\u201d reported across the world, affecting banking systems, emergency services and airlines\u2019 communications.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-32103","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nBased on information available back in 2020, we now know there is no evidence that the Russians hacked the DNC. This was made up from the start.<\/strong><\/p>\n