Like eg, I pinged this news site, and have to now conclude the story is configured only to be visible to a small handful of Russian bankers.pic.twitter.com/msLddZ1M0V
So, ok. This is all a very exciting story, but it is almost entirely smoke when you actually dig into it.https://twitter.com/FranklinFoer/status/793206731203567616 …
-
-
-
#ProTip: When choosing the domain for your covert emails to foreign governments to get illegal cash, be sure to use "<yourname>-email.com" -
And no mention in story that incoming unsolicited emails might trigger reverse-DNS lookups of sender for boring (non email replying) reasons
-
Don't get me wrong. I would love story to be true. But it is technical swiss cheese. Eg "were the DNS lookups MX (mail) ones?" not answered.
-
re; MX records. That was my first question.
-
why would they be holding secret mail via port 25 and public Internet. Such bullshit.
-
Eh, could be encrypted mail - port 587. Too little info to say for sure.
-
doesn't seem credible to me to run covert ops on standard ports that anyone could telnet or sniff
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@FranklinFoer@Slate Too soon to say there's nothing there, particularly in view of Hope Hicks's unusually precise denial. -
Not saying nothing's here. Saying the evidence in the story doesn't robustly lead to it's asserted conclusions.
-
You'd have to read the research and not just the Slate article, no? Written by/for laypeople.
-
I did. 10 days ago. And chose not to do anything with it because it looked like smoke then too.
-
Why would any of the experts cited in the article disagree? Is it debatable among experts?
-
There's a dearth of public data to shed light on content, purpose, or control. As I understand it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Alleges criminal violation of 2 U.S.C. 441e
-
Tweet unavailable
-
It is if you're asking for foreign cash in a campaign. That's what the article is (IMO mistakenly) alleging.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
that's why we ultimately passed on it.
-
@SwiftOnSecurity I guess that's the reason the NYT passed on it, too. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html?_r=0 … -
So here's my technical take on it http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/11/debunking-trumps-secret-server.html …
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.