One Article Review
| Source |  Errata Security |
|---|---|
| Identifiant | 3408689 |
| Date de publication | 2021-09-21 18:01:25 (vue: 2021-09-21 22:05:32) |
| Titre | That Alfa-Trump Sussman indictment |
| Texte | Five years ago, online magazine Slate broke a story about how DNS packets showed secret communications between Alfa Bank in Russia and the Trump Organization, proving a link that Trump denied. I was the only prominent tech expert that debunked this as just a conspiracy-theory[*][*][*].Last week, I was vindicated by the indictment of a lawyer involved, a Michael Sussman. It tells a story of where this data came from, and some problems with it.But we should first avoid reading too much into this indictment. It cherry picks data supporting its argument while excluding anything that disagrees with it. We see chat messages expressing doubt in the DNS data. If chat messages existed expressing confidence in the data, we wouldn't see them in the indictment.In addition, the indictment tries to make strong ties to the Hillary campaign and the Steele Dossier, but ultimately, it's weak. It looks to me like an outsider trying to ingratiated themselves with the Hillary campaign rather than there being part of a grand Clinton-lead conspiracy against Trump.With these caveats, we do see some important things about where the data came from.We see how Tech-Executive-1 used his position at cyber-security companies to search private data (namely, private DNS logs) to search for anything that might link Trump to somebody nefarious, including Russian banks. In other words, a link between Trump and Alfa bank wasn't something they accidentally found, it was one of the many thousands of links they looked for.Such a technique has been long known as a problem in science. If you cast the net wide enough, you are sure to find things that would otherwise be statistically unlikely. In other words, if you do hundreds of tests of hydroxychloroquine or invermectin on Covid-19, you are sure to find results that are so statistically unlikely that they wouldn't happen more than 1% of the time.If you search world-wide DNS logs, you are certain to find weird anomalies that you can't explain. Unexplained computer anomalies happen all the time, as every user of computers can tell you.We've seen from the start that the data was highly manipulated. It's likely that the data is real, that the DNS requests actually happened, but at the same time, it's been stripped of everything that might cast doubt on the data. In this indictment we see why: before the data was found the purpose was to smear Trump. The finders of the data don't want people to come to the best explanation, they want only explainations that hurt Trump.Trump had no control over the domain in question, trump-email.com. Instead, it was created by a hotel marketing firm they hired, Cendyne. It's Cendyne who put Trump's name in the domain. A broader collection of DNS information including Cendyne's other clients would show whether this was normal or not.In other words, a possible explanation of the data, hints of a Trump-Alfa connection, has always been the dishonesty of those who collected the data. The above indictment confirms they were at this level of dishonesty. It doesn't mean the DNS requests didn't happen, but that their anomalous nature can be created by deletion of explanatory data.Lastly, we see in this indictment the problem with "experts". |
| Envoyé | Oui |
| Condensat | about above accidentally actually addition against ago alfa all also always analysis anomalies anomalous anomaly anything are argument avoid bank banks because been before behind being believe best between biased blogposts brief broader broke but came campaign can care cast caveats cendyne certain challenge chat cherry choose clear clients clinton collected collection com come communications companies computer computers conclusions confidence confirms connection conspiracy conspirational containing control convincingly covid created cyber data debunked deletion denied depth didn disagrees dishonesty dns doesn domain don dossier doubt email enough even every everything evidence excluding executive existed expert experts explain explainations explanation explanatory expressing fault: field find finders firm first five found from full gave grand had happen happened has hate hates highly hillary hints hired his hot hotel how hundreds hurt hurts hydroxychloroquine important including indictment information ingratiated instead interested invermectin involved its just known last lastly lawyer lead least level like likely link linked links listen logs long looked looks magazine make manipulated many marketing mean messages michael might more most much name namely nature necessarily nefarious net nobody normal not one online only organization original other otherwise outsider over packets part paul people picks position possible pretended private problem problems prominent proving purpose put question quick quoted rather reading real really reporter requests response rest results russia russian sadly same science search secret security see seen should show showed shows sides slate smear some somebody something stands start statistically steele story stripped strong such supporting sure sussman take taste tech technique tell tells tests than the indictment of them themselves then theory therefore these things those thousands ties time too tries trump trying ultimately unexplained unlikely used user vindicated vindicates vixie want wasn weak week weird where whether who why why: wide willing word words work world would wouldn years |
| Tags | Guideline |
| Stories | |
| Notes | |
| Move | 
|
L'article ne semble pas avoir été repris aprés sa publication.
L'article ne semble pas avoir été repris sur un précédent.