Crowdstrike what does anyone know about who started it and why?
 

Just wanting to know what anyone knows about it's Origins?

I don't know but they say they have the server. Its a very rich Ukrainian who doesn't like our Chosen One President. They have the server from the Democratics in some basement. Its all very cyber. There's corruption. They didn't give it to the FBI. They helped Joe Biden in 2016.

-The official GOP line

What If it's a Prank On Putin, and The GOP By Someone who knows Trump is not Technologically not very knowledgeable say a long Time Jrefer who sent the popular Science article on Reagan's Star wars Gama Ray Laser to doctor Judy Woods?

It's a plot by the Demoncrat party to overturn God's chosen President-for-Life.

You misspelled oranges.

Oh got to involve Hillary, that old devilish woman set Trump up.

You could, of course, just go to Wikipedia:

Oh I know all about Crowdstrike, I Read About the as soon as the Hack was uncovered. Great company Shame they got caught up in all this.

So what was the point of the thread then?

I thought the original question was "What was the origin of the conspiracy theory that it was Crowdstrike and Ukraine who interfered in the 2016 election?", in which case the most likely answer is Russia.

To see if anyone knew who laid the Bread Crumbs that began the Crowdstrike Conspiracy theory?

Russia definitely vpromoted the Ukraine interference theory, but not so much Crowdstrike that seems to have come from someone close to Rudy.

Hmm, OK. You are asking about it, but you already know about it?

I can only surmise that what you are really asking about is the "Crowdstrike Conspiracy Theory", to wit, the allegation that the attack on the DNC servers wasn't carried by Russia, but was a false flag operation, ordered by Ukraine at the behest of the Democrats, and that Crowdstrike planted fake evidence in the DNC server to frame Russia?

Edit: I see now that you are.

If so, then I can tell you it is utter rubbish. As Fiona Hill testified, it is a false narrative created by the FSB (Russian Security) at the direction of Putin. It was spread by Paul Manafort, who got the idea from Konstantin Kilimnik, a Ukraine/Russia political activist known to be connected with the FSB. (Those of us who have actually read the Mueller Report already know this)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...e-donald-trump

In spreading this false narrative, Devin "sue the cow" Nunes, Gym "yeah, that's Strauss" Jordan and other assorted cowards, traitors and useful idiots in the GOP, are doing Putin's work for him. They are complicit in helping Russia to try to bring down US democracy - Putin must surely be laughing his arse off at how little he has had to do with so much co-operation coming from House Republicans

To be fair it really is Jim.

I know

I have read the Mueller report and yes that is part of the puzzle but why was it designed to Embarrass Trump so badly?

:thumbsup:;)

:thumbsup:
I Consider Crowdstrike to be a Dumber theory than The Judy woods 9/11Space Laser Theories.

I don't think the Crowdstrike Conspiracy Theory was designed to embarrass Trump - it was designed with two purposes in mind

1. to deflect blame away from Russia for the hacking of the DNC server and the interference in the 2016 US election.

2. to sow distrust between Ukraine and the USA, thereby isolating Ukraine from its primary ally.

House Republicans are doing a bang-up job of helping Putin out with his mission.

Don't forget that Putin was a KGB intelligence officer for sixteen years - he rose to the rank of Lt Col by 1991, at which time he left the KGB to pursue a career in politics. The stock-in-trade for organisations like the KGB and its successor, the FSB, is deflection, distraction and obfuscation, and Putin will be well versed in those techniques. They have tried blaming the Sergei & Yulia Skripal nerve-agent attacks on British Intelligence, they have tried to blame the Ukrainian Army for the shooting down of MH17.

The Ukraine interference in the election theory is not the same as the Crowdstrike theory you are confusing the two.
Two separate theories, please be specific on the theory.

Yeah, ummm No.

They are two branches of the same conspiracy tree.

So you don't think Crowdstrike was developed to take advantage of Trump's known lack of Technological knowledge demostrated so well in the Birther movement?

Trump is Technologically a clown willing to believe almost any insane Conspiracy theory. Remember the theory started with Trump with him just asking where is the server which was a vague talking point, designed to distract from the 2016 hack.

Mate, Trump is too much of a dumb-**** to realise that computer security companies like Crowdstrike don't actually need to "take the server away" to examine it. (FFS, he thinks Rudy "I locked myself out of my iPhone" Giuliani is a cybersecurity expert). All they need to do is clone the HDD, or access the server via the web to see if it has been hacked.

While the Crowdstrike CT might embarrass Trump by exposing his lack of tech savvy, I don't think its the reason it was conceived. Its like you can drive a screw in with a hammer, but its not designed to do that.

The CT that Crowdstrike planted fake evidence to frame the Russians for hacking the DNC servers, and the CT that Ukraine (not Russia) interfered in the 2016 Elections, were both conceived by Russia, probably the FSB, at Putin's behest, to

1. Deflect blame away from themselves for both acts, and

2. Try to drive a wedge of distrust between the Trump Administration and the Ukrainian government, and

3. To weaken Ukraine's position in any future peace negotiations over the war in the Donbass.

They appear to have largely succeeded in doing the last two, and Repugnicans like Nunes, Jordan, Graham and Moscow Mitch have ably assisted the Kremlin with the first, because they are desparate to find excuses, ANY excuses support Trump.

Trump was elected because of Conspiracy theories, Urainium one just to mention one, he Promoted himself with Birtherism and Deep state Conspiracy theories.
Most of which ,Mitch McConnell has rejected in the past.
Oh and I agree the base Conspiracy is basically Russian but that doesn't mean that it can't be altered. I expect to hear that they tracked the server that doesn't exist to the computer resaler listed on LinkedIn, any day now.

Oh and I agree all Crowdstrike need was the Metha data of what data went where the hardware is useless in determining who attacked the DNC Network simply because it is a network.

Well, not quite. When a computer is hacked via a network, the hacker leaves digital fingerprints on the HDD that a computer forensics expert can find, even if the hacker was very, very careful to clean up after themselves. Often, it is the clean up effort that is actually detected first, and that leads them to the network, and gives the investigators clues as to what to look for when the come to examine copies of the stolen files.

For example, In the DNC hack, Crowdstrike examined stolen files published by Wikileaks. Their metadata showed that they contained text converted from the Russian Cyrillic alphabet to the Latin alphabet. Also, they were able to determine that the hacker, Guccifer 2.0 was lying when he said he was Romanian, because he had difficulty speaking the language fluently - a problem that a native speaker would not have.

However, the clues that led them to this came from evidence found on the server HDDs, so having the hardware is a necessary step. As Crowdstrike themselves have said

"When cyber investigators respond to an incident, they capture that evidence in a process called “imaging.” It involves making an exact byte-for-byte copy of the hard drives. They do the same for the machine’s memory, capturing evidence that would otherwise be lost at the next reboot, and they monitor and store the traffic passing through the victim’s network."

Trump's assertion that "Once they hack, if you don't catch them in the act you're not going to catch them" is completely false. Yes, its difficult, but its not impossible.

"Obviously there are cases where we cannot come to a clear conclusion in digital forensics. It’s always a question of what evidence did you get,"

"But there is still this 'attribution is impossible' knee jerk reaction that occasionally pops up, which really doesn’t make much sense. The idea that attribution is not possible really doesn’t carry any weight in the technically informed community any more."
- Thomas Rid (a cybersecurity-focused professor in the department of War Studies at King’s College London)

https://www.wired.com/2016/12/hacker...ution-problem/



In any case, Crowdstrike did actually catch the Russians in the act)
.

I understand that but we are still talking about making a Clone and examining the soft ware not hard ware.

HDD = Hard Disk Drive, which is hardware

You have to examine the hardware in order to be able to examine the contents of the software.

I know that HDD is the hard drive what you do is make a backup on a mobile system, then Use Ai crawlers, search engines to pick it appart for malware and alterations.

From what I understand, there are things you can do forensically with the layers of a physical HDD that could not be picked up by a simple backup. That's why apps that write zeroes to your drive exist -- you use them to overwrite possible ghosted vestiges of deleted data that can be lifted from the HDD.

That would require dismantling the hard drive and looking at the dusk's under a scanning tunnelling electron Microscope.

I don't know about that. I think that there could be vestiges of data on the physical disc that don't necessarily transfer from a copy or dd image, that could be teased out by more specialized forensic software tools.

I have already discussed those.