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.
Should have scrubbed the data...you know...with a rag or something.
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.
Is that the other two campaigns didn't notice. Vigilance is needed these days to be a good President. Look what happened when Condi played games ignoring Clarke.
The DNC doesn't want Sanders to be their candidate any more than the leadership of the GOP desperately doesn't want Trump to be their candidate - cause they both are afraid it would cost them the election at the Presidential and Senate level (and House seats too). Expect the DNC to do anything it can PR wise to help the expected winner to win. JMHO...
Also, while yammering away about a guy and his exploit through a firewall he himself didn't shut down
The DNC are using this as an excuse to lock the Sanders campaign out of its OWN DATA until whenever.
That data is how we print up lists of voters, addresses, phone numbers, and how we record people's reactions and what they care about. It goes into an NGP-VAN server and will eventually be used by ALL the Dem candidates.
And for 'whatever reason', the Democratic National Committee has decided to tell NGP-VAN to lock the Bernie campaign out of its own data, when we are counting the days until the first primaries.
While arguing about the guy and how guilty he is of data intrusion, try to consider whether it's worth shutting down the whole campaign and locking them out of their computer systems until (unspecified impossible conditions here). Because this is looking like an intra-Democrat coup to coronate Hillary Clinton, and that really helps nobody.
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.
I was thinking the exact same thing. Firewalls block specific network functions not query functions in a database. That's done by ACLs and basic user security as far as I know. I guess they could of set things up in a funky database where the DNC stores the most basic info in a core database that has sim links to each campaigns individualized data in their private networks. I guess you could block what is being viewed that way by preventing the main database from even reaching the individual sub-databases held by each campaign. In the most basic sense I guess you could use a firewall for that. Seems clunky though. Then again I am not a database person.
Seriously are they saying that's how the data was secured, not ACL? I call bull, or the people reporting do not understand technology enough to report on it.
Hurts, doesn't it?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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.
I smell a double agent.
Killary's friends run that company who host the database. It's a sham! Killary is a criminal! Nothing more than a chance for her to eliminate the competition!
You Democrats are nothing more than criminals! Chrony capitalism at its finest!
In the larger picture, this is exactly why "metadata" on phone calls should require a warrant. Who is to say some agent of Hillary...or Bernie...or Bush isn't looking up and fleshing out call networks, where everyone the Big calls is a potential or actual supporter, opening them up to some kind of harassment like an IRS investigation.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
He has a pretty good record on the environment here in Maryland. I'm not a Democrat but I'm seen what dynasties have done to the Republicans and how it hurt the country so I do worry that Democrats could end up doing the same. Bill would not have missed this. Why did Hillary?
While we are all assuming this is a hatchet job to get Bernie locked out, these "intermittent firewall drops" could, in fact, be Hillary having arranged for her people to be able to spy on him - but nobody is mentioning that in the news articles. P.S. 15 years as a network engineer and i still dont know why the press uses the term firewall so loosely. If it was sincerely a layer 3/4 security device, there would be lots of evidence as to exactly what happened - unless logging were disabled. I think in this case they are calling security mechanisms within their db or reporting app a "firewall" war were declared!!
will work for dragon quest localization
Queue angry Sanders supporters complaining about a broader conspiracy by Hillary/DNC/Mainstream Media/etc. to destroy his campaign in three... two... one...
FEEL THE BE^hURN!!!
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
I knew something like this was going to happen. Bernie Sanders simply will not be allowed on the ballot by TPTB.
I'm still wondering what will happen to Trump. Then again, I would guess he's probably just a useful idiot to TPTB.
"Firewalls are supposed to prevent campaigns from viewing data gathered by their rivals."
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. They have nothing whatsoever to do with separating customer data, and anything you have that does that is called something else.
Listen, DNC: I know you need to give us a lie that minimizes your legal liability in these sorts of situations. Please prepare a plausible lie in the future.
The term "Firewall" has been in use LONG before computer networks existed. In its literal meaning it is a specially constructed wall to prevent fire from spreading. In its common usage it can be any system in place to stop movement from one compartmentalized unit in to another. Your car has a firewall between the engine compartment and the passenger compartment for example. Software application can also have firewalls that are sets of rules to prevent access between different users.
Today I'm contributing to Bernie's campaign.
Given that they were doing an upgrade process with a known security flaw during the day, I don't think it's safe to assume that the setup is remotely competent.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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.
[I have no interest in voting for a socialist as President. Just not my politics. Also there is also NO WAY I'd vote for Hillary Clinton. NO WAY. But...]
After all the political snafus and screw-ups that the Democrats have been involved with in the past 30 years, one thing is clear: NO ONE ever gets fired. Ever.
So, if Bernie Sanders helmed a campaign that FIRED someone--I humbly submit that if you're trying to decide between the two, and don't want more of the same from this f'd up political system--Bernie should DEFINITELY get your vote.
Scott
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
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
No, it's not like breaking into someone's house to photocopy their private shit. Your analogy sucks! It's more like having a car manufacturer 'accidentally' unlock your car a few times a day when they detect people are walking next to the car. Is the guy that opens your glove box wrong? Absolutely, but he didn't break into the car. He heard the lock pop so was curious as to what was inside.
Not only are you wrong, but you are wrong by car analogy.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
It's justified if it's true, and it's probably true.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
that Bernie is at the stage "then they fight you"? Because if true, only one step remains to be taken ("then you win" - the nomination, at least).
2016 will be a very interesting year...
An earlier challenge to haterz requesting citations of anything "fascist"-like about Donald Trump remains unanswered — though not for lack of trying.
Would you like to try again?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
According to Bernie Sanders — in their own words — these data are "the heart and soul of our campaign".
An eye-opening admission, I must say...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
If you have a question about how Sanders would be different from Chavez, then ask Sanders. ABC might have instructions on how to submit questions, but it sounds like you might need to use Twitter with #DemDebate. I'm sure by the start of the debate they'll tell you how to submit questions. That is, if you want an actual answer instead of just trolling Slashdot.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
That would require me to open a Twitter account, and I will not do that. Having a /. one is bad enough.
I've formed my opinion of Senator Sanders long ago — in my ex-USSR mind anybody, who willingly takes up the "Socialist" label (whether or not they are actually Socialist) belongs on a lamp-post (for Secret Service — I have no intention of physically harming anybody, much less a US Senator).
Whether they are National Socialists or International ones, does not matter — Collectivism destroys both individual rights and the country's wealth and must not be allowed to win yet again.
I'm using /. to — quite successfully, as you see — tie Socialists to Hugo Chavez to reduce the danger of Leftism making further inroads in this country.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
That is a blatant lie.
This is also a blatant lie: several people linked to exactly the answer you wanted, but you used the fact that they didn't spoon-feed it to you as an excuse to ignore it.
Nevertheless, I'll humor your whiny, infantile ass and list some differences directly:
And of course, those are only economic and foreign policy differences. In pretty much every other way -- use of military force, (lack of) respect for civil rights, level of corruption, environmental policy, etc. -- Chavez is much more similar to the Republican candidates than he is to Sanders!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
No, honey, at most, it is an incorrect statement. Whether it is even incorrect, let's see.
Nope, none of the links were to point-by-point comparisons as you attempted. The links were to Sanders' own program, which look remarkably similar to that of Chaves. Let's see:
Chavez is a communist in the literal sense: nationalization of industry, organizing people into communes and price controls. Sanders wants none of those things. Socialism is simply Communism-lite — the differences are in a degree, not the substance. Chavez did not nationalize industry — except for oil-industry. Does Sanders want to nationalize anything? He certainly did in 2006 even if is mum on the topic now... And he is calling himself "Socialist", which would be a misnomer, if he opposed nationalization. Thus, you've outlined a similarity, not a difference. Fail. Although Sanders also wants to expand social programs Thank, for another similarity. Another Fail. Chavez neglected infrastructure; Sanders wants to increase spending Venezuela's infrastructure-erosion was not part of Chavez plan, it was a consequence of his misgoverning. That Sanders' rule is likely to result the same is one of the points I am making. Chavez instituted currency controls; Sanders has (as far as I know) never advocated such a thing Again, price-controls were a reaction to economy going down the toilet — it was not Chavez plan to do it. That Sanders' rule is likely to result the destruction of economy is one of the points I am making. Chavez was all sorts of corrupt. Sanders is the least-corrupt Ah, so sweet to see a Leftist throw a former idol under the bus in order to promote a new one... But, either way, personal corruption has nothing to do with economics or foreign policies. Chavez was soft on violent crime; Sanders is not Chavez was not "soft on crime" — he was hard on competent policemen, whom he feared and replaced with loyal (if incompetent) ones. But that was not part of his proposals either — it was simply a result of his ideas put to life. Sanders' ideas — which are remarkably similar — will have the same results, whatever his intentions are. Chavez was a militant who supported terrorism, Sanders is the opposite. Chavez didn't support "terrorism", he supported like-minded Communists, who used terrorism (among other methods) "for the greater good". I'm yet to be reassured, Sanders will be different in practice. but it's a fair bet Sanders wouldn't use "oil diplomacy." Huh? You mean, he will not use the "carrot" of money to advance causes he likes? Seriously? Why not?Hey, make up your mind — are RethugliKKKans more like Hitler or like Chavez?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
in my ex-USSR mind anybody, who willingly takes up the "Socialist" label ... belongs on a lamp-post
OK, so your mind is admittedly clouded by a strong (arguably irrational) negative bias. I'd say that was fairly obvious, but the admission is always nice. I could say that Sanders isn't suggesting that the US emulate the regime of the Soviets, but that probably wouldn't matter much if you don't make a distinction between different forms of socialism anyway.
I'm probably speaking to a brick wall here, but here's one thing: Sanders is not, and never has, advocated that the state should own the means of production.
I'm using /. to — quite successfully, as you see — tie Socialists to Hugo Chavez to reduce the danger of Leftism making further inroads in this country.
Oh, I didn't realize that. I just heard on CNN and Fox News this morning that someone on Slashdot was going around tying socialism to Hugo Chavez, and that was the reason why America is moving sharply to the right. I didn't realize that was you. I'm honored to meet someone so distinguished and influential.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Socialism isn't collectivist. There are collectivist ideologies that are socialist, but there are also collectivist ideologies that are capitalist. I despise all collectivist ideologies, regardless of the details.
In other words, I'm more interested in whether a person is collectivist than whether he or she is a socialist or capitalist or has come up with a crackpot economic system.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
A point-by-point comparison probably didn't exist because you're the only one who mistakenly thinks its a relevant comparison to make in the first place!
And liberalism is simply socialism-lite. And conservativism is simply liberalism-lite. And fascism (or dominionism, or both) is simply conservativism-lite. It's all a spectrum, if we go by your logic.
But we shouldn't go by your logic, because your logic is wrong and stupid. Sanders' brand of pseudo-socialism is qualitatively different than communism in that the former is much less authoritarian. Political ideology cannot be described by only one axis, and while socialism and communism are on the same side of the "conservative-liberal" axis they're far apart on the "libertarian-authoritarian" one.
("conservative-liberal" is really two different axes in and of itself, but I can't be bothered to go into that detail right now.)
It's a compound misnomer: it's a misnomer on Sanders' part because he's not actually a socialist, and it's a misnomer on your part, because socialists don't want to nationalize everything, communists do. Your attempt to conflate socialists with communists is a strawman fallacy.
These three arguments are all the same, and all equally fallacious. You're trying to argue that just because Chavez was bad at governing and happened to be a socialist, that all socialists must be bad at governing, which is a hasty generalization fallacy.
WTF are you talking about? (A) I am not a leftist, (B) I've never given the slightest shit about Chavez, and barely knew who he was until I looked him up on Wikipedia to answer your inane post. So that's another strawman, with an ad-hominem thrown in for good measure.
No. You don't get to assert that without the slightest hint of any kind of reason. I specifically explained why it is a goddamn economic issue -- namely, that "corruption begets inefficiency" -- so your choices are either to refute it or concede the point!
Okay, fine. Then show me the similarity: the burden of proof is on you to show that Sanders somehow fears competent policemen.
That's a no true scotsman fallacy. People who use terrorism are terrorists. FARC used terrorism, therefore FARC were terrorists. Chavez supported FARC, FARC were terrorists, therefore Chavez supported terrorists. QE-fucking-D!
This is pure FUD.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Are you sure? I am not. Here is an old article about your man, stating, among other nice things:
Maybe, he would not nationalize all means of production, but neither did Hugo Chavez. My quest for differences between the two men continues to disappoint.
Take it from an escapee from another "worker-controlled" country — you will not like it. I — having grown up in one — will survive it again, but you — for whom the harshest government-imposed injustice so far remains Joe McCarthy — will need lots of luck...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I'd heard that Jewish people weren't white, but figured that was racist anti-Semitic slander. It seems like separate forms of bigotry, and people who discriminate in one category often do so in another.
Is it partially a debate about which European ethnic groups count as white? Some Jewish ethnic groups are based in Europe. Bernie's father was from Poland, not sure where his mother's family was from.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
So...your list of similarities of the two are? Instead of just making a broad statement and expecting everyone else to disprove it; perhaps a better path would be to actually list out the similarities you see and defend them? That's how actual debates are done; what your doing is Trump politics.
Funny, there's no actual link to this "old article" yet you are quoting directly from it. Where is this article actually at? Someone's personal blog, a text file you wrote yourself, Bill O'Rielly off Fox News? And perhaps seeing how the banks practially destroyed the housing market with fraudulent morgages, perhaps they do need to be nationalized.
You're actually wrong about nobody getting fired. The bureaucrats at places like the EPA, the FBI, the State Department, and the IRS do not get fired for being evil and corrupt - they frequently get "punished" (REWARDED) with "mandatory paid leave" (i.e. an extra paid vacation) and a transfer (also known as a promotion to an easier, better-paying job). Campaign staffers who get caught doing bad stuff, however, are frequently faux-fired (with a promised promotion if the campaign succeeds).
When Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) was running her election a few years back, one of her campaign workers was caught being evil and she very publicly fired him to show that she was uninvolved and very ethical - then she re-hired him hours after she won the race. Many campaigns have done this - it's one of those things every hired-gun campaign adviser would advise. Although I personally recall more Democrats doing it than Republicans, I am perfectly willing to say [a] it's bi-partisan and [b] I could be wrong on the numbers. No average citizen in any party should however be fooled by this fake quasi-ethical ploy no mater which party and candidate is involved.
Another 'no true scotsman' fallacy. Apparently, socialism is communism when it's convenient for your argument, but even communism isn't communism when it hurts your argument. You can't have it both ways! (You're still wrong when trying to have it even one way, but trying to have it two ways is even worse!)
And yet another -- I can feel it coming! Let me guess: if I cite socialists who have been successful (e.g. the leaders of most of western Europe), you'll try to pretend they aren't real socialists, right?
You keep saying that as if (a) Chavez and Sanders have the same ideas (but they don't), (b) they'd implement them the same way (but even if (a) were true, you can't possibly know that), and (c) they'd have the same result (even though the US's and Venezuela's circumstances are very different). In other words, pure sophistry -- your arguments are fallacious in so many ways I can't even keep up with which fallacies they are anymore!
Pure bullshit, all of it. You're fucking delusional, do you know that?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Sorry, I messed-up the A-href formatting and posted too quickly. Here is the article I was referring to.
No, they didn't — the government did, when it forced the banks to lower their requirements for the borrowers' creditworthiness. The Social Justice Warriors, who understood every rejected mortgage-application of a minority applicant as evidence of racism , caused the crisis. They presumed, those supposedly "greedy" banks were willingly refusing money-making opportunities for racist reasons...
Nationalization is not a cure, it is the next stage of the decease. But thank you for admitting, that Sanders' fans like yourself would support nationalization of some industries. Obviously, not only are the two politicians alike, their supporters are similar as well.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The spectacle is over. Sander's campaign has access again.
Reagan claimed he took responsibility for the Beirut bombing, and never suffered from it as far as I could see.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes