If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging

If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging

The Guccifer 2.0 NGP/VAN Metadata Analysis report was released over one month ago.  During that time period, there has been extensive reader feedback via posted comments and media coverage from various venues.  Responding to the reader feedback was time intensive and a more thorough response was needed.  To address those issues, The Forensicator has published three blog posts:

UPDATE (8/24/2017): A previous version of this blog post used a narrative style and was quite long because it covered all the material listed above in a single blog post.  The narrative style seemed to confuse some readers and the length of the article made it unwieldy and difficult to cite the separate topics above.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging

  1. Comments are closed. They have been open for over a month; hopefully this has given ample opportunity for readers to comment. Responding to comments is worthwhile, but time-consuming; The Forensicator needs to turn his attention to other projects. Thank you everyone who has taken the time to comment.
    — The Forensicator

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Hello. I am an artist and musician. I am not computer savvy. Could you please sum up your main findings for me in a way that a layman (or woman) can process? I have read the article by The Nation, this post, several articles from Consortium News, and some of Adam’s findings. My current understanding regarding the transfer speed issue is that you feel it IS possible to transfer 2GB of files to Romania at 23 MB/s, but it hasn’t been proven. Correct? Adam’s research is focused on exposing Guccifer2.0 as a fraud – not Russian, not Romanian, and not the DNC hacker. I want to understand, but the computer lingo goes over my head. Thanks in advance!

    Like

    1. My current understanding regarding the transfer speed issue is that you feel it IS possible to transfer 2GB of files to Romania at 23 MB/s, but it hasn’t been proven. Correct?

      No, on that particular point The Forensicator leaves the burden of proof to those claiming it. Mainly, Forensicator wants to step out of the “my Internet speed is faster than yours” debate — mostly because Internet speed isn’t the only factor in the metadata analysis that needs to be satisfied in order to come up with a hypothetical scenario that fits the facts. It is just the easiest to pick on.

      This statement in the metadata analysis, “Due to the estimated speed of transfer (23 MB/s) calculated in this study, it is unlikely that this initial data transfer could have been done remotely over the Internet“, was taken out of context in that Forensicator initially worked off the assumption that Guccifer 2 was a lone hacker operating out of Eastern Europe/Russia, using a VPN or some other technique to mask his IP. Unfortunately, the assumption wasn’t stated. Some people would have attacked this assumption, but at least the transfer speed claim would be more understandable in context.

      Many of the critics of the Nation article apparently didn’t read Forensicator’s report and chose to take pot shots at Lawrence’s statements some of which reiterated a similar Internet transfer speed claim to that above. Overall, I liked Lawrence’s article, he made many points other than those having to do with the Forensicator’s analysis, but he may have been in over his head technically. IIRC, WaPo reported that The Nation might be revising that article to improve technical accuracy.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. Sounds fair, reasonable and accurate. But I am afraid that MSM will just look at the title, say that Forensicator admitted his mistake, thus Guccifer 2.0 as 17 intelligence agencies said was Russian hacker.
    Meanwhile nobody addressed g-2.space language analysis, or sid numbers in 1-5.doc files, or owner of .doc files…
    Looking at metadata in those files you can literally follow the part of process Guccifer 2.0 went through to create them. http://i.imgur.com/gxc7n4Q.png

    Like

    1. Agreed. Some media sources have already shown skill in mis-quoting, under-quoting, and not being afraid to report on The Forensicator’s analysis while demonstrating that they didn’t read it; this is also true for some of the security experts who were interviewed. Just the nature of the business, I guess.

      Although I support the VIPS’s cause, when they combined the discussion of my work with that of Adam’s, his may have taken a backseat, because more heat was applied to the VIPS’s interpretation of Forensicator’s analysis than Adam’s work. Adam’s analysis is difficult for the media to follow (and criticize) because it is meticulous in its approach and builds its case brick-by-brick.

      They say that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Forensicator’s hope is that the focus that was placed on his work and that of the VIPS will have had a side benefit of giving Adam’s work (http://g-2.space) the attention it deserves.

      Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.