undefined | Better HN

0 pointsnl8y ago0 comments

What could possibly convince you?

We have a pretty well respected company saying "this is what we found", before anyone knew how important it would end up being.

The links you have posted appear to be a fairly random set of unrelated things that I guess are supposed to undermine the report, but to me they look.. unrelated?

The OpenSecret links aren't for CrowdStrike.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000801 is for Warburg Pincus and shows are very even mix of Republican and Democratic recipients.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000031277 is for Accel Partners, and again shows an even spread, with the exception of a $176,580 donation to Right To Rise USA which is a Jeb Bush SuperPac.

The rest seem.. I don't even know what to say about them. https://i.imgur.com/O9z33Dq.png is just a ToC of report??

0 comments

arca_vorago8y ago

>pretty well respected company

Not well respected, especially after their multiple past fuckups.

>fairly random set of unrelated things

VIPS report, relevant donation information of crowdstrike affiliated persons, a report from a third-party who crowdstrike allowed to look at data... not unrelated at all.

A start for transparency to relieve skepticism would be to release the data that shows the C&C ip's match past Russian affiliated attacks. That's what it boils down to, Crowdstrike claims that those ip's match a past or known group of Russian pivot servers, but haven't offered the data to verify this.

I have training in computer/network forensics. Do you?

sigmar8y ago

A few points:

>Not well respected

Did you criticize Crowdstike before the 2016 election? Because they're very highly regarded.

>You are taking crowdstrike at their word.

You don't have to trust Crowdstrike, as there are other organizations that did analysis. Most of my links were not from Crowdstrike.

The analyses do not rely solely on C&C IPs, and the fact that you keep harking on that makes me think you haven't read those links. There's lots of TTP and malware analysis.

>that's their defense for not handing over the servers/drives.

It is extremely common for groups to share imaged versions of a computer.

arca_vorago8y ago

You are obviously not interested in intellectually honest discussion, so I'm not wasting anymore time with you.

sigmar8y ago

lol, great points. You are saying it is not common to image drives? The google results for disk+imaging+in+forensics disagrees

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

arca_vorago8y ago

>pretty well respected company

Not well respected, especially after their multiple past fuckups.

>fairly random set of unrelated things

VIPS report, relevant donation information of crowdstrike affiliated persons, a report from a third-party who crowdstrike allowed to look at data... not unrelated at all.

I have training in computer/network forensics. Do you?

sigmar8y ago

A few points:

>Not well respected

Did you criticize Crowdstike before the 2016 election? Because they're very highly regarded.

>You are taking crowdstrike at their word.

You don't have to trust Crowdstrike, as there are other organizations that did analysis. Most of my links were not from Crowdstrike.

The analyses do not rely solely on C&C IPs, and the fact that you keep harking on that makes me think you haven't read those links. There's lots of TTP and malware analysis.

>that's their defense for not handing over the servers/drives.

It is extremely common for groups to share imaged versions of a computer.

arca_vorago8y ago

You are obviously not interested in intellectually honest discussion, so I'm not wasting anymore time with you.

sigmar8y ago

lol, great points. You are saying it is not common to image drives? The google results for disk+imaging+in+forensics disagrees

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse