State v Bradley Cooper 4-5-2011

SleuthyGal · Apr 5, 2011

SleuthinNC said:
VPN with softtokens. Hard tokens have been out of favor for a looong time

Not at my company (staring at RSA token as we speak). Of course they invested in 20,000 of them so...they'll be around for some long while I'm sure.

But the point remains. Without the token code along with the proper password credential(s), no one is getting into a Cisco network, and certainly not some random person.

Albert · Apr 5, 2011

SleuthyGal said:
Okay to sum it up:

1. Paris phone number - a person in France can call that number for free and be connected to Brad Cooper in North Carolina. Brad allegedly had a French girlfriend...in...umm... France!

2. The phone number could also be used for 'testing' of something by Brad. Initiate a call, get a call routed somewhere, like to his phone in North Carolina, or wherever it was programmed to go. Brad had control of that specific test phone number that was setup in France.

3. Brad asked for software that would wipe his computer of all data. To a level that even the Dept of Defense would use to wipe super secrets from their computer hard drives.

BBM: Not really, it has not been proven yet that BC had any type of administrator rights to the cluster in France. Only an admin of the system can make changes to the dial plan.

SleuthinNC · Apr 5, 2011

SleuthyGal said:
Okay to sum it up:

1. Paris phone number - a person in France can call that number for free and be connected to Brad Cooper in North Carolina. Brad allegedly had a French girlfriend...in...umm... France!

2. The phone number could also be used for 'testing' of something by Brad. Initiate a call, get a call routed somewhere, like to his phone in North Carolina, or wherever it was programmed to go. Brad had control of that specific test phone number that was setup in France.

3. Brad asked for software that would wipe his computer of all data. To a level that even the Dept of Defense would use to wipe super secrets from their computer hard drives.

Yes, all correct.

SleuthinNC · Apr 5, 2011

SleuthyGal said:
Not at my company (staring at RSA token as we speak). Of course they invested in 20,000 of them so...they'll be around for some long while I'm sure.

But the point remains. Without the token code along with the proper password credential(s), no one is getting into a Cisco network, and certainly not some random person.

Unless they are somebody who had access to the network credentials themselves. Just sayin'

sunshine05 · Apr 5, 2011

SleuthyGal said:
Not at my company (staring at RSA token as we speak). Of course they invested in 20,000 of them so...they'll be around for some long while I'm sure.

But the point remains. Without the token code along with the proper password credential(s), no one is getting into a Cisco network, and certainly not some random person.

I don't think anyone is suggesting someone got into his VPN network. I think it is about the home network which is not very secure at all.

borndem · Apr 5, 2011

NCB said:
The direct wasn't smooth, but it was interesting--especially the chat exchange. If wiping a drive was part of BC's normal job function, he wouldn't need to ask this guy how to find the software. Plus, he appeared to be a bit cagey about it--first asking about encryption software for Outlook only. I'm curious to see what comes out under cross.

I'm buffering today, so it's kinda like, "An- so yo- sai- he tol- the chicke- not to cros- th- roa-?"

BBM -
Eggs-actly for me, too, here in my buffer zone.

LyndyLoo · Apr 5, 2011

Im sorry..and maybe I am looking at this more simplistically..But if Brad had all these features as listed by SleuthyGal..Why couldnt Brad simply call his home which was set to foreward calls to HIS phone..and call waiting feature would capture it??..and on the call logs it would show only that call from home phone was sent to Brad's phone???? Maybe he even used his personal cell?? Maye he even went via his Alpha line to call home phone which he had foreward to his phone..voila..Capture of call from homephone???

All I know is that IF that call of 640AM gets exposed as a forewarded call..The GIG is UP!!

borndem · Apr 5, 2011

Maja said:
Is there any reason this det didn't run a check on NCs SUV?

She wasn't asked to do so.

LEO's are very, very rank & file, military-style. So one doesn't do what is not authorized.

gracielee · Apr 5, 2011

SleuthinNC said:
To sell a hard drive or computer.

This witness testified that no other employee ever asked him this, didn't he? Everyone who sells a computer used dept. of defense ability to erase their harddrive? Not just some 'wipie clean' thing from Best Buy? Do we, the general public, have access to this sort of technology? Because that wasn't the impression I got from this witness testimony. Is there any evidence Brad recently sold a computer?

gbay · Apr 5, 2011

sunshine05 said:
If I was a juror, I'm not sure what my "takeaway" would have been from the Cisco guy. It was pretty confusing and hard to follow. It would be helpful if the prosecution could get straight to the point so we know what it is we're supposed to be discovering from this witness. But I'll admit I missed some of it. Can anyone summarize both sides, please? Was there any evidence presented?

The prosecution:

a) Brad had several numbers assigned to him from a Direct Inward Dial group (essentially his department had several hundred #'s assigned to them for testing purposes). One of the numbers assigned to him was 476-2003.
b) On March 14, 2007 he had a temporary number assigned to him in paris France. The translations for that number were such that when someone called that number it rang at the 476-2003 number in North Carolina.
c) The security fellow from Cisco knew Brad as they had worked in the same area. He now was in Security. While investigating the Court Order he discovered that he had had a chat with Brad in April 2008. That chat was about DBAN software. Delete disk software that is equivalent to the Deaptment of defence. Nothing is recoverable.

The defense:
a) Kurtz appeared to be in over his head and did really not know what he was asking (to me anyway)
b) Mostly about security - making it look like the home computer wasn't secure!!

Please add on anyone!!

SleuthinNC · Apr 5, 2011

Albert said:
BBM: Not really, it has not been proven yet that BC had any type of administrator rights to the cluster in France. Only an admin of the system can make changes to the dial plan.

Correct. Even if he had access to the Alpha network administration he would not have been the only person to have that access. It's not like a private cluster he set up.

gracielee · Apr 5, 2011

gritguy said:
You could have passwords, financial data, social security numbers and other personal information stored places on the hard drive. A very good idea to wipe it all out before the hard drive goes.

I agree with that statement, but my interpretation of this witnesses testimony was the method Brad was looking for information on was a standard above and beyond simply wiping a hard drive to sell a computer. I thought the witness said 'he'd not been asked this by any other employee' and that the standard Brad was looking for was what the highest forms of our government use to wipe clean their secret data.

SleuthyGal · Apr 5, 2011

SleuthinNC said:
Unless they are somebody who had access to the network credentials themselves. Just sayin'

How realistic do you think it was that Brad handed his secure user credentials to the Cisco network to someone?

SleuthinNC · Apr 5, 2011

gracielee said:
This witness testified that no other employee ever asked him this, didn't he? Everyone who sells a computer used dept. of defense ability to erase their harddrive? Not just some 'wipie clean' thing from Best Buy? Do we, the general public, have access to this sort of technology? Because that wasn't the impression I got from this witness testimony. Is there any evidence Brad recently sold a computer?

Personally I think he wanted it to wipe the external hard drive that was attached to the MacBook which I think is the actual source of incriminating evidence if there was any but I seem to be alone in that thought.

borndem · Apr 5, 2011

cygnusx1 said:
Ummm...what was the point of this witness?

Just to show they checked -- again with the getting ahead of the defense questions, "And did you even CHECK, Officer Dufus, to see if.....blah-de-blah...." Thoroughness, so they won't AGAIN be accused of botching, misdeeds, and idiocy. Damned if they do & damned if they don't.

A learned response. Duck & cover.

Palomine · Apr 5, 2011

gracielee said:
This witness testified that no other employee ever asked him this, didn't he? Everyone who sells a computer used dept. of defense ability to erase their harddrive? Not just some 'wipie clean' thing from Best Buy? Do we, the general public, have access to this sort of technology? Because that wasn't the impression I got from this witness testimony. Is there any evidence Brad recently sold a computer?

he said he recycled a computer

sunshine05 · Apr 5, 2011

gbay said:
The prosecution:

a) Brad had several numbers assigned to him from a Direct Inward Dial group (essentially his department had several hundred #'s assigned to them for testing purposes). One of the numbers assigned to him was 476-2003.
b) On March 14, 2007 he had a temporary number assigned to him in paris France. The translations for that number were such that when someone called that number it rang at the 476-2003 number in North Carolina.
c) The security fellow from Cisco knew Brad as they had worked in the same area. He now was in Security. While investigating the Court Order he discovered that he had had a chat with Brad in April 2008. That chat was about DBAN software. Delete disk software that is equivalent to the Deaptment of defence. Nothing is recoverable.

The defense:
a) Kurtz appeared to be in over his head and did really not know what he was asking (to me anyway)
b) Mostly about security - making it look like the home computer wasn't secure!!

Please add on anyone!!

Thank you. I really wish the state would summarize/wrap up a little at the end of their questioning. I'm still not seeing any evidence.

SleuthinNC · Apr 5, 2011

SleuthyGal said:
How realistic do you think it was that Brad handed his secure user credentials to the Cisco network to someone?

Not likely at all. I never said he did. I'd say more but my theory breaks the rules.

SleuthyGal · Apr 5, 2011

Palomine said:
he said he recycled a computer

No, he turned his laptop into the company to then get a new(er) one, is how I heard it. And in that case, one does not have to wipe the hard drive in order to get a new laptop. I.T. people in the company are in charge of making sure employees get a new laptop AND they take care of the old ones, including destroying the hard drives or wiping them clean.

Remember, this is a Cisco-owned laptop computer. Cisco is in charge of what ultimately happens to that laptop and they have a standard process in place to 'refresh' PCs. We also have a PC refresh program. I just got a new laptop last week. The old one...the hard drive gets destroyed so no information can be accessed. It's our company's standard security process.

borndem · Apr 5, 2011

Amster said:
Instead of buying things for Nancy, maybe these purchases were for Brad's gf...

I'm sure Brad was all about Mother's Day, bless 'im ....:floorlaugh:

State v Bradley Cooper 4-5-2011

Former Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Anglophile & registered demwit

Active Member

Anglophile & registered demwit

Active Member

Member

New Member

Active Member

Former Member

New Member

Anglophile & registered demwit

New Member

New Member

New Member

Former Member

Anglophile & registered demwit

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics