BOMBSHELL: NSA Experts Say DNC ‘Hack’ Was Actually a Leak and Inside Job (Clinton, identities)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So this has to mean that Trump did it himself. He must have hacked the DNC himself. I wonder if Rachel Maddow will do a special to expose how Trump did this. It will be 10x more explosive than the bombshell tax returns she destroyed Trump with.
IMPEACH TRUMP!!!!
Now..no need for that. Keep him in office for his entire term..a lame duck, an ineffectual old man..muttering to the country via Twitter..and having little relevance. Unless we have a war..or Trump is so very stupid as to pardon Flynn or Manafort..or his son. What are the odds of him being that dumb?
Congress will dither...and the Civil Service will run the country...
I read the Patrick Lawrence article in the Nation. I found the reasoning...slightly off. For some reason, his anonymous sources (whom I believe Lawrence doesn't actually know the identities of) keep using the bandwidth speed of 22.7 megabytes per second. That's peculiar, because every time I've heard the network people in my business talk about setting up, configuring and trouble-shooting bandwidth, they always talk about megabits per second. Why are Lawrence's anonymous experts using a strange bandwidth unit?
The other thing is that someone else has already critiqued Lawrence's article. While the critic, one Brian Feldman of New York Magazine, points out that Lawrence hides behind a lot of confusing technobabble in order to sound authoritative, Feldman also points out that 22 megabytes per second translates to about 176 megabits per second, and states that such bandwith is already available to all enterprise level entities such as the Democratic National Committee or the Russian Federal Security Service.
One last thing, here's the Wiki detailing the various Bandwidth speeds available today. Anyone else notice that the Wireless 802.11n and the Wireless 802.11ac protocols both support bandwidth far greater than what Patrick Lawrence claims is available, and is also far greater than Lawrence's claimed hack download speed?
I read the Patrick Lawrence article in the Nation. I found the reasoning...slightly off. For some reason, his anonymous sources (whom I believe Lawrence doesn't actually know the identities of) keep using the bandwidth speed of 22.7 megabytes per second. That's peculiar, because every time I've heard the network people in my business talk about setting up, configuring and trouble-shooting bandwidth, they always talk about megabits per second. Why are Lawrence's anonymous experts using a strange bandwidth unit?
The other thing is that someone else has already critiqued Lawrence's article. While the critic, one Brian Feldman of New York Magazine, points out that Lawrence hides behind a lot of confusing technobabble in order to sound authoritative, Feldman also points out that 22 megabytes per second translates to about 176 megabits per second, and states that such bandwith is already available to all enterprise level entities such as the Democratic National Committee or the Russian Federal Security Service.
One last thing, here's the Wiki detailing the various Bandwidth speeds available today. Anyone else notice that the Wireless 802.11n and the Wireless 802.11ac protocols both support bandwidth far greater than what Patrick Lawrence claims is available, and is also far greater than Lawrence's claimed hack download speed?
Oh my..don't confuse us with facts..silly things. Overrated..like truth..and reading.
I read the Patrick Lawrence article in the Nation. I found the reasoning...slightly off. For some reason, his anonymous sources (whom I believe Lawrence doesn't actually know the identities of) keep using the bandwidth speed of 22.7 megabytes per second. That's peculiar, because every time I've heard the network people in my business talk about setting up, configuring and trouble-shooting bandwidth, they always talk about megabits per second. Why are Lawrence's anonymous experts using a strange bandwidth unit?
You can use either, browser often use MB/s. If this was a pipe mbps can be considered the pressure and MB's the volume. In this case according to the article they know the amount of data and how long it took so it's simple matter of dividing the amount of data by the seconds to come up with MB/s.
Quote:
One last thing, here's the Wiki detailing the various Bandwidth speeds available today. Anyone else notice that the Wireless 802.11n and the Wireless 802.11ac protocols both support bandwidth far greater than what Patrick Lawrence claims is available, and is also far greater than Lawrence's claimed hack download speed?
Max speed does not equal what you will get even in an ideal situation such as you have adapters on two computers hooked directly to each other with an ethernet cable. If it's one large file it will fly , if it's a lot of smaller files speeds can be reduced considerably. At the end of the day your speed is going to be limited by whatever the weak link in the chain is. That starts at the medium the data is being read from to the data it's being written to, there is whole lot links in that chain in between.
I read the Patrick Lawrence article in the Nation. I found the reasoning...slightly off. For some reason, his anonymous sources (whom I believe Lawrence doesn't actually know the identities of) keep using the bandwidth speed of 22.7 megabytes per second. That's peculiar, because every time I've heard the network people in my business talk about setting up, configuring and trouble-shooting bandwidth, they always talk about megabits per second. Why are Lawrence's anonymous experts using a strange bandwidth unit?
The other thing is that someone else has already critiqued Lawrence's article. While the critic, one Brian Feldman of New York Magazine, points out that Lawrence hides behind a lot of confusing technobabble in order to sound authoritative, Feldman also points out that 22 megabytes per second translates to about 176 megabits per second, and states that such bandwith is already available to all enterprise level entities such as the Democratic National Committee or the Russian Federal Security Service.
One last thing, here's the Wiki detailing the various Bandwidth speeds available today. Anyone else notice that the Wireless 802.11n and the Wireless 802.11ac protocols both support bandwidth far greater than what Patrick Lawrence claims is available, and is also far greater than Lawrence's claimed hack download speed?
The terms bits and bytes in computer networking refer to standard units of digital data transmitted over network connections. There are 8 bits for every 1 byte.
Let's say you find a file online that is 24 megabytes (MB) in size, and you want to download it using your 24 megabit per second (Mbps) broadband connection. This won't take one second, it will take eight times one second because a MB is eight times bigger than a Mb. So in theory (and with a perfect speed), it will take eight seconds to download.
most commercial lan systems are quite slow..on the otherhand fiber is much faster
An ISP might say it offers speeds “up to 5/1Mbps.” The first number is the download speed, while the second is upload. 5/1 means a top download speed of 5 megabits per second, and a top upload speed of 1 megabit per second.
the FCC found that the average connection speed in the U.S., as of September 2015, checks in at 31 megabits per second (Mbps), a marked increase from the 10 Mbps average the agency observed back in 2011. .........................still far short of your 176Mb/sec that you are talking about in your post....................and as a government worker..the speed of the internet are work is SLOWER that what I have at home
Yawn. Its also not uncommon for someone hacking things like this to copy it to some other location before beginning the download in order to avoid anyone asking why something got so slow.
There would have to be a lot more evidence to make this conclusive I think. The devil is in the details. And the details arent there as they dont have the servers in question. Making this claim especially suspicious.
The reason they (FBI) don't have the servers is because the DNC refused to allow them access. Instead, Crowdstrike was hired by the DNC to examine the servers and report their findings to the FBI. The slamdunk evidence that the Russians did it was reported by Crowdstrike to the FBI and then the servers in question were destroyed.
Democrats sure do destroy a lot of electronic devices for some reason...anyways, who cares?
Even if that report is true, Russia is not off the hook. They hacked the state election offices and one company that makes voting machines. No one disputes that.
Misleading and false headline. This is NOT the work of "NSA Experts." The NSA did not produce this report and did not endorse it. These former government employees may have been paid by Trump supporters or are Trump supporters themselves. The credibility of this report is lacking.
WCH, I've been in IT for 30+ years. I believe that you're an auto service technician.
Do you think I should listen to you, or to the network admins I've worked with over the years?
Because your post contains more than a few flaws, and it would be uncomfortable for you if I point them out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
