正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

The Upstream Data team hard at work welding, wiring, load testing and programming Hash Generators and Hash Huts on a Friday afternoon. Would you like me to take your through a shop tour next week? h/t Spencer Schille

12,189 次观看 • 2 年前 •via X (Twitter)

10 条评论

~/satstackingpleb 🚌☀️⛏️ 的头像
~/satstackingpleb 🚌☀️⛏️2 年前

@upstreamdatainc @spencerschille I am always in absolute awe of the amalgamation of tech being deployed in both processes and final product when you share these videos.

Wilson_Mining 的头像
Wilson_Mining2 年前

@upstreamdatainc @spencerschille I think it would be cool to explain a little bit about the manufacturing process.

Steve Barbour 的头像
Steve Barbour2 年前

@upstreamdatainc @spencerschille Will do

lil s8n 的头像
lil s8n2 年前

@upstreamdatainc @spencerschille Yes please.

AdventureMiner 的头像
AdventureMiner2 年前

@upstreamdatainc @spencerschille Yes! A shop tour would be epic! Love what you guys do!

Winston Digital 的头像
Winston Digital2 年前

@upstreamdatainc @spencerschille Yes

₿ert de Groot ∞/21M ⚡️bdg@noderunners.org 的头像
₿ert de Groot ∞/21M ⚡️[email protected]2 年前

@upstreamdatainc @spencerschille Proof of work 🔥

Kirk 的头像
Kirk2 年前

@upstreamdatainc @spencerschille Yes please

R8:be quantum-safe!or be 0! pushing bitcoin to be! 的头像
R8:be quantum-safe!or be 0! pushing bitcoin to be!2 年前

@upstreamdatainc @spencerschille Wait! Steve, is it a hash mining rig?

Daniel Lai 的头像
Daniel Lai2 年前

@upstreamdatainc @spencerschille 63296342

相关视频

Why did Ian Whiffin agree to give expert testimony on Jen McCabe’s cellphone extraction, when the state refused to let him look at or even give him the full, original extraction OR its verification hash? A thread🧵 Full cellphone extractions, sometimes called forensic images, generate what’s called a “hash value”, which serves as a unique digital fingerprint necessary for ensuring the integrity of data. Any discrepancy between the hash values indicates tampering with or corruption of evidence, alerting forensic examiners to potential issues with the evidence. Hash verification is a fundamental principle and a rather ubiquitous practice in the world of digital forensics, where data validation and verification are key. It is the gold standard across the industry, and has also become so in the courtroom, whereby admissibility of digital evidence is determined by its relevance, authenticity and reliability. In court, the hash value can be used to demonstrate that the evidence has not been altered since its collection, and is a universal way for experts to authenticate and validate the reliability of data for the trial Court. But, an extraction that’s missing a hash value altogether is a huge red flag. 🚩 Who removed the hash value? And why? It’s necessary to the chain of custody, and as Gaurino and Tully would be well aware, it’s also an element of the data that an expert would require in order to verify and validate it. There’s no “good” reason for why someone would remove a hash value, and the extraction can’t be characterized as a forensic image as its origin is unknown. This was a deliberate step taken to hide something, which one could argue shows consciousness of guilt. If the data are true and accurate, why would you bring their integrity into question by removing the hash? However, if the data were altered or tampered with, and let’s say, hypothetically speaking, you wanted a digital forensic expert to provide testimony supportive of your “Google search” theory. . . In that hypothetical, you’d have to remove the hash value. Otherwise, the expert would immediately detect that the data were altered, as they would not be able to verify the hash against the original. #KarenReadTrial #JusticeForJohnOKeefe #FreeKarenRead #CantonCoverup #PoliceCorruption #KarenRead #Cellebrite #DFIR

Olivia

270,376 次观看 • 1 年前

FACT CHECK: Here at the first trial, the Commonwealth’s own expert witness, Ian Whiffin, confirms the necessity & importance of hash values for the sake of “hash verification”, a necessary step in authenticating the data & being able to verify that it hasn’t been altered or manipulated. In fact, Whiffin actually gives this testimony in response to a question about when the data have been altered or tampered with, if there’s a way for the forensic examiner (him) to detect it, and/or verify its authenticity and integrity. Remarkably, despite the DFIR industry standard methodology of hash verifying a digital forensic extraction, like that of Jen McCabe’s iPhone, prior to conducting any analysis on it with any forensic tools, Ian Whiffin testified that notably, for his work on this case, not only did he abandon this standard methodology, but he also admitted that the forensic extraction of Jen McCabe’s iPhone, which he received from the Commonwealth, was stripped of its hash value. Perhaps more remarkably, this stunning fact apparently didn’t raise any red flags for Ian Whiffin when conducting his analysis in this case, where he’s providing testimony in a murder trial. One must ask themselves why that is? However, defense expert Richard Green, in his affidavit, states that: “Typically, forensic examiners are provided with the raw image file and the associated: hash value documentation together. After validating the hash value, I would then accept that the data has not been manipulated. Here, however, the hash documentation was not provided with the raw image of the cell phone. Instead, it was withheld from the defense. As a forensic examiner having received hundreds of imaged phones over the course of my decades-long career, this was unprecedented.” Contrary to Mr. Whiffin’s approach, upon initially receiving a purported extraction of Jen McCabe’s iPhone without a hash value to authenticate and verify the integrity of the data, Mr. Green promptly requested the hash value and corresponding GrayKey supplemental files from the Commonwealth in order to conduct his analysis. After making this demand, and when the Commonwealth had to produce the hash verification data for Jen McCabe’s iPhone, remarkably, the Commonwealth also produced—for the first time, and over a year later on February 8, 2023—the Full File System Extraction of Jen McCabe’s iPhone (see “Notice of Discovery VIII,” attached). Unlike the initial purported “extraction” produced by Trooper Nicholas Guarino, this one contained Jen McCabe’s incriminating 2:27am Google search and all of the manual deletions of her communications, among other incriminating evidence, surrounding the murder of Officer John O’Keefe (see defense’s Rule 17 motion from April 12, 2023, attached). So, this begs the question: If Ian Whiffin knows the importance of hash verification in validating the authenticity of the data he’s working with in the first place, then why didn’t he take the same actions as defense expert Richard Green did to responsibly and reliably provide analysis in this case? If Whiffin ought to be deemed an expert, qualified to provide analysis and testimony at trial, then why did he abandon his industry’s standard methodology of hash verification in this case? Even Cellebrite knows this is a no-no! What say you? #KarenReadTrial #Cellebrite #DFIR

Olivia

20,211 次观看 • 1 年前