4 Univ of Idaho Students Murdered - Bryan Kohberger Arrested - Moscow # 76

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am not caught up on the posts, but my initial thought is there was something that was found out that was exculpatory and somehow it was overlooked and not disclosed so they are investigating to make sure the nondisclosure was unintentional. JMO


ETA I am not an attorney.
Attorney's Opinion


Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, explained that the relevant material could be related to officer misconduct in Kohberger's case, or it could be information about a specific officer's past that impeaches their credibility as a witness at Kohberger's trial.

"It could be anything," Rahmani told Fox News Digital. "It could be, beating his wife. It could be driving fast and when he's pulled over, pulling out his badge when he shouldn't. It could be smoking weed."
 
b&sbm
yet another interesting possibility. I think this whole case is a stretch. imo jmo


Please make this make sense, legal deities, make this make sense! he has a degree in cloud-based forensics, but drives his own car, takes his actual phone, and peels out after a quadruple murder. DD and tinder and other warrants back to 2021. please make this make sense. :)

Source for that now frequently repeated "fact" that BK has a degree in cloud-based forensics. I've posted just today links that say otherwise and I've watched his full graduation ceremony - they announce every degree and certificate, but nothing in cloud forensics for BK.

I really do think you need a source or another IMO when you state that. It's my opinion that he has no such degree and here's a link:


Criminal Justice and Cloud Forensics are two different programs at DeSales. We don't know if he even took a single course in Cloud Forensics (just that he used that specialty to apply to the LE internship in Pullman and was rejected).


I don't always trust the NYPost, but it lifted these facts from a couple of other papers that are behind paywalls. He doesn't even say "cloud based" on his internship application, he just says "helping rural LE with technology in investigations" or something like that. As if they needed his help, he obviously was no expert in this area. IMO.

IMO.
 
Source for that now frequently repeated "fact" that BK has a degree in cloud-based forensics. I've posted just today links that say otherwise and I've watched his full graduation ceremony - they announce every degree and certificate, but nothing in cloud forensics for BK.

I really do think you need a source or another IMO when you state that. It's my opinion that he has no such degree and here's a link:


Criminal Justice and Cloud Forensics are two different programs at DeSales. We don't know if he even took a single course in Cloud Forensics (just that he used that specialty to apply to the LE internship in Pullman and was rejected).


I don't always trust the NYPost, but it lifted these facts from a couple of other papers that are behind paywalls. He doesn't even say "cloud based" on his internship application, he just says "helping rural LE with technology in investigations" or something like that. As if they needed his help, he obviously was no expert in this area. IMO.

IMO.
That was my bad, Sister Golden Hair quoted my erroneous quote from NYPost erroneous quote in my post that I then edited to replace "degree in cloud-based forensics" with "academic background in cloud-based forensics", and that may even be a stretch. jmo
 
Thanks for pointing that out, 10ofRods, you're right, that was a misstatement in the article I quoted. I edited my post to say "academic background" instead of degree.

:)
I just don't want him thought to be overly qualified in an area where he's not. We have an undergrad program in Cloud Forensics where I work and it's highly technical and the grads make beaucoup bucks with just a Bachelor's - dealing with everything from ransomware to criminal investigations. A master's in that field would, in my view, require a much stronger background in tech and computer science than an AA and a BA in psychology. Of course, DeSales has some "certificate" that isn't a degree - but even that has tech pre-reqs to it, as far as I can tell.

Can't wait for the prelim to learn more about BK's alleged "tech skills." Sounds like he didn't even know how to download offline maps to his phone, to me. I think he turned his phone back on just after the killings because he was lost.

IMO of course! It's always fun speculating with you, Twisting.
 
Isn't there one for Instagram? I imagine each platform needs a separate warrant, but I'm just guessing.
No need to guess as it's right on the Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest website. All of the other warrants specific to Instagram and Facebook were sent to Meta Platforms.
State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger


 
:)
I just don't want him thought to be overly qualified in an area where he's not. We have an undergrad program in Cloud Forensics where I work and it's highly technical and the grads make beaucoup bucks with just a Bachelor's - dealing with everything from ransomware to criminal investigations. A master's in that field would, in my view, require a much stronger background in tech and computer science than an AA and a BA in psychology. Of course, DeSales has some "certificate" that isn't a degree - but even that has tech pre-reqs to it, as far as I can tell.

Can't wait for the prelim to learn more about BK's alleged "tech skills." Sounds like he didn't even know how to download offline maps to his phone, to me. I think he turned his phone back on just after the killings because he was lost.

IMO of course! It's always fun speculating with you, Twisting.
You're right, I don't either, and appreciate your input. As I was typing he had a degree in "..." from reading that article, I knew it wasn't something I had seen but I believed what the reporter wrote assuming they knew something I didn't. And am going to blame brain fog too, haha. Thanks for keeping me honest :)
 
Source for that now frequently repeated "fact" that BK has a degree in cloud-based forensics. I've posted just today links that say otherwise and I've watched his full graduation ceremony - they announce every degree and certificate, but nothing in cloud forensics for BK.

I really do think you need a source or another IMO when you state that. It's my opinion that he has no such degree and here's a link:


Criminal Justice and Cloud Forensics are two different programs at DeSales. We don't know if he even took a single course in Cloud Forensics (just that he used that specialty to apply to the LE internship in Pullman and was rejected).


I don't always trust the NYPost, but it lifted these facts from a couple of other papers that are behind paywalls. He doesn't even say "cloud based" on his internship application, he just says "helping rural LE with technology in investigations" or something like that. As if they needed his help, he obviously was no expert in this area. IMO.

IMO.
Even without more in-depth digital study it is very odd to me that Bryan did not just leave his phone home every time he went to Moscow, if going to stalk, and of course for that night.

Bad enough to drive your own car.

Do you have any theory on why he made these types of mistakes?

I have followed murder cases where the killer or killers left their phones in other places during their crimes trying to create an alibi. Bryan's phone could have pinged all night from his apartment had he left it there.

This is almost as big a mystery as to why did he leave his sheath?


And, while his phone was off during the two-hour period investigators believe the murders took place, his phone pinged in Pullman, where he lived, around 2:47 a.m. and went silent until about 4:48 a.m., just 18 minutes after police believe the murders took place. Even more incriminating is that ping placed him on the highway just south of Moscow just before 5 a.m., heading west back home.
 
Last edited:
That was my bad, Sister Golden Hair quoted my erroneous quote from NYPost erroneous quote in my post that I then edited to replace "degree in cloud-based forensics" with "academic background in cloud-based forensics", and that may even be a stretch. jmo

this quote is messed up idk why, but no hogging the spotlight - I get to be the bad one here lol :)

honestly, whether it was degree or academic background or just a coloring book about cloud-based dynamics, the things I cited still just do not make sense to me for someone w/ his level of knowledge and training. I just wish it made sense. jmo imo icbw
 
Attorney's Opinion


Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, explained that the relevant material could be related to officer misconduct in Kohberger's case, or it could be information about a specific officer's past that impeaches their credibility as a witness at Kohberger's trial.

"It could be anything," Rahmani told Fox News Digital. "It could be, beating his wife. It could be driving fast and when he's pulled over, pulling out his badge when he shouldn't. It could be smoking weed."
Thank you CoolCats. This is closer to my non-legal take on the CI, Brady, IA issue. I could be way off but:
Way back in thread #70 [pg 20], discussion re: discovery docs, the prosecutor " 'prays' for protection....[of one] who would not be testifying.
Assuming it's the same CI, one who would not be testifying, then I think this is the person who ratted out the cop who is now under Internal Affairs investigation. That CI person could feel their life would be in danger should the LEO find out who informed about whatever bad he/she did. Cops carry guns--wasn't there something about protection and a firearm? To be Brady-listed ruins the life of the officer, forever stigmatized as a dirty cop, usually not able to work in LE (as well as ruins cases). Thompson is fair, lives will be ruined if the names get out before Internal Affairs has made determination. This makes sense to me. JMO

Good website with list of possible offenses:
 
Thank you CoolCats. This is closer to my non-legal take on the CI, Brady, IA issue. I could be way off but:
Way back in thread #70 [pg 20], discussion re: discovery docs, the prosecutor " 'prays' for protection....[of one] who would not be testifying.
Assuming it's the same CI, one who would not be testifying, then I think this is the person who ratted out the cop who is now under Internal Affairs investigation. That CI person could feel their life would be in danger should the LEO find out who informed about whatever bad he/she did. Cops carry guns--wasn't there something about protection and a firearm? To be Brady-listed ruins the life of the officer, forever stigmatized as a dirty cop, usually not able to work in LE (as well as ruins cases). Thompson is fair, lives will be ruined if the names get out before Internal Affairs has made determination. This makes sense to me. JMO

Good website with list of possible offenses:

Thanks for the link. Interestingly, you can also look up the Bradylist for the Moscow PD specifically. It's public-facing and lists officers who are put on the list.

 
Even without more in-depth digital study it is very odd to me that Bryan did not just leave his phone home every time he went to Moscow, if going to stalk, and of course for that night.

Bad enough to drive your own car.

Do you have any theory on why he made these types of mistakes?

I have followed murder cases where the killer or killers left their phones in other places during their crimes trying to create an alibi. Bryan's phone could have pinged all night from his apartment had he left it there.

This is almost as big a mystery as to why did he leave his sheath?


And, while his phone was off during the two-hour period investigators believe the murders took place, his phone pinged in Pullman, where he lived, around 2:47 a.m. and went silent until about 4:48 a.m., just 18 minutes after police believe the murders took place. Even more incriminating is that ping placed him on the highway just south of Moscow just before 5 a.m., heading west back home.

My theory has been that he is very phone-dependent. Has a wide streak of dependency in his character, in which the internet has been his constant companion. Like many of his age mates, he simply cannot function without his phone with him (a kind of security blanket?)

I realize that sounds bizarre. But the urge to take his phone must have been great, if he thought at all about "digital forensics." Someone here suggested that maybe he was getting dressed and equipped to kill each time he went to Moscow, and finally, due to pressures from within his own mind (perhaps perceived only by him), Oct 13 was the night for him.

Those pings are just the beginning of the digital incrimination, IMO. The GPS will show a similar, corroborating pattern.

I believe he stuck the sheath in his coverall pockets, and that it fell out during his commission of the crime on the third floor. He had memorized a script for his actions and forget to memorize and BOLD the commandment about checking for the sheath. He had a list of things to do once he arrived at the car; he was in more of a hurry because people were awake and he could hear them. The dog was barking/growling anxiously. His focus was on doffing his bloody clothing and getting the evidence squared away according to a method he had thought through.

He forgot the sheath. He may have come back the next morning, just itching to go in and get it. If the neighbor is a little bit off on the time of day when the front door is open, he might even have gone back in, but been too nervous to go all the way up to the third floor, knowing that at some point, someone in that house was going to call the police. But basically he knew he'd left DNA on that sheath, as it was as unavoidable as the DNA on his own clothing etc. To prolong the chase, he tried to keep found DNA samples from LE for as long as he could. Since they had him on a short list of people who had been geo-fenced and drove white Elantras (and IME, LE is always intensely suspicious of any person who appears on a list of possible suspects and is also either LE or otherwise involved in criminal law or justice), they went to GEDMatch and found his father's lineage (Kohberger). That was like filling a BINGO card.

So here we are. His DNA is at the actual murder scene, in the murder room, from an accessory to a knife that matches the stab wounds. Pretty incriminating. The digital data (including his messages to the victims, if true) is going to be damning.

IMO.
 
this quote is messed up idk why, but no hogging the spotlight - I get to be the bad one here lol :)

honestly, whether it was degree or academic background or just a coloring book about cloud-based dynamics, the things I cited still just do not make sense to me for someone w/ his level of knowledge and training. I just wish it made sense. jmo imo icbw

Let's see. A very famous psychologist at a very famous university committed a crime. Not murder, he just beat up his secretary a few times. It was a while ago. Got a little press at the time. My point is that brilliant academics still commit crimes.

A Ph.D. candidate very close to finishing his doctoral dissertation in mathematics (so no dum-dum) at one of the world's best universities for that degree got mad at his doctoral advisor and murdered him.

Police murder and sexually assault - and most police are very well educated about the law and further, have sworn not to do such things. They still do it.

That Dr Death guy (podcast, mini-series) is another example.

It does not make sense. Well, it makes sense if we realize that large areas of the brain are basically inscrutable even to the person "living inside" that brain. People are amazing in their ability to shut down one area of thinking, at least temporarily, in order to do something else. Why people feel compelled to murder, I have no idea. Chimp studies show that chimps have certain rules for who might get physically harmed - or murdered. They rarely break those rules.

But humans break the rules all the time. It's in every tradition/folklore of the world!

When you figure it out, we will publish a book and get a Nobel Prize. :D
 
Thank you CoolCats. This is closer to my non-legal take on the CI, Brady, IA issue. I could be way off but:
Way back in thread #70 [pg 20], discussion re: discovery docs, the prosecutor " 'prays' for protection....[of one] who would not be testifying.
Assuming it's the same CI, one who would not be testifying, then I think this is the person who ratted out the cop who is now under Internal Affairs investigation. That CI person could feel their life would be in danger should the LEO find out who informed about whatever bad he/she did. Cops carry guns--wasn't there something about protection and a firearm? To be Brady-listed ruins the life of the officer, forever stigmatized as a dirty cop, usually not able to work in LE (as well as ruins cases). Thompson is fair, lives will be ruined if the names get out before Internal Affairs has made determination. This makes sense to me. JMO

Good website with list of possible offenses:
Good information.

Right:
"lives will (could) be ruined if the names get out before Internal Affairs has made determination."

In one of the filings it specifically says that they don't want anything revealed about the internal affairs investigation as it is ongoing. LE investigations, as most investigations in general, stay confidential at least until completed.
 
My theory has been that he is very phone-dependent. Has a wide streak of dependency in his character, in which the internet has been his constant companion. Like many of his age mates, he simply cannot function without his phone with him (a kind of security blanket?)

I realize that sounds bizarre. But the urge to take his phone must have been great, if he thought at all about "digital forensics." Someone here suggested that maybe he was getting dressed and equipped to kill each time he went to Moscow, and finally, due to pressures from within his own mind (perhaps perceived only by him), Oct 13 was the night for him.

Those pings are just the beginning of the digital incrimination, IMO. The GPS will show a similar, corroborating pattern.

I believe he stuck the sheath in his coverall pockets, and that it fell out during his commission of the crime on the third floor. He had memorized a script for his actions and forget to memorize and BOLD the commandment about checking for the sheath. He had a list of things to do once he arrived at the car; he was in more of a hurry because people were awake and he could hear them. The dog was barking/growling anxiously. His focus was on doffing his bloody clothing and getting the evidence squared away according to a method he had thought through.

He forgot the sheath. He may have come back the next morning, just itching to go in and get it. If the neighbor is a little bit off on the time of day when the front door is open, he might even have gone back in, but been too nervous to go all the way up to the third floor, knowing that at some point, someone in that house was going to call the police. But basically he knew he'd left DNA on that sheath, as it was as unavoidable as the DNA on his own clothing etc. To prolong the chase, he tried to keep found DNA samples from LE for as long as he could. Since they had him on a short list of people who had been geo-fenced and drove white Elantras (and IME, LE is always intensely suspicious of any person who appears on a list of possible suspects and is also either LE or otherwise involved in criminal law or justice), they went to GEDMatch and found his father's lineage (Kohberger). That was like filling a BINGO card.

So here we are. His DNA is at the actual murder scene, in the murder room, from an accessory to a knife that matches the stab wounds. Pretty incriminating. The digital data (including his messages to the victims, if true) is going to be damning.

IMO.
Interesting.

Knife sheath may have fallen out of his pocket and he didn't notice. Why not wear on a belt? Perhaps he felt a belt was too bulky and noticeable with a knife attached.

Why not put knife back in sheath? Probably wanted to clean it off.

Because knife sheath was touching his clothes (and his gloves did touch items) your probably right that
he probably did assume his DNA was on knife sheath.

As you mention, I definitely think the neighbor's trash and baggie situation was him:

"....trying to keep found DNA samples from LE for as long as he could. "

Bryan trying to mitigate the damage from leaving behind the sheath.
 
This is all IMO and in an effort to reign in this DoorDash and 'Cloud Forensics' degree thing...I figure I'd help empower people to talk about it in a knowledgable way....

There are 5 ways to break into the infrastructure of applications these days.
  1. social engineering - where you use your communications skills (voice, text, email, phishing) to trick someone into giving you their password.
  2. phishing/spear phishing - this might be used in combination with #1. but this is that email you get asking you to log in to check on something important. and the page is capturing your username and password.
  3. trojan horse - this is where your unsuspecting target installs something on their machine. or is tricked to install something on their machine. or is targeted by an exploit (PDF, music stream) that installs something unknowingly on their machine. giving the hacker access to everything they type into their keyword. including user name and passwords.
  4. employees old machines - every once in awhile an employee does not return a laptop. and it ends up in a thrift shop somewhere and someone nefarious buys it. or maybe they give it to a cousin and the cousin is dumb enough to fall for #3 as these machines are usually not kept up to date security wise.
  5. 0day Exploits - this is literally an exploit in a company systems that are so hot off the presses. that they are worth millions of dollars on the black market. Apple, Google, Salesforce and a bunch of other companies have 'Bounty' programs where they will pay 'White Hat Hackers' bounties to find these 0day exploits before the bad guys do.
Once you do any of these things. And you're in the system. You still need to have an idea of what you're doing as their's multiple security checks, gates, and encrypted systems that you need to traverse. And without an encryption key you're likely not going to make it very far. Which is why methods 1-4 are the prevailing methods in today's hacks. Once you have a key you need to have a deep understanding of infrastructure and tech stacks of your target company. Most hackers will get caught as soon as they are in there. Others will sit in the system for a few days lightly pecking and poking as to not be detected before they strike (usually stealing customer information or locking hard drives for ransomware purposes).

I can't speak to Bryan's capabilities of 1,2,3 and 4. But I will say with a 100000000% certainty that he was not capable of #5. The world's greatest hackers work in the #5 area. Almost all of these groups are Russians. North Korea has just started a program of state sponsored hackers that have been training since they were adolescents. The CIA/NSA/FBI and every other alphabet agency is watching these groups like a hawk.

No Cloud Forensics degree in the world is going to put Bryan in the same category as those above. Trust me on this one. If he was prolific with computers (read: gifted) then we would have likely heard about it by now. As these top 0.5% are heavily recruited by the worlds top companies or they go to the darkside.

And even those hacking groups couldn't get into DoorDash's systems at a level where they'd be able to allocate orders coming in. I don't see how a breach like that could even happen without them fully understanding the codebase and rewriting code. And now we're talking a national incident. So this is the most preposterous idea IMO.

DoorDash is a publicly traded company. Any hack or compromising of their systems, no matter how small, would need to be reported to shareholders (the public). They wouldn't need to get into details. Just a general "unauthorized access, we are assessing what systems were compromised"

Now what you might be waiting for...

Before I write this let me preface by saying that not even 0.000000001% of me believes DoorDash plays any part in this crime other than to establish a timeline and MAYBE the driver having seen something (the defense will likely press this poor guy/girl and make them look guilty).

The core of Android OS is open source. Which makes it extremely easy to emulate from your computer. This is 100% legal and has been challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court.

So you could theoretically emulate 1 or 50 android devices on one computer. Connect to WIFI or a hotspot. Download DoorDash across all 50. Login to an individual DD account on each of the 50 emulated devices. And DoorDash would see 50 different phones. There's another aspect to this that I'm going to leave out (IP related). But what we've talked about so far while 100% legal, violates DD TOS.

Just to give you an idea of how hard to detect this is millions of emulators are used by resellers every Saturday Nike has a big sneaker release in order to buy tens of thousands of shoes. Nike is investing tens of millions of dollars in technology to stop this sort of thing....and they can't.

So why would DoorDash users want to do this sort of thing? Simple. This is the only method of GPS location spoofing that goes undetectable by any all apps (reinstating that this is completely legal). So as a DoorDash driver I can place 1 account in the busiest part of town, and another account in the wealthiest where they tip the most. And I can pick and choose the deliveries i want to accept as they are offered to me...as if i was parked in those places.

Now of course DoorDash does have methods to detect cross account activity like this. And they don't reveal those for obvious reasons. So the multiple accounts thing is farfetched. But a single user, with a single emulated Android device could set their location to be anywhere they want it to be in the DoorDash app and receive orders adjacent to it from the comfort of their home if they wanted.

Did Bryan do this? IMO, NO.

But at least now when you talk about it you don't have to be vague and attribute him having some sort of magical ninja hacking skills because he took a course taught by a professor that is likely completely out of their depth because they aren't in the field. A computer science program at Stanford teaching this sort of thing? OK...you're closer....but still not in the ballpark of being taught usable methods to get into Fortune 500 companies who are employing 100s of engineers, state of the art encryption and detection methods, contractors, consultants, 3rd party services, auditors and working with the FBI (yes, proactively) to keep intruders out of their systems.

MOO.

Again, everything I described above is legal but likely against DoorDash's terms of service . All TOS violations that have been openly discussed here before (multiple accounts for one user, multiple identities for one user, spoofed GPS). MODS if needed I'll happily edit and repost.
 
Last edited:
This is all IMO and in an effort to reign in this DoorDash and 'Cloud Forensics' degree thing...I figure I'd help empower people to talk about it in a knowledgable way....

There are 5 ways to break into the infrastructure of applications these days.
  1. social engineering - where you use your communications skills (voice, text, email, phishing) to trick someone into giving you their password.
  2. phishing/spear phishing - this might be used in combination with #1. but this is that email you get asking you to log in to check on something important. and the page is capturing your username and password.
  3. trojan horse - this is where your unsuspecting target installs something on their machine. or is tricked to install something on their machine. or is targeted by an exploit (PDF, music stream) that installs something unknowingly on their machine. giving the hacker access to everything they type into their keyword. including user name and passwords.
  4. employees old machines - every once in awhile an employee does not return a laptop. and it ends up in a thrift shop somewhere and someone nefarious buys it. or maybe they give it to a cousin and the cousin is dumb enough to fall for #3 as these machines are usually not kept up to date security wise.
  5. 0day Exploits - this is literally an exploit in a company systems that are so hot off the presses. that they are worth millions of dollars on the black market. Apple, Google, Salesforce and a bunch of other companies have 'Bounty' programs where they will pay 'White Hat Hackers' bounties to find these 0day exploits before the bad guys do.
Once you do any of these things. And you're in the system. You still need to have an idea of what you're doing as their's multiple security checks, gates, and encrypted systems that you need to traverse. And without an encryption key you're likely not going to make it very far. Which is why methods 1-4 are the prevailing methods in today's hacks. Once you have a key you need to have a deep understanding of infrastructure and tech stacks of your target company. Most hackers will get caught as soon as they are in there. Others will sit in the system for a few days lightly pecking and poking as to not be detected before they strike (usually stealing customer information or locking hard drives for ransomware purposes).

I can't speak to Bryan's capabilities of 1,2,3 and 4. But I will say with a 100000000% certainty that he was not capable of #5. The world's greatest hackers work in the #5 area. Almost all of these groups are Russians. North Korea has just started a program of state sponsored hackers that have been training since they were adolescents. The CIA/NSA/FBI and every other alphabet agency is watching these groups like a hawk.

No Cloud Forensics degree in the world is going to put Bryan in the same category as those above. Trust me on this one. If he was prolific with computers (read: gifted) then we would have likely heard about it by now. As these top 0.5% are heavily recruited by the worlds top companies or they go to the darkside.

And even those hacking groups couldn't get into DoorDash's systems at a level where they'd be able to allocate orders coming in. I don't see how a breach like that could even happen without them fully understanding the codebase and rewriting code. And now we're talking a national incident. So this is the most preposterous idea IMO.

DoorDash is a publicly traded company. Any hack or compromising of their systems, no matter how small, would need to be reported to shareholders (the public). They wouldn't need to get into details. Just a general "unauthorized access, we are assessing what systems were compromised"

Now what you might be waiting for...

Before I write this let me preface by saying that not even 0.000000001% of me believes DoorDash plays any part in this crime other than to establish a timeline and MAYBE the driver having seen something (the defense will likely press this poor guy/girl and make them look guilty).

The core of Android OS is open source. Which makes it extremely easy to emulate from your computer. This is 100% legal and has been challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court.

So you could theoretically emulate 1 or 50 android devices on one computer. Connect to WIFI or a hotspot. Download DoorDash across all 50. Login to an individual DD account on each of the 50 emulated devices. And DoorDash would see 50 different phones. There's another aspect to this that I'm going to leave out (IP related). But what we've talked about so far while 100% legal, violates DD TOS.

Just to give you an idea of how hard to detect this is millions of emulators are used by resellers every Saturday Nike has a big sneaker release in order to buy tens of thousands of shoes. Nike is investing tens of millions of dollars in technology to stop this sort of thing....and they can't.

So why would DoorDash users want to do this sort of thing? Simple. This is the only method of GPS location spoofing that goes undetectable by any all apps (reinstating that this is completely legal). So as a DoorDash driver I can place 1 account in the busiest part of town, and another account in the wealthiest where they tip the most. And I can pick and choose the deliveries i want to accept as they are offered to me...as if i was parked in those places.

Now of course DoorDash does have methods to detect cross account activity like this. And they don't reveal those for obvious reasons. So the multiple accounts thing is farfetched. But a single user, with a single emulated Android device could set their location to be anywhere they want it to be in the DoorDash app and receive orders adjacent to it from the comfort of their home if they wanted.

Did Bryan do this? NO.

But at least now when you talk about it you don't have to be vague and attribute him having some sort of magical ninja hacking skills because he took a course taught by a professor that is likely completely out of their depth because they aren't in the field. A computer science program at Stanford teaching this sort of thing? OK...you're closer....but still not in the ballpark of being taught usable methods to get into Fortune 500 companies who are employing 100s of engineers, state of the art encryption and detection methods, contractors, consultants, 3rd party services, auditors and working with the FBI (yes, proactively) to keep intruders out of their systems.

MOO.

Again, everything I described above is legal but likely against DoorDash's terms of service . All TOS violations that have been openly discussed here before (multiple accounts for one user, multiple identities for one user, spoofed GPS). MODS if needed I'll happily edit and repost.
Thank you, Schooling, that is all good to know, and for me at least, to understand more about how hackers operate and DD works especially.

I get regular emails/primers on hacking techniques to look out for from my work (corporate) on a regular basis and have to do regular trainings and pass quizzes demonstrating I understand all the risks/baits and will avoid the attempts to compromise security of personal info, sign ins, networks, etc.

But I don't use Door Dash or understand how they manage their electronic data/communications/etc., so I really do appreciate your explanation that BK couldn't have used "any" knowledge he may have had to "hack into" DD, and what knowledge he may have had about "the cloud", ahem, forensically speaking, was probably paltry at best.

That said, I never meant to give him too much credit in any of my posts for being an expert in any way, shape, or form, just vetting possible implications of his knowledge that are out there making people think he is some sort of evil criminal/data hacking genius, which I do not ascribe to.

All MOO
 
Last edited:
b&sbm
yet another interesting possibility. I think this whole case is a stretch. imo jmo


Please make this make sense, legal deities, make this make sense! he has a degree in cloud-based forensics, but drives his own car, takes his actual phone, and peels out after a quadruple murder. DD and tinder and other warrants back to 2021. please make this make sense. :)
No CBF degree and apparently not much sense either. JMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
201
Guests online
3,774
Total visitors
3,975

Forum statistics

Threads
592,428
Messages
17,968,693
Members
228,766
Latest member
CoRo
Back
Top