Re:Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]
by downandout on Thursday December 29, 2016 @04:54PM
(#13280497)
I suppose I should have said that I have heard no credible claims that they were falsified. Most of the denials I've heard were of the "I don't recognize that" variety, which literally means nothing.
There was that twitter post from John podesta "i've switched sides hi /pol/" post from his verified twitter
page.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3835460/Now-Podesta-...
if the emails are fake, how could a password from the emails dump be used to login into his twitter page.
Re:Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]
by middleclick on Thursday December 29, 2016 @10:54PM
(#13282390)
Hey, another 6 hour old account.
Podesta and high-ranking Dems have leveled this very charge.
The extent of the DKIM signatures all being true makes this very unlikely.
RSA1024 and SHA-1 can be beaten, but not easily and not in this volume.
It is not E2E from the people authoring the e-mails, so the server maintainer (often Google) could be forging and signing e-mails.
However, again, doing it the volume it would have had to be done is not likely.
The DNC has backed off from the forgery accusations. Besides the asinine nature of the accusations making them look bad, such accusations weaken their grand thesis: Russia hacked them. If they open up the possibility that most or all of the e-mails could have been fabricated whole cloth, then it undermines the argument that Putin pulled off an ingenuous heist of tens of thousands of e-mails.