Slashdot Mirror
Clinton Home Servers Had Ports Open (ap.org)
Jim Efaw writes: Hillary Clinton's home servers had more than just the e-mail ports open directly to the Internet. The Associated Press discovered, by using scanning results from 2012 "widely available online", that the clintonemail.com server also had the RDP port open; another machine on her network had the VNC port open, and another one had a web server open even though it didn't appear to be configured for a real site. Clinton previously said that her server featured "numerous safeguards," but hasn't explained what that means. Apparently, requiring a VPN wasn't one of them.
I really hope that this isn't an apology for Hillary.
If it's an apology, it would be for more than Hillary. Colin Powell also used a private e-mail for state-department business.
The worst part are all the relatively smart people who are excusing this, simply because she has a (D) after her name.
Colin Powell does not have a (D) after his name.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
She did both, she hosted government communications on her private email and scrubbed the communications that she deemed damaging or not related.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
I looked at all the current presidential candidates websites to see how good their security/tech was:
https://bryanquigley.com/polit...
In summary:
Epic fail - Jim Gilmore, Bobby Jindal, George Pataki
IPv6 - Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio.
Complicated Setups - Clinton and Christie
CloudFlare and WordPress are popular
I hope she was using Windows, we all know how hardened that is.
Not only was she running Windows Server (according to the AP article), but she was using Network Solutions for her registrar, even after the U.S. Postal Service and several other large institutions had their NetSol domains slammed to a registrar in the British Virgin Islands against their will; and for some reason the clintonemail.com IP address was changed to that same company in 2011. (This, of course, years and years after anyone with tech experience had dropped Network Solutions.)
Colin Powell used a PUBLIC email server, not a private one. Slightly different, and enough different that it matters.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
All I have to say, is if this were Jeb, he would be in jail already
Are you conveniently forgetting that Jeb did literally the exact same thing? He had a personal server, then decided what to forward for state archives and deleted the rest.
And so did Christie
And so did Jindal
And so did Rubio
And so did Huckabee
And while they no longer candidates, so did Perry
And so did Walker
I'm not excusing Hillary, because she did fail to follow security protocols. But lets not pretend that she's in some rare company, and lets not pretend that state level governments operate with complete transparency and that state governors could never possibly discuss classified or secret information under any circumstances.
Is this the best you can do to try to keep the "scandal" alive? Just because the RDP port is open doesn't mean it's actually RDP running on the port.
I do serious IT work as my job. Obviously, you don't. If one of my sysadmins left that port open, he would be fired. Yes, we run a port scanner on all our servers to make sure that they are clean . . . squeaky clean. This is just standard procedure in most serious IT shops.
Whatever you do in yours . . . well, that will be your problem.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
I hate to break it to you, Biden is going to be in this race. You can count on it. The question I have is why the heck is he waiting to jump in?
One possibility is that he sees it being too soon. He still thinks it is to his advantage to be high in the polls and not actually be IN the race officially. I can see this being true, because as long as he's not in the race officially, he's not a big target because he's not a threat, so he won't be taking "friendly fire" from Hillary and Sanders who will be focused on each other, at least for as long as Sanders can be seen as competitive. So Biden waits until Sanders takes the eventual fall, or we get to the point where Biden has to get in or risk not being on the ballots in the primary.
The other possible reason for delaying, is Biden knows something about the Hillary situation that will mortally wound her when it comes out and he's just waiting for the shoe to drop so he can step into the race as both the front runner and the presumed nominee.
My guess is that it's the first. Biden is waiting for Sanders and Hillary to beat each other up some, even get some partisan mud slinging going on as Hillary started to attack Trump now, then step into the race at the last possible instant unscathed and fresh.
However, there is little chance Biden doesn't jump in.... Which puts a world of hurt on Hillary and as you point out puts Sanders on a path that *might* get him to the nomination if he's lucky. But the chances Biden or Sanders get the democratic nomination are remote. The race is Hillary's to loose by doing stupid stuff, and unlike Biden, she's not prone to committing unforced errors. Trust me, she ready for Biden, it's unlikely she looses unless there is some mid campaign surprise she cannot control.
PS... Full disclosure, I'm as far from a Hillary voter as you can get. I won't be voting in the democratic primaries or supporting any of their candidates so I don't have a dog in their hunt. I'm just an outside observer who lived though Bill Clinton's presidency so I've seen the Clintons in action before.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
More appropriately secure is a relative term. Take the US justice system it is secure for the rich because they mostly get off and it is secure for the rich because the poor mostly get convicted, so it is secure in one regard. So the mail servers were secure, they kept private questionable communiques away from investigatory eyes and should push come to shove they could be 'hmm' be edited prior to handover, so yes quite emphatically they were 'secured'. Just they way the politically corrupt would like them secured and generally not the way the informed public would like them secured (no lost communiques). Keep in mind the era and how other corporate emails from the likes of M$ and HP were being obtained by the courts and becoming part of court battles (leading to regular email auditing and deletions to ensure safer track records for court proceedings). The intent is clear, that they conspired to cheat government record keeping systems, it is also clear and that government officers were brought into the conspiracy was also clear, hence many laws were most emphatically broken and should be deserving of investigation and prosecution. Whether or not the 'remaining?' emails show secured data on the laws or criminal intent is arbitrary, the crime had already been committed in conspiring to intentionally thwart government record keeping of government communiques.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
So there's one rape allegation there. Which firstly is "a person" not "people", and secondly is merely an allegation by someone who has given multiple inconsistent versions of the story.
Why is anyone making a fuss over Hilaries private e-mail server. Gov't comms are a mess. and then there's GWB43.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
"She's been investigated for years, and not one problem found"
There's been plenty of 'problems' found. Nothing that has yielded an indictment -- but enough that a reasonable person should keep her clear of public service.
"There are records of every "official" email to and from her in the State Department servers."
Clearly you've no idea what you are talking about.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us...
Those emails werent ON the state department servers. Because she sent them from her PERSONAL account to the DoD. How many other emails have yet to surface because they aren't on the State Department's archive?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09...
You know... if I see enough tell tale clues that a rat has been in my kitchen (chewed hole in dog food, for example) I can decide that there *IS* a rat without actually SEEING it. There MIGHT be a logical explanation for the hole, but as far as Clinton goes, every excuse comes with a lot more tell tale clues. Example:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
And then this:
http://www.npr.org/sections/al...
And it was wiped....
She could be spitting your your face and you'd be saying "it's raining!" Please, I'm not saying "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the legal sense that she did anything illegal. I'm saying that a reasonable person could only conclude that she hasn't been forth-coming and should not be trusted.
(please note all my citations are either liberal or left leaning sources).
Well done, you've demolished a straw man.
What straw man? The A/C asserted that she claimed there was no server. That was false. I called him on it. If it's "no issue" why are so many people here claiming she said it? Seems like too many people are taking provably false accusations as fact.
BTW - You left out her claims regarding classified information that have gone up in flames.
I didn't "leave out" anything. I don't feel the compulsive need to go off into non sequiturs whenever it looks like a Clinton hasn't been accused of enough today. The A/C claimed she claimed there was no server. I called him on it. You agreed with me that Hillary is innocent of that accusation. That's all. No need to turn into a raving mad lunatic.
Learn to love Alaska