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.

23 of 470 comments (clear)

  1. so first she claims there was no server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    now claims the server was secured.

    either of these claims disproves the other. You cannot have secured what does not exist.

    Interesting how the debate has shifted away from the lies and denials in public of this, but into the content and construction.

    It's like any of us being caught with a machine gun illegally in our possession but turning the debate away from the law we broke having it into whether or not it was loaded and what type of ammo, as if that made any difference.

    1. Re:so first she claims there was no server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Neither excludes the other: A non-existing server is secure. A secure server doesn't exist.

    2. Re:so first she claims there was no server by Quasimodem · · Score: 4, Funny

      I approve this message.

    3. Re:so first she claims there was no server by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When did she deny having a server? The only quotes I can find deny that she set up one for the purpose of hiding emails. And denying that she broke any law. But I guess denying one has shoes on is proof of denial of socks.

    4. Re:so first she claims there was no server by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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
    5. Re:so first she claims there was no server by sycodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is not a case of rich people and their lawyers. It's a case of political cronyism. She is being protected.

      In the time it took to go from "No server, nope, never happened" to "It was secured and no one broke in", General Petraeus was investigated, tried and convicted by the Obama Justice Department.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  2. Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump? by Nutria · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm preparing my suicide potion tonight... :(

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    1. Re:Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump? by bobbied · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Keep a stiff upper lip and don't mix the poison yet... It's way too early to be trying to read the poll numbers/tea leaves. We have a LONG time before the first vote is cast. A lot can happen in 4 months, especially given that the campaigns haven't really geared up yet.

      Now if we hit middle January and the first three primary state's polls show it's Clinton/Trump, it's going to get interesting. But I'm willing to bet, one or both of the current "front runners" will be out of the top 2, if not totally out of the race. The alternative possibilities boggle the mind though. Can you imagine a Sanders/Christy race? That'd be bloody... How about Biden/Carson? We'd die of boredom before the election...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump? by rasmusbr · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm not an American, so I'm not really that interested, but I would watch a debate between the top campaign donors for each candidate...

    3. Re:Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump? by tnk1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Don't worry. The Democratic party is still working hard to set up the Clinton coronation.

      As long as the boat isn't rocked too much, Clinton is our winner in this election.

      That could change if they managed to indict Clinton somehow, or Biden joined the race. I don't think Bernie, on his own, will be able to unseat Clinton.

      That said, I am not sure that Jeb would beat Bernie. On the other hand, Bernie would get exactly nothing done unless they seriously changed the make-up of Congress.

      The Republicans are in a bad state, but they'd re-unite to deal with a President Sanders. An actual socialist is probably something they hate even more than each other.

    4. Re:Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump? by bobbied · · Score: 4, Insightful

      LOL, you are right on that...

      The Clintons are not perfect, both Bill and Hillary have done some really nasty things, but they excel in twisting their way out of it. They are obviously good at it given how many times they've successfully managed to do it. I don't expect that this E-mail thing will stick to her, or she'd be in handcuffs already. Some staffers might get shuffled off to jail, but I'd be REALLY surprised if Hillary catches much more than she already has...

      However, don't take my opinion as fact... I thought Trump would be done with his little game campaign in his second week.... I was seriously mistaken, much to my dismay...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  3. Why is this about security? by Darth+Muffin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why is everyone focusing on security with this whole private email server? Sure, security was a problem but that's not why she made her own email server. It was made to bypass public records laws. By having their own email server they can retain or destroy whatever they want and fulfill records requests with whatever they deem fit. The IRS was their role model :-). It's about control, not security. Her and her administration should be tried for that first.

    --
    Real programmers use "copy con program.exe"
  4. It's called by digitalPhant0m · · Score: 4, Funny

    Transparency.

  5. numerous security features by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 4, Funny

    Clinton previously said that her server featured "numerous safeguards," but hasn't explained what that means.

    Some of the numerous security technologies employed include "theater" and "through obscurity".

  6. Bill was good at compromising open 'ports' by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Funny

    Much to the chagrin of Hillary.

  7. Re:Don't trust the gov to use good technical solut by jimbolauski · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  8. Windows Server and Network Solutions by Jim+Efaw · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.)

  9. Re:I'm going to make this easy for you! by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First, are you sure that it actually was extra-legal, or are you only repeating what others have said?

    All that I know is that it has been reported that she had an e-mail server of her own. I could not tell you when it operated and I do not know what laws or regulations existed at what point during its operation.

    At this point, so many contradictory, technically incorrect, and outright silly things have been said by talking heads about this that I'm simply inclined to not bother to judge based on it. This is like when the supposed expert from one of the news channels reported on the hacker 4chan and the images of celebrities he stole and put up on the Internet, it was so full of derp that there was no point in even bothering to pay attention other than as a drinking game of factual inaccuracies. This episode should be interpreted the same way when nontechnical people are doing the talking, be they Mrs. Clinton, or the congress critters, or the reporters.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  10. Re:Don't trust the gov to use good technical solut by Xenographic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > I'm saying she did something stupid, not malicious.

    Leaving out that setting up a server to bypass public records laws is inherently malicious as far as the public interest goes, even if setting it up wasn't malicious, repeatedly lying to us about it most certainly is malicious. The fact that they can convince a non-trivial faction of America of non-factual things is a serious problem. It will continue to be a problem whether it's being abused by Ds or Rs and it was just as bad when the Rs were doing it and I was complaining about them.

    If we want a responsible government, we can't let them off the hook when they deliberately and knowingly subvert the accountability rules, no matter which faction they belong to. If nobody can be held accountable, then the government controls us when it's supposed to be the other way around in a democracy.

  11. Re:I'm going to make this easy for you! by TWX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, I do not have enough information to make a judgement. I have not seen the configuration of the mail server, I do not know when it operated, and I do not know the intricacies of the law during that period.

    I have not seen any good reporting on the configuration of the mail server, on when it operated, or on the law during that period. I have heard that the law changed sometime after the mail server was used, and that people have been attempting to tie the operation of the mail server pre-law to the post-law rules.

    I do not find for or against Mrs. Clinton for the mail server. If the timetable for a change in law meant that she was not breaking the law, then I would find in favor of her, rather than simply discarding this as something upon which to judge her.

    And all of this is silly since conventional e-mail is an inherently insecure communications medium to begin with, regardless of the destination.

    Stop trying to offend with style. Find some goddamn substance instead.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  12. Re:Don't trust the gov to use good technical solut by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

    But don't you realize that leaving a port open on her home server makes her history's greatest monster? Clearly, you're not paying attention to the GOP debates.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  13. Re:I'm going to make this easy for you! by Jhon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Did she ever deny the existence of it?

    "What difference does it make?" -- H. Clinton.

    Honestly, who cares? It's a non issue.

    The problem is that she put information that must be in the PUBLIC RECORDS (see FOIA) on a private server where she was the sole decider of what is or is not going to the public record. This screams all kinds of alarms for me. No, I cant say she withheld anything damning, illegal, embarrassing, incriminating or who knows what else. What I can say with certainty that all of her actions with regards to the server dont appear to be consistant with someone who isn't hiding something (wipe the HD -- emails trickling out after hearing "they've been turned over" already -- etc). And that fills me with doubt about her and her judgement.

    How can we elect someone with this kind of doubt to become president? Only someone with some fake "situational" ethics can forgive this enough to pull the lever for her at the ballot box.

  14. Re:does no one recall gwb43.com by Lakitu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Government officials have been doing this for years (remember Sarah Palin's personal email being accessed? and the guy going to prison for it?), but it's always been done with a veneer of technological ignorance that gives them a little bit of plausibility. Almost every single one of them that has happened so far has been able to shrug their shoulders and say "ha ha, email, who knows how that stuff works! it's magic!", and between their age (GWB was born in 1946, for example) and the general time period (before smartphones even existed) they were able to claim this without any hint of being deceitful.

    Hillary has tried to do this while simultaneously setting up her own server! How fucking dumb does she think people are to believe her saying things like "wipe the server? what, like, with a cloth?" after having ordered the construction and curation of her own private email server? A server which, while in vague legal territory, serves no purpose other than to give herself control over her communication because of her political ambitions?

    There's no deniability here. She can't claim that some boffin came to her and said that this would be a good idea and she rubberstamped it without any scrutiny. She can't claim to have ordered its creation and been ignorant as to what it was capable of because its very purpose of existence was to communicate outside of official channels. She can't claim to be ignorant about classification status of information because, as Secretary of State, she's one of the fucking root authorities!

    Everything about this is her bending the rules for her own personal benefit and not caring about what the consequences are and blatantly lying about it afterwards with the implication that she should get away with it because, otherwise, it might ruin her chances at election. Sorry, but no thanks. If anyone posting here on /. did anything similar to this, not only would you never work for the US government again, but you'd probably have to sit in a federal prison for a decade before you got the chance to have your resumes thrown in the garbage.

    Government communication are certainly a mess, and we probably know that more than anybody, but having anyone who feels like it set up their own VPS or whatever to deal with the problem is a step in the opposite direction. Anyone in any kind of administrator role should cringe at the thought of that. Anyone who excuses this kind of basic technological ignorance as a justifiable reason for breaches of trust and security should be laughed out of the room, as well. Email is not some new-fangled crazy technology, as it's been known and used by the general public for at least 20 years, and anyone who continues to enable the willful ignorance of an older generation like this is only serving to cause clusterfucks like communications in government in the first place.

    You should be linking things like that and demanding more accountability, not using it as some flimsy excuse for more shit behavior.