All they have to do is check the IP addresses when he submitted the tweet but Twitter would have to give it up so I assume it'll somehow be deleted if they ever ask for it.
It can be near impossible to prove if they get into his device and can post it from there. Don't tell them that though. Instead ask a hacking expert for an explanation that is invalid then look at what he reads, etc his circle, drop it near him and see if he parrots it.
When that instance occurs you look at the information around the denied action(s). If he’s doing normal activities immediately before and immediately after, the probability that he was hacked mere seconds or minutes before he sent his wife an “I love you text” and just after he leveled up on Angry Birds, is highly unlikely. Especially when you can show his device in consistent operation.
I worked too many child pornography cases in my career. Many used the “I was hacked” defense. Every single time we were able to show a consistent pattern of steady, non criminal activity just before and after the offense. It’s often circumstantial evidence but when you show a consistent pattern of behavior leading up to, and then after the criminal material was accessed, a jury is often not too hard to convinced that it was the suspect who did it, and not the boggyman.
Also, the suspect usually has a specific type or kind of child pornography they like. If someone is into red headed little boys, you can often show that pattern over time on the device and/or PC. Just like they will or could find previous communication with the guy he was asking. You articulate to a jury that a someone hacking into someone else’s PC would most likely plant random images of criminal material, not just one or two specific areas (red headed kid example). People who watch adult porn generally have specific areas of interest you can see over time, i.e. bondage, black woman, threesomes, etc. they may look at other things, but often comeback to what they like the best. People who watch child porn are even more so narrowed in their searches because freely browsing has a higher probability of getting caught. Possession of child pornography used to be a difficult case to bring to trial. Now it’s one of the easiest. I know the issue isn’t about child pornography, but the “I was hacked” claim is proven false by the same methods. This case will go away quickly.
The story on FoxNews said the FBI is now involved in the case because it was reported to them. And they will look into it because it’s been reported to them, and because of the publicity. Investors don’t like being used as a tool to absorb lies. The case goal will likely turn to whatever the FBI’s version of “Falsely reporting an Crime“ is for them. That’s what is called on the state level when I investigated false claims. Under their investigation, you can use any and all of the same resources to prove a crime didn’t happen, just as if they were trying to prove a crime did occur. This is the big boy version of the old saying a “lie gets you in more trouble”. Except federal time is involved.
An XSS attack against Twitter is very unlikely, and taking full control over a device equally. This is such a transparent claim though that it should be incumbent on Twitter to validate this claim.
He'll just say he left it on the table for a moment unlocked in the bar and someone grabbed it or something. Your mistake is to try to think of the implausible. You need to think of the plausible.
Also ANY hack such as some browser exploit or anything that lets partial or complete access (code injection usually of some sort) will tend to do the trick.
XSS sounds like you have frontend only experience when there's a wealth of attack vectors.
There are so many possibilities where do I even begin? Just used the same creds everywhere? By now I assume twitter mitigates that with rate limiting and device detection but who knows I'm not gay so I never used twitter.
If I ever turn gay and fancy a bit of cottaging then I'll give twitter a go since the only thing it seems to be about is opening ones mouth.
Trump being exempt.
Also just because it's possible doesn't make it so. I mean technically the dog can eat your homework but we all know one way or another that's dogshite.
A phone knows when it’s been raised or laid down. Any data it inputs from it’s accelerometer is recorded in the device. That would be discoverable in a forensic examination. So an examination could tell if he just put his phone down or not. Also, you can compare typing patterns.
iPhone has programing that learns and improves its type response accuracy based upon how you type. It knows where your thumb most often touches a letter and even though everything looks all neat and lined up on our end of things, it adjusts the letters slightly to make sure we more accurately touch the letter we are trying to touch. There are many options to investigate when it comes to phone usage, even if something seems impossible to figure out or something appears easy to pass off as never being able to find out, there is always evidence to explore and document when it comes to electronic usage. Even the speed at which you type can be compared to the speed of when something else was typed. This can be shown as evidence of common or uncommon activity. Even if it’s just circumstantial evidence, it’s still evidence.
He's using the same line the Facebook/Twitter/Instagram thots use every time they're caught messaging behind their boyfriends' backs, but everyone knows who is responsible.
After the second "hack," he should have enabled 2-factor-authentication.
Simple method to determine this - if this asshole had 2FA-enabled his Twitter account then there's no way it was hacked and he should be fired for lying.
If it wasn't 2FA-enabled then he's a complete moron and his bosses should fire him for possibly putting their own data at risk as well.
All they have to do is check the IP addresses when he submitted the tweet but Twitter would have to give it up so I assume it'll somehow be deleted if they ever ask for it.
It can be near impossible to prove if they get into his device and can post it from there. Don't tell them that though. Instead ask a hacking expert for an explanation that is invalid then look at what he reads, etc his circle, drop it near him and see if he parrots it.
When that instance occurs you look at the information around the denied action(s). If he’s doing normal activities immediately before and immediately after, the probability that he was hacked mere seconds or minutes before he sent his wife an “I love you text” and just after he leveled up on Angry Birds, is highly unlikely. Especially when you can show his device in consistent operation.
I worked too many child pornography cases in my career. Many used the “I was hacked” defense. Every single time we were able to show a consistent pattern of steady, non criminal activity just before and after the offense. It’s often circumstantial evidence but when you show a consistent pattern of behavior leading up to, and then after the criminal material was accessed, a jury is often not too hard to convinced that it was the suspect who did it, and not the boggyman.
Also, the suspect usually has a specific type or kind of child pornography they like. If someone is into red headed little boys, you can often show that pattern over time on the device and/or PC. Just like they will or could find previous communication with the guy he was asking. You articulate to a jury that a someone hacking into someone else’s PC would most likely plant random images of criminal material, not just one or two specific areas (red headed kid example). People who watch adult porn generally have specific areas of interest you can see over time, i.e. bondage, black woman, threesomes, etc. they may look at other things, but often comeback to what they like the best. People who watch child porn are even more so narrowed in their searches because freely browsing has a higher probability of getting caught. Possession of child pornography used to be a difficult case to bring to trial. Now it’s one of the easiest. I know the issue isn’t about child pornography, but the “I was hacked” claim is proven false by the same methods. This case will go away quickly.
For a tweet no one is really going to do digital forensics and they can really just make anything they like up since it's all in their custody.
The story on FoxNews said the FBI is now involved in the case because it was reported to them. And they will look into it because it’s been reported to them, and because of the publicity. Investors don’t like being used as a tool to absorb lies. The case goal will likely turn to whatever the FBI’s version of “Falsely reporting an Crime“ is for them. That’s what is called on the state level when I investigated false claims. Under their investigation, you can use any and all of the same resources to prove a crime didn’t happen, just as if they were trying to prove a crime did occur. This is the big boy version of the old saying a “lie gets you in more trouble”. Except federal time is involved.
Just suggest that Q hacked his brain. He might be dumb enough to believe it
An XSS attack against Twitter is very unlikely, and taking full control over a device equally. This is such a transparent claim though that it should be incumbent on Twitter to validate this claim.
He'll just say he left it on the table for a moment unlocked in the bar and someone grabbed it or something. Your mistake is to try to think of the implausible. You need to think of the plausible.
Also ANY hack such as some browser exploit or anything that lets partial or complete access (code injection usually of some sort) will tend to do the trick.
XSS sounds like you have frontend only experience when there's a wealth of attack vectors.
There are so many possibilities where do I even begin? Just used the same creds everywhere? By now I assume twitter mitigates that with rate limiting and device detection but who knows I'm not gay so I never used twitter.
If I ever turn gay and fancy a bit of cottaging then I'll give twitter a go since the only thing it seems to be about is opening ones mouth.
Trump being exempt.
Also just because it's possible doesn't make it so. I mean technically the dog can eat your homework but we all know one way or another that's dogshite.
A phone knows when it’s been raised or laid down. Any data it inputs from it’s accelerometer is recorded in the device. That would be discoverable in a forensic examination. So an examination could tell if he just put his phone down or not. Also, you can compare typing patterns.
iPhone has programing that learns and improves its type response accuracy based upon how you type. It knows where your thumb most often touches a letter and even though everything looks all neat and lined up on our end of things, it adjusts the letters slightly to make sure we more accurately touch the letter we are trying to touch. There are many options to investigate when it comes to phone usage, even if something seems impossible to figure out or something appears easy to pass off as never being able to find out, there is always evidence to explore and document when it comes to electronic usage. Even the speed at which you type can be compared to the speed of when something else was typed. This can be shown as evidence of common or uncommon activity. Even if it’s just circumstantial evidence, it’s still evidence.
The problem here is the same as the DNC hack. We don't have custody of the evidence. No one can investigate it in the way you suggest.
You're best bet is to just get them to speak as they manufacture excuses and evidence. They wont fully know what's plausible or not.
Catch them in a lie or mistruth.
Send this to Human Resources.....Steve is toast.
So someone "hacked" his phone and the only thing the "hacker" did is to send that tweet?
How stupid one has to be to believe that is beyond me.
Steve should demand this be investigated to get to the bottom of it
Real men own their mistakes. His pronouns are wuss/ wussy/ pantywaist
Not retired Computer Programmer. Unless Twitter keeps no logs (doubtful) it should be easy to prove with IP address access logs.
Twitter keeping no logs...
😶🤭🤭😂🤣😅🤭🤣😂😅🤤
He's using the same line the Facebook/Twitter/Instagram thots use every time they're caught messaging behind their boyfriends' backs, but everyone knows who is responsible.
After the second "hack," he should have enabled 2-factor-authentication.
Simple method to determine this - if this asshole had 2FA-enabled his Twitter account then there's no way it was hacked and he should be fired for lying.
If it wasn't 2FA-enabled then he's a complete moron and his bosses should fire him for possibly putting their own data at risk as well.
Lmao. Agreed.