Bill Binney confirmed that the files were copied from "local" to a USB drive, but there is no way to say what "local" was. Whether it was DNC or something else.
Only thing you can say is that it was was not hacked remotely. Watch the clip to see what precisely Binney is "admitting"
Binney agreed: βItβs clear G2 is messing with the data. Everything G2 says is suspect and needs to be proven by other sources/means. I agree there is no evidence to prove where the download/copy was done.β
Again, watch the clip, he explains exactly what "messing with the data" they are referring to.
There was nothing in the analysis Benny did that could say how the files left the DNC.
Again, the analysis has nothing to do with DNC. He makes no claim it came from DNC. His claim is that its not a hack.
Looking at the metadata of the files of the archive, you can only tell when the archive was made.
An archive, by definition, stores not just the files but all the metadata. So you can look at an archive and access not just the data, but all the attributes of the individual files, including the timestamps. This is a basic computer fact.
For example, let's say you hired me to hack a government agency. Everyday in May I take out a small amount of file so I'm not detected.
Later on in June I zip up all the files into an archive and put the archive on a thumb drive before I hand it to you. The metadata would be about the June archive. It wouldn't tell you anything about how the files actually left the DNC. It was because of this reason that some of Binney's whistle-blowing colleagues did not sign on to the report he put out.
This scenario makes absolutely no sense. I am assuming you got it from a fact checking site.
First, no hacker is going to keep hacking daily to copy a few files, making it almost certain to leave tracks and get caught. Hackers would assume that they will be caught and try and copy as much data as they can before they are stopped.
Second, when you zip up all the files in an archive, the archive will store all the metadata of each file.
Third, even in the indictment no one is claiming that someone "hired" a hacker to do the hack and give it to them in a thumb drive.
This is a basic computer fact.
Dude, you have absolutely no idea what is a basic computer fact and what is not. You can start your learning here and a specific example of ZIP file format
The "Extra" data fields are the key to the extensibility of the ZIP format. "Extra" fields are exploited to support the ZIP64 format, WinZip-compatible AES encryption, file attributes, and higher-resolution NTFS or Unix file timestamps.
The pax format extends the ustar format by allowing arbitrary attributes to be stored as special archive members before the actual file entry. This provides for unlimited length pathnames, file sizes; unlimited precision timestamps, etc.
Damn you boys are good,i'm dumb as a box of rocks,but seems like i remember Binney saying he /NSA had a program of some kind that he created,cant member the name of it ,and he did say the download could no way come from a hack or out of the country ,he said it was directly downloaded from the server at that location with speed stamps to prove it,if i member correctly.inferring that it was SR.
Ah, I think you must be new to Lawfare.
You are kidding right? He hasn't even been able to communicate with anyone, let alone make public statements
Bill Binney's clip for points below.
Bill Binney confirmed that the files were copied from "local" to a USB drive, but there is no way to say what "local" was. Whether it was DNC or something else. Only thing you can say is that it was was not hacked remotely. Watch the clip to see what precisely Binney is "admitting"
Again, watch the clip, he explains exactly what "messing with the data" they are referring to.
Again, the analysis has nothing to do with DNC. He makes no claim it came from DNC. His claim is that its not a hack.
An archive, by definition, stores not just the files but all the metadata. So you can look at an archive and access not just the data, but all the attributes of the individual files, including the timestamps. This is a basic computer fact.
This scenario makes absolutely no sense. I am assuming you got it from a fact checking site.
First, no hacker is going to keep hacking daily to copy a few files, making it almost certain to leave tracks and get caught. Hackers would assume that they will be caught and try and copy as much data as they can before they are stopped.
Second, when you zip up all the files in an archive, the archive will store all the metadata of each file.
Third, even in the indictment no one is claiming that someone "hired" a hacker to do the hack and give it to them in a thumb drive.
Dude, you have absolutely no idea what is a basic computer fact and what is not. You can start your learning here and a specific example of ZIP file format
or the TAR file format
Damn you boys are good,i'm dumb as a box of rocks,but seems like i remember Binney saying he /NSA had a program of some kind that he created,cant member the name of it ,and he did say the download could no way come from a hack or out of the country ,he said it was directly downloaded from the server at that location with speed stamps to prove it,if i member correctly.inferring that it was SR.
https://qagg.news/?q=%23%233764&q2=
That was not Binney, I think you are talkimg about Dennis Montgomery and his Hammer and Scorecard.
https://qagg.news/?q=%23%233764&q2=