Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrump dossier analysis: Corroborating evidence
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RbpBxJ3QNyvts_w16UcSSGeH7cSrXK9U3wIq0OOq-Xs/edit
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
5 replies, 1902 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (13)
ReplyReply to this post
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Trump dossier analysis: Corroborating evidence (Original Post)
triron
Feb 2017
OP
TrekLuver
(2,573 posts)1. Oh the dossier breakdown...me likey.
triron
(22,020 posts)2. kick for visibility
SunSeeker
(51,694 posts)3. Bank in the dossier is the same bank linked to server in Trump Tower!
See page 24 of 40 at the link!
Bookmarking!
KewlKat
(5,624 posts)4. is that the server that came up during the campaign?
that was reported and then went off line?
SunSeeker
(51,694 posts)5. Yep. And abruptly stopped communicating when NYTimes started sniffing around.
The researchers quickly dismissed their initial fear that the logs represented a malware attack. The communication wasnt the work of bots. The irregular pattern of server lookups actually resembled the pattern of human conversationconversations that began during office hours in New York and continued during office hours in Moscow. It dawned on the researchers that this wasnt an attack, but a sustained relationship between a server registered to the Trump Organization and two servers registered to an entity called Alfa Bank.
...
The Times hadnt yet been in touch with the Trump campaignLichtblau spoke with the campaign a week laterbut shortly after it reached out to Alfa, the Trump domain name in question seemed to suddenly stop working. When the scientists looked up the host, the DNS server returned a fail message, evidence that it no longer functioned. Or as it is technically diagnosed, it had SERVFAILed. (On the timeline above, this is the moment at the end of the chronology when the traffic abruptly spikes, as servers frantically attempt to resend rejected messages.) The computer scientists believe there was one logical conclusion to be drawn: The Trump Organization shut down the server after Alfa was told that the Times might expose the connection. Weaver told me the Trump domain was very sloppily removed. Or as another of the researchers put it, it looked like the knee was hit in Moscow, the leg kicked in New York.
Four days later, on Sept. 27, the Trump Organization created a new host name, trump1.contact-client.com, which enabled communication to the very same server via a different route. When a new host name is created, the first communication with it is never random. To reach the server after the resetting of the host name, the sender of the first inbound mail has to first learn of the name somehow. Its simply impossible to randomly reach a renamed server. That party had to have some kind of outbound message through SMS, phone, or some noninternet channel they used to communicate [the new configuration], Paul Vixie told me. The first attempt to look up the revised host name came from Alfa Bank. If this was a public server, we would have seen other traces, Vixie says. The only look-ups came from this particular source.
According to Vixie and others, the new host name may have represented an attempt to establish a new channel of communication. But media inquiries into the nature of Trumps relationship with Alfa Bank, which suggested that their communications were being monitored, may have deterred the parties from using it. Soon after the New York Times began to ask questions, the traffic between the servers stopped cold.
...
The Times hadnt yet been in touch with the Trump campaignLichtblau spoke with the campaign a week laterbut shortly after it reached out to Alfa, the Trump domain name in question seemed to suddenly stop working. When the scientists looked up the host, the DNS server returned a fail message, evidence that it no longer functioned. Or as it is technically diagnosed, it had SERVFAILed. (On the timeline above, this is the moment at the end of the chronology when the traffic abruptly spikes, as servers frantically attempt to resend rejected messages.) The computer scientists believe there was one logical conclusion to be drawn: The Trump Organization shut down the server after Alfa was told that the Times might expose the connection. Weaver told me the Trump domain was very sloppily removed. Or as another of the researchers put it, it looked like the knee was hit in Moscow, the leg kicked in New York.
Four days later, on Sept. 27, the Trump Organization created a new host name, trump1.contact-client.com, which enabled communication to the very same server via a different route. When a new host name is created, the first communication with it is never random. To reach the server after the resetting of the host name, the sender of the first inbound mail has to first learn of the name somehow. Its simply impossible to randomly reach a renamed server. That party had to have some kind of outbound message through SMS, phone, or some noninternet channel they used to communicate [the new configuration], Paul Vixie told me. The first attempt to look up the revised host name came from Alfa Bank. If this was a public server, we would have seen other traces, Vixie says. The only look-ups came from this particular source.
According to Vixie and others, the new host name may have represented an attempt to establish a new channel of communication. But media inquiries into the nature of Trumps relationship with Alfa Bank, which suggested that their communications were being monitored, may have deterred the parties from using it. Soon after the New York Times began to ask questions, the traffic between the servers stopped cold.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/10/was_a_server_registered_to_the_trump_organization_communicating_with_russia.html