Slashdot Mirror


Bernie Sanders Campaign Blocked From DNC Voter Info After Improper Access (washingtonpost.com)

PolygamousRanchKid writes with news that staffers for the Bernie Sanders campaign improperly viewed the voter data gathered by Hillary Clinton's campaign by exploiting a software error. "The discovery sparked alarm at the DNC, which promptly shut off the Sanders campaign's access to the strategically crucial list of likely Democratic voters. The DNC maintains the master list and rents it to national and state campaigns, which then add their own, proprietary information gathered by field workers and volunteers. Firewalls are supposed to prevent campaigns from viewing data gathered by their rivals." On Wednesday, while the software was being patched, it briefly opened access to all of the restricted voter data. The Sanders campaign fired the staffer responsible for viewing the data, Josh Uretsky. The campaign says their access was simply part of an investigation to determine their own exposure, and blames the vendor (and those who hired it) for improperly securing the data.

17 of 313 comments (clear)

  1. Background by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From what the news stories are saying, this firewall-dropping was happening repeatedly. So:

    NGP-VAN, the company that stores this data, which is run by an old Clinton hand who worked for them in 1992, the company paid $34,000 by Ready For Hillary, was repeatedly dropping their firewall between the two major Dem campaigns, Clinton and Sanders.

    A guy who’s now fired from the Sanders team observed this. They complained once and were given assurances by the company that it was a mistake and wouldn’t happen again. Then it happened again. The guy decided to gauge how deeply the Clinton campaign was able to read into the Sanders campaign, by experimenting to see how much of the Clinton data he could get. That’s a bad call but by information security standards it’s not unthinkable: it’d be called a white hat intrusion, seeing how much of the firewall was down by probing the other side and assuming your own data was revealed exactly the same way. It does matter, but you still have to fire the guy.

    One thing we can be sure of is, anything open to ‘stealing’ on the Clinton side was just as open on the Sanders side, literally. It’s the same system and the same firewall, and if the firewall keeps mysteriously going down for no good reason you have to wonder what’s up and more relevantly what’s being made available to those on the other side of the firewall, which might explain why the firewall’s going down like that.

    The Sanders people did NOT throw a fit the first time this happened. But this time, the Sanders guy got caught crossing the nonexistent firewall. We have no information at all on whether anybody from the Clinton side was doing the same thing. During that time there WAS NO firewall and the guy wasn’t hacking, he was browsing, as anybody on either side could have done during those windows.

    I think that’s accurate so far. The behavior of the firewall is important, whether or not it’s suspicious as a planned exploit of the Sanders data run by Clinton people who are at the DNC and at NGP-VAN.

    In response to the Sanders guy browsing over and seeing data (how do they know? Because HE TOLD THEM. The Sanders team were the ones reporting this, that’s part of the story), the DNC suspended access by the Sanders campaign to THEIR OWN DATA at a crucial time. In order to get access back, at least as of this morning, the requirement is for the Sanders campaign to prove it has destroyed all data that it didn’t necessarily even download (remember, Sanders guy claims he was exploring the Clinton system because it would mirror the vulnerability of the Sanders system, and he’s not IN the Clinton system to go and browse the Sanders side to see how much is revealed, but he was IN the Sanders side and could look at the Clinton side and reasonably conclude that his own side was equally compromised)

    And social media is blowing the hell up, not unreasonably, because it’s a goddamn hatchet job combined with a kneecapping to yank access by the Bernie campaign to its OWN DATA because a guy from the Bernie campaign passively browsed through a firewall he didn’t himself disable, a firewall run by a company controlled by Clinton partisans which had been going down already for reasons unknown.

    1. Re:Background by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the DNC suspended access by the Sanders campaign to THEIR OWN DATA at a crucial time

      The DNC suspended Sander's access to DNC's own data, because the DNC as an organisation has decided upon Clinton come what may and Sander's is at best a token horse and at worst a thorn in their side to achieving this.

      There is absolutely no question that this would never have happened the other way around. Hilary Clinton's campaign being denied access to their own data because some staffer added strings to a url? Unthinkable. Clinton is the DNC's annoited. Sander's is an unexpected irritant and to be treated as such.

      This is a Rovian "technical glitch" story, spun into a convienient excuse to "ratfuck" the party's process for selecting a canditate in aid of helping people reach the "correct" result. Nothing more. Anyone, in 2015, still falling for the excuses being given here seriously needs to consider their critical thinking facilities.

      People wonder why Trump is leading the polls. Why people would be attracted to him. Has it ever occured tthat they are also being repulsed by this now standard "post-Watergate" behaviour that is so ubiquitious amoung the "respectable" candidates? I always wondered how far America's elites could test the trust and patience of the people before something finally gave. Trump's candidacy suggest we are nearing that breaking point. The DNC and Clinton's cynical selection gives no comfort we are moving away from it.

    2. Re:Background by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bernie is unelectable, it's that simple.

      Go fuck yourself, shill.

      The only "reason" Sanders has for being allegedly-unelectable is that Hillary shills like you repeatedly assert that it's so, but it isn't. And we're done listening to you!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    3. Re:Background by s.petry · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Fair point. My kid was in elementary school and noticed the media blatantly influencing the election. "Dad, why do they mention crazy every time they say Ron Paul's name?" and "Why did they cut the speech to make it look like he said something he didn't?"

      That said, Trump is not a career politician and can run his own campaign financially. Carson is another who is pretty popular for a guy who has never been a politician. I don't think that says that the Republican party has changed as much as the American populace is fed up with the corruption. 6 Months ago both parties said "Jeb vs. Hillary" and today it's not quite so clear. I know a whole lot of Dems who are not voting party this time because of how Hillary has been handled by everyone. Media has not crucified her for the scandals (of which there are plenty), or bothered to mention her double speak (where we have some hefty and career ending positions like pro-Feminism but pro Saudi Arabia). The debates have been intentionally hidden from view to protect Hillary as well.

      The fact that Bernie Sanders can still hold a lead in many places even after his own party joined in with the media lambasting him as a "Socialist" says as much about the Democratic party as Trump does for the Republican party. People are fed up.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    4. Re:Background by Immerman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They're also probably not people who would vote for a Democrat regardless, so where's the problem?

      Meanwhile, Sanders seems to actually appeal to a lot of moderate Republicans who realize that big business has been gutting this country, and share his belief that getting money out of politics is the most important thing we can do to preserve our democracy. And some of them don't even have a major objection to his main "scary socialist" plans - he's mainly talking about intervening in areas where capitalism has demonstrably failed, delivering a deeply sub-standard product at grossly inflated prices: namely general heath care and access to higher education. And then there's the bit about undercutting the tyrannical laws and militarized police force that have grown up around the "war on drugs" - that's something any freedom-loving American should be able to get behind.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  2. Exploiting? Or Trying to find out WTF is going on? by An+Ominous+Canard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This could easily be shooting the messenger. The fellow responsible for protecting the Sanders campaign's voter data discovered that the DNC's patch had left their voter information database wide open. He starts determining the extent of the problem, which leaves an audit trail. As a result, he gets tossed over the side. Compare this to the commercial world. When you let one of your business customers discover that you've left their trade secrets wide open to their competitors, what happens? I guarantee that the employee who discovered it does not get sacked.

  3. Re:DNC doesn't want Sanders to Win Anyways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If nominated Bernie is certainly capable of winning the general election, polling about as well or better than Hillary against all the GOP candidates. He also excites the Democratic base while Hillary does not, and would have much longer coattails than Hillary as well. The DNC doesn't want Bernie to win because he's not a subsidiary of Wall Street while Hillary and the DNC leadership are.

    This is the real fight this year: Hillary vs Bernie. The general election won't matter.

  4. Does not compute by Sumus+Semper+Una · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's try a somewhat-analogous scenario as a thought exercise:

    I find out that on my bank's website, I can easily see my neighbor's bank account by doing some obvious URL manipulation.
    I immediately tell the bank that I'm worried about the security of my own account because I know that I could go into anyone else's.
    The bank locks me, and only me, from accessing any bank accounts, including my own.

    That response makes no sense. The only proper response would be to revoke ALL access to the bank's website until such time as the security hole can be confirmed fixed. Otherwise, the implied message is that you should NEVER tell the bank that they have a potential problem.

    I just wonder whether this was actually a story of extreme incompetence or extreme corruption.

  5. sniff sniff by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I smell a double agent.

  6. Re:Oh, and one more thing by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, that's me. I am a low level data peon typing in the results of canvassing and phone-banking in Keene, New Hampshire. I'm from Vermont, which is how I know about Bernie, and I'm working directly for Bernie's campaign. It's cool, good people, much like the Obama campaigns except more successful.

    I've donated to Bernie too :)

    I've personally typed data into the VoteBuilder system that Bernie's not allowed to access now, so I'm taking it personally. _I_ typed that data in. I've also given money directly to Bernie's campaign. Do they propose to take that and award it to Hillary too?

    I don't know the guy that accessed the data, but I know most of what's on those servers is the voter info, and lots of it is old and obsolete.

    I just talked to my boss in the campaign and they're having some kind of meeting and press conference. We actually feel this is a sign that Bernie's doing better than expected and the DNC is panicking. We think they're probably going to give the data back because it's totally impossible to spin 'shutting off Bernie's whole campaign' over one guy who wasn't even a hacker and who went right to the company and told them what he'd done.

    On the other hand, if the DNC are dicks and we can't get access to VoteBuilder, we've already seen enough to know the depth of support for Bernie, so we'll just have to go door-to-door without voter lists or data entry. Pure canvassing and ground game, the most important part.

    We can tell them what the Democrats are doing to try and stop us (this is why they're bound to give the data back: trying to shut us down that way makes Hillary look very bad. Her people run the DNC and also that database company itself) and we don't technically need VoteBuilder, it just helps organize stuff. You might say maybe we should be knocking on ALL the doors anyway!

    They can shut off the computers, but they can't shut off their own voters. And the Dem voters don't have to be turned off, we just need to get out there and talk to people. Bernie's an honest guy and has many great plans that will help the country, even as screwy as it is. We'll give people a chance to vote for Bernie: both in the primary, and then for President. And the country will start growing again, and rebuilding itself, which will put a lot of people to work.

  7. Re:Oh, and one more thing by amicusNYCL · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This whole thing stinks, it stinks because the co-owner of NGP VAN was Clinton's chief technology officer for her 2008 campaign. If there was proof that her campaign has had access to all of the DNC data during the entire campaign it wouldn't surprise me, the DNC and their pundits have clearly been trying to push the narrative that she is the presumed candidate, despite Sanders' surge in popularity, and I'm sure they're willing to do whatever they can to help her and prove themselves right. It doesn't really mean anything for Clinton's former CTO to say that he pinky-swears that their campaign never accessed the other side. It also makes no sense that anyone running a sensitive system would keep that system online while the firewall is offline for maintenance. If the data is important enough to have a firewall there, then before you take the firewall down you need to make sure that the data isn't going to be accessed or compromised in the meantime.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  8. Re: Should have cleaned the data... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wouldn't have to. There'd be plenty to go around.

    True. Look at Detroit.

  9. DNC has already annointed Hillary by Spy+Handler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Powers That Be have stacked the deck against Bernie in every way imaginable. DNC chairman is a former Clinton campaign manager. They cut the number of primary debates because they learned from focus groups that the more people see and learn about Hillary, less they like her, while the opposite was true for Bernie -- his favorability went up the more people learned about him.

    Not only that, the few remaining debates have been scheduled to attracted as little viewership as possible (Saturday and Sunday nights, opposite major sporting events, Xmas shopping season, etc)

    This latest flap is just a curt reminder for Bernie that he's just here as a prop and that he needs to know his place.

  10. Re:"Firewall" by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Firewalls? Please. Anyone who knows anything about what a firewall is knows that firewalls do not do this sort of thing. Firewalls are 100% about controlling which ports are open or closed on a computer, and under what circumstances.

    No, "firewalls" are 100% about stopping literal fire from spreading from one part of a building to another. Anybody who knows anything about what a firewall is knows that, so you must be some kind of complete moron!

    See what happens when you disregard context? You make a fool of yourself. In this case, the non-technical politicians making the public statements are obviously using the word in a much less formal context than you assume.

    Granted, they probably should have called it a Chinese wall instead...

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  11. Re:DNC doesn't want Sanders to Win Anyways by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm finding it hard to understand why the DNC/establishment is so gung-ho about Clinton

    Because Clinton is a corrupt fucking sociopath, which means she's much easier to make underhanded political deals with, so the other corrupt fucking sociopaths like working with her.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  12. Re:Oh, and one more thing by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Obvious shill is obvious.

    Sanders has never been racist or sexist.

    In fact, by falsely accusing him as such -- based solely on his race and gender -- Clinton reveals herself to be racist and sexist!

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  13. Re:Nazi-comparisons by mi · · Score: 1, Insightful

    And Trump is employing much of the same fear-mongering

    Citations? Actual quotes, not paraphrases, please.

    Exile people with "impure blood", especially Mexican ancestry

    A lie. The very fact, that you need to lie to make your point thoroughly invalidates it, BTW.

    okay, so he says only illegal immigrants

    Why post a lie, only to correct it yourself? So, opposing illegal immigration makes one similar to Hitler? How about being a vegetarian like Hitler? Or being an aquarellist? Trump is not a war hero — unlike Hitler — does that absolve him in your similarities-seeking mind?

    claims to think Operation Wetback was a rousing success despite all the innocent Americans who got swept up in it

    Citations?

    business as usual in the US is already pretty close to fascism

    You just said, Fascism is not a problem, so let's not get sidetracked.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.