1/n Okay, nerds, when doing an audit on Windows or Android in order to prove "it wasn't connected to the Internet" during certain dates, what would you look for? I mention this because it's not a standard audit/forensics question.
2/n I mention this because of answering this question. I don't have confidence in the report partly because of my own limitations that I don't know how to do this.
3/ The report says this. The USB part is very good. But the rest is bad. I downloaded OSForenics and made sure: it doesn't have a specific module that deals with this question.
4/ "Windows event logs" would be the place to look, but looking on my own Windows machines, I can't find events that would conclusively tell me this.
5/ Windows probes for an Internet connection and can log successes, but I see logs for failures (indicating "not on the network") for machines that are indeed actively on the Internet.
6/ Ah! NTP! That seems to be the answer!!!! This seems to reliably work to see if day-by-day the computer has access to the Internet.
7/ DNS seems a bust. I think you have to enable logging specifically for it, that it's not enabled by default.
8/ In this case, "Windows Updates" logs aren't going to work, because Dominion systems have it disabled.
9/ So the next step is to investigate this with the Dominion EMS images provided at the cybersymposium. It doesn't have any NTP logs, because NTP is disabled.
10/ The Mesa County, Colorado system is similar to the Maricopa County, Arizona EMS system. A copy of the system image was leaked online during Mike Lindell's "Cybersymposium". Working with this system would tell us things like "NTP is disabled" that probably apply to Maricopa.
11/ MESA: well here's something that suggests the Mesa Count, Colorado server was connected to a network during the election. Error messages about not being able to contact a router ceased between Oct 16 and Dec 14.
12/ Prowling around other logs, I suspect the opposite is true, that a cable was plugged in during the other times (causing this fail message), but physically disconnected during the election (hence, not even trying to contact router).
13/ Which is a good example for when you are off the reservation into areas where you don't understand (as I am here): something you don't understand isn't evidence of your theory. There may be yet more explanations that explain it that you didn't consinder.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Hi. Professional C/C++ programmer here. The open-source code I can find written by Adam Back and Satoshi Nakamoto don't look remotely similar.
Back's code looks typical of academic Unix programmers who also hack their code to run on Windows.
Satoshi code was written by a professional Windows programmer who also wrote for Unix.
Stylistically, they look nothing alike. There's not enough time between 2005 when I can find the newest Adam Back and January 2009 when Satoshi published Bitcoin/0.1 to account for the change. Both are perfectly competent programmers, but stylistically, they are completely different.
The NYTimes tried to compare their English language in posts/emails. I'm compare their C/C++ language in their open-source code. The NYTimes merely points out they both use C++ as if that's another corroborating detail, when the actual code seems to disqualify Adam Back.
I was a professional Windows C/C++ programmer throughout the 1990s that had to also make code work on Unix. Satoshi's code speaks to me -- that's exactly the sort of code I wrote, down to using 'printf' instead of 'cout'.
What I mean to say is that he's gotten rid of all the C++ class hierarchy nonsense and is primarily using C++ as a smarter C with lightweight objects.
It's a VERY distinctive choice. Conversely, the "style" (where he puts spaces and braces) is non-distinctive, looks like all other code.
Okay, here's how this lie works: 1. everyone agreed that Russians did not hack election infrastructure 2. everyone agreed Russia meddled with the election in other ways, such as hacking the DNC and releasing emails from Podesta et al
She correctly notes that the intelligence community concluded that Russia '"did not impact recent U.S. election results" by conducting cyber attacks on infrastructure'.
🧵So let's talk about the difficulties Netflix is having streaming the Tyson v Paul fight, how the stream gets from there to your TV/computer. This will a longish thread.
In 1985 on his first fight, TV technology was based upon "broadcasts". That meant sending one copy of a video stream to thousands, often millions of receivers. A city would send the signal to a radio tower and broadcast that signal across a wide area.
In today's Internet, though, everybody gets their own stream. There is no broadcasting, no sharing of streams. Every viewer gets their own custom stream from a Netflix server. That we can get so many point-to-point stream across the Internet is mind boggling.
By the way, the energy density of C4 is 6.7 megajoules/kilogram.
The energy density of lithium-ion batteries is about 0.5 megajoules/kilogram.
C4 will "detonate" with a bang.
Lithium-ion batteries will go "woosh" with a fireball, if you can get them to explode. They conflagrate rather than detonate. They don't even deflagrate like gun powder.
To get a lithium-ion battery to explode (in a fireball) at all, you have to cause physical damage, overcharge it, or heat it up.
Causing heat is the only way a hacker could remotely cause such an event.
I don't want to get into it, but I don't think Travis is quite right. I mean, the original 25million view tweet is full of fail and you should always assume Tavis is right ....
...but I'm seeing things a little differently.
🧵1/n
I'm a professional, so I can take the risk of disagreeing with Tavis. But this is just too dangerous for non-professionals, you'll crash and burn. Even I am not likely to get out of this without some scrapes.
3/n To be fair, we are all being lazy here. We haven't put the work in to fully reverse engineer this thing. We are just sifting the tea leaves. We aren't looking further than just these few lines of code.
The reason IT support people are so bitter is that YOU (I mean YOU) cannot rationally describe the problem:
You: The Internet is down
IT: How do you know the Internet is down?
You: I can't get email.
IT: Is it possible that the email servers are down and the Internet is working just fine? Can you visit Twitter on your browser?
You: Yes, I can visit the twitter website.
IT: Is there any reason other than email to believe the Internet is down?
You: The last time I couldn't get email it was because the Internet was down.
The fact that IT doesn't call you a blithering idiot on every support call demonstrates saintly restraint, even if a little bit of their frustration leaks through.
A lot of good replies to my tweet, but so far this is the best: