Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 67,357
I brought this up a couple of years ago. Now with the Durham investigation examining the origins of the Russian collusion hoax we can expect Binney's conclusions to be examined in detail as this new article brings to light Binney's conclusions once again. Take note as well that Brennan was interviewed for 8 hours outside of the D.C. Court's jurisdiction in Virginia's Eastern District by the Durham team. No doubt this was a perjury trap:
Former NSA Official Questions the Intelligence Community’s Assessment on the DNC Hack
Mitchell Nemeth
Aug 22
Point 1
Binney’s team analyzed Wikileaks’ data to determine how they received that information. Whomever provided the emails to Wikileaks did so in three batches, all of which “had a last modified time that was rounded off [rounded up] to an even [the next-higher] second, so they all ended up in even [meaning complete or full, not fractional] seconds.” Data files can be modified using File Allocation Table (FAT). FAT is a process whereby “when doing a batch process of data and transferring it to a storage device like a thumb drive or a CD-ROM, it rounds off the last modified time to the nearest even [next-higher] second, so that’s exactly the property we found in all that data posted by Wikileaks.”
Here, Binney’s contention is that the data from the DNC was “downloaded to a storage device a CD-ROM or a thumb drive and physically transported before Wikileaks could post it, so that meant it was not a hack.” This may indicate that the DNC data was likely downloaded and physically transported to Wikileaks rather than a cyberintrusion.
Point 2
Binney and his team of analysts then tested the data transfer speeds using information contained in the DNC Wikileaks files, including file names, numbers of characters in the file, and a timestamp at the end of the file. With this information, his team used a program to calculate the transfer rate of all the data. To calculate the transfer rate, Binney contends, “all you have to do is look at between the two time stamps, the file name and the number of characters in the file, and take the difference between the times [start-time versus end-time], and that’s the transfer rate for that number of characters, so we found that the variations ran from something like 19 to 49.1 megabytes per second.” 19 to 49.1 megabytes per second is roughly 19 to 49 million characters per second; however, the Internet cannot support that rate of transfer “not for anybody who’s just…a hacker coming in across the net.” Binney’s team tested the Internet’s transfer speeds and the highest rate they achieved was “one-fourth the rate, little less than one-fourth the rate necessary to do the transfer at the highest rate that we saw in the Guccifer 2 data, which meant it didn’t go across the net, so, in fact, the file rate transfers couldn’t.”
Point 3
Binney’s team also found evidence that potentially points to Guccifer 2 manipulating the data files with Russian signatures saying the Russians did this. “If you go back to the Vault 7 release from Wikileaks again, from CIA, and you look, they have this Marble framework program that will modify files to look like someone else did the hack, and who were the countries that they had the ability to do that [to], in the in the Marble framework program? Well, one was Russia, the other was China,” said Binney. Combine this possible data tampering with the circumstantial evidence and it led Binney’s team to conclude that all signs point back to the CIA.
Point 4
All of this circumstantial evidence further aligns with Crowdstrike’s assessment of the DNC server. Crowdstrike is the cybersecurity investigator who conducted an investigation on behalf of the DNC. Crowdstrike’s CEO Shawn Henry testified before Congress: “We have indicators that data was exfiltrated. We did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.” Henry additionally testified “there are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left.”
More here:
https://medium.com/discourse/former...sment-on-the-democratic-national-b7e29017030d
Former NSA Official Questions the Intelligence Community’s Assessment on the DNC Hack
Mitchell Nemeth
Aug 22
Point 1
Binney’s team analyzed Wikileaks’ data to determine how they received that information. Whomever provided the emails to Wikileaks did so in three batches, all of which “had a last modified time that was rounded off [rounded up] to an even [the next-higher] second, so they all ended up in even [meaning complete or full, not fractional] seconds.” Data files can be modified using File Allocation Table (FAT). FAT is a process whereby “when doing a batch process of data and transferring it to a storage device like a thumb drive or a CD-ROM, it rounds off the last modified time to the nearest even [next-higher] second, so that’s exactly the property we found in all that data posted by Wikileaks.”
Here, Binney’s contention is that the data from the DNC was “downloaded to a storage device a CD-ROM or a thumb drive and physically transported before Wikileaks could post it, so that meant it was not a hack.” This may indicate that the DNC data was likely downloaded and physically transported to Wikileaks rather than a cyberintrusion.
Point 2
Binney and his team of analysts then tested the data transfer speeds using information contained in the DNC Wikileaks files, including file names, numbers of characters in the file, and a timestamp at the end of the file. With this information, his team used a program to calculate the transfer rate of all the data. To calculate the transfer rate, Binney contends, “all you have to do is look at between the two time stamps, the file name and the number of characters in the file, and take the difference between the times [start-time versus end-time], and that’s the transfer rate for that number of characters, so we found that the variations ran from something like 19 to 49.1 megabytes per second.” 19 to 49.1 megabytes per second is roughly 19 to 49 million characters per second; however, the Internet cannot support that rate of transfer “not for anybody who’s just…a hacker coming in across the net.” Binney’s team tested the Internet’s transfer speeds and the highest rate they achieved was “one-fourth the rate, little less than one-fourth the rate necessary to do the transfer at the highest rate that we saw in the Guccifer 2 data, which meant it didn’t go across the net, so, in fact, the file rate transfers couldn’t.”
Point 3
Binney’s team also found evidence that potentially points to Guccifer 2 manipulating the data files with Russian signatures saying the Russians did this. “If you go back to the Vault 7 release from Wikileaks again, from CIA, and you look, they have this Marble framework program that will modify files to look like someone else did the hack, and who were the countries that they had the ability to do that [to], in the in the Marble framework program? Well, one was Russia, the other was China,” said Binney. Combine this possible data tampering with the circumstantial evidence and it led Binney’s team to conclude that all signs point back to the CIA.
Point 4
All of this circumstantial evidence further aligns with Crowdstrike’s assessment of the DNC server. Crowdstrike is the cybersecurity investigator who conducted an investigation on behalf of the DNC. Crowdstrike’s CEO Shawn Henry testified before Congress: “We have indicators that data was exfiltrated. We did not have concrete evidence that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated.” Henry additionally testified “there are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don’t have the evidence that says it actually left.”
More here:
https://medium.com/discourse/former...sment-on-the-democratic-national-b7e29017030d
