DNC Hack Claims Could Have Relied On “Spoofed” Data

(PresidentialWire.com)- According to Margot Cleveland at The Federalist, computer scientists from Georgia Tech believed that the CrowdStrike assessment of the 2016 DNC hack may have relied on coding and texting signatures that could be spoofed.

About a month before WikiLeaks released the DNC emails in July 2016, the DNC confirmed that its server had been hacked. Rather than permit the FBI to inspect the server, the DNC hired the private security firm CrowdStrike to investigate the hack. CrowdStrike concluded that the hack was the work of two Russian military intelligence groups, Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear.

After Special Counsel John Durham indicted former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann, concerns over CrowdStrike’s analysis reemerged.

Cleveland’s report is highly detailed and often veers into the weeds, making it difficult to follow. She outlines how Georgia Tech figures into the Durham investigation and the case against Sussmann and provides a recap of the details that have emerged over the last few months about CrowdStrike and the DNC hack.

The Federalist recently obtained emails between Georgia Tech cybersecurity expert Manos Antonakakis and the executive director of Georgia Tech’s Institute for Information Security and Privacy, Lee Wenke that question the validity of CrowdStrike’s analysis.

The upshot of the newly obtained emails is that Georgia Tech cyber-experts were concerned that any review they conducted into the DNC hack could result in the same errors CrowdStrike made, namely using signatures of coding and texting styles that can be impersonated (spoofed).

Cleveland argues that Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear do have a history of hacking government networks, leading her to conclude that Russian intelligence services are likely behind the DNC hack.

At the same time, Cleveland believes that after the hoaxes surrounding the Steele dossier, and the Alfa Bank/Trump connection, not to mention the FBI’s FISA abuses during Crossfire Hurricane, it would be naïve to trust the word of the US intel community. Now, Cleveland explains, the evidence trail needs to be clearly explained.

Read Margo Cleveland’s detailed report HERE.