and yet we were assured by leading lights of the info security business that the J. Edgar Hoover signature was an opsec failure and a smoking gun
-
-
Replying to @ClimateAudit @15poundstogo and
I don't think there was any such claim from anybody I regard as a leading light of infosec. (Say, Ross Anderson, Bruce Schneier, Tavis Ormandy, or Wladimir Palant...)
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NYarvin @15poundstogo and
in Sept 2017, I wrote a blog article in which I collected references from prominent articles to the "J Edgar Hoover" argument: https://climateaudit.org/2017/09/23/guccifer-2-and-russian-metadata/ …pic.twitter.com/mmL4StgcSM
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ClimateAudit @NYarvin and
the originator appears to have been Matt Tait, who testified to House Intel Committee. His original thread is archived http://archive.is/uyBTQ and was extensively quoted. He appears to have later deleted it.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ClimateAudit @15poundstogo and
Also at that time a contributor to Lawfare:https://www.lawfareblog.com/contributors/mtait …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NYarvin @ClimateAudit and
Before this he worked at Project Zero with Tavis Ormandy (from your list)
1 reply 3 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @bleidl @ClimateAudit and
Definitely a serious player in the field. "Leading light" is something different, though. Not that I have any objections to noticing metadata like this and calling attention to it; it can be a clue, even though it's very poor evidence to rest other conclusions on.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
what do you understand to be the main evidence that DNC emails were hacked by Russian hackers under Putin's personal direction and then delivered by them to Wikileaks? I'm not arguing opposite, but too often supposed proof is just shouting assertion more loudly.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ClimateAudit @bleidl and
If it's true, that bit that came out a while ago about a Netherlands spy agency hacking into the responsible Russian outfit and even looking through their webcams could be first-rate evidence. (I may be misremembering a bit, but since it could be disinformation anyway...)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NYarvin @ClimateAudit and
As for Putin's personal involvement, though, if intelligence agencies really did have that kind of access it'd be the height of irresponsibility to say so.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Hinting that they have that kind of access when they really don't, in contrast, could be an excellent way to get Putin to waste time on suspecting the innocent.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.