Slashdot Mirror
RNC Is Preparing For Cyberattacks (cnbc.com)
An anonymous reader writes from a report via CNBC: The Republican National Convention will be a popular target for cyberattacks. An official in charge of securing the network has said the RNC already had to fend off a wave of cyberattacks before the convention opened. Many more attacks are expected throughout the convention ranging from "nation-states hunting for intelligence or protesters trying to disrupt the network at the convention," said the consulting chief information officer for the RNC, Max Everett. Donald Trump's campaign appears to only fuel attackers, security experts said. The convention opens Monday afternoon and will attract roughly 50,000 people in addition to a global audience watching from afar. "A successful attack could impact physical security on the ground, for example, by taking connected security scanners offline. It could also affect online activity, for example, by hijacking the livestream and derailing the GOP's message," reports CNBC. The Secret Service has designated the conventions "national special security events." Everett and his team of 70 IT specialists will be using Microsoft and ForeScout software to monitor the network in real time, working with ATT and Cisco on securing external access to the network and a firm called Dark Cubed to share real-time threat information among the firms trying to defend against cyberattacks.
John Boner just got a new job
I'm going to be surprised if they find any.
Cripes, it's an open carry state, with an open carry believers, for a candidate that encouraged his followers to beat up protestors.
If some one doesn't take a shot at them, then they will take a shot at the protestors.
I would offer odds, 2:1 that someone attending the convention or a protesting against the convention will end up trying to shoot someone
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I wish you hackers the best of luck, but the GOP has already been totally defaced. Rumor has it that it was an inside job.
If an incompetently configured Microsoft Exchange server is good enough for God-Emperor Hillary then it is good enough for you, peasant!
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
hijacking the livestream and derailing the GOP's message
Ah yes, the good old "if I disagree with them, I'll just shut them up" tactic. Works wonders in banana republics, let's do it in the US. The ends justify the means, the proles can't be trusted to judge for themselves, and all that. Everyone on either side needs to decide if this is really how they want their democracy to function before taking such actions.
I just took a big TRUMP!
I wish you hackers the best of luck, but the GOP has already been totally defaced. Rumor has it that it was an inside job.
That was a good one. I'd mod you up if I had any points.
If Trump's campaign fuels attacks, then why haven't they been owned as thoroughly as the DNC? Guccifer 2.0, whoever that might be, has leaked numerous DNCs docs at this point, and I believe more are in the pipeline. At the time of this writing, nothing comparable has happened to the RNC.
"...will be using Microsoft..."
Yup.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
remember those games or tests where you had to freely associate one word with another and ended up with some really weird shit?
RNC == lemonparty
Your turn.
C|N>K
You are confused. Hillary is not the God Emperor; she is the Spawn of Chaos!
Um...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You are welcome on my lawn.
If I had known about any of those, I'd be happy to denounce them, and I do denounce them. People shouldn't be killing cops or anyone else.
But as far as I know, they're not hunting cops. Also, that's not a fair comparison. You have to count per-capita numbers, because the populations aren't the same. To give a contrived example, if there are 1,000,000 mauve people and they kill a total of 100 cops, that's not really the same kind of thing as a single magenta person assassinating 99 cops.
I still see protestors outside of abortion clinics, trying to shut them down, 43 years after the Supreme Court ruled abortion to be a fundamental right. I'm just guessing that most of those protestors aren't "leftists."
Taking your country into a multi-trillion dollar war based on "flawed intelligence", AKA lies, that destabilizes an already far too sensitive region of the planet justifies a shoe or pie to the face, IMO.
These head cases Need to inflate her stature as if merely her legitimate titles weren't enough, she needs to be made colossal and satanic so their all-out-of-proportion hated feels justified.
Slashdong, home of the dead brained moderators. Let's call everything "CYBER" because it sounds technical! And scary hackers can get into your computer and carry out "CYBER ATTACKS" and steal YOUR identity which means that even your DIGITAL FINGERPRINTS are put on someone else with lots of evil intelligence and power and stuff. I'm afraid of what could happen if we don't get Net Neutrality involved for our protection.
You had to go back over two hundred years, and then it was to the original American Patriots who did not physically harm anybody with the tea party stunt, and did not keep ANYBODY else from speaking or listening to an opposing speaker.
Oh, and I presume you are willing to admit you have effectively announced that the founders of this nation were right-wing/conservative rather than left-wing/liberal.
Of course, to see the left in action, just look at any Trump Rally where leftists block, invade, disrupt etc. Or look at any other Republican rally where the left thinks the candidate might be significant enough to matter. Look at any GOP convention of the past 4 decades. Look at any college campus when a Republican shows up to speak.
This is too easy.
The problem for too many on the left is that they are so very intolerant of any views other than their own that they do not tolerate the presence of people they disagree with (all in the name of TOLERANCE of course) and as a result have no exposure to contrary idease and no experience debating people who hold any such views. When they do consider that there are people with other ideas, they all too often imagine what they thik those ideas are and what they think motivates those people and ideas, but being in a bubble of group-think, the stuff they come up with is a caricatureof their actual opponents.
People on the political right do not have that handicap; all the mainstream press, the educational institutions, and the enterainers of society tend to be left-wing lunatics whose madness simply cannot be avoided. To be a right-winger is to have been exposed to that junk for a lifetime, to have been subjected to far more leftist propaganda than any 1930s German, and to be very familiar with every vacuous argument and every invalid factoid that will come up in any debate. To be a right-winger is to be battle-scarred in the intellectual/political wars.
The founders were radical left wingers.
You really think the British court was anything but conservative?
The earlier post pointed out that all parts of humanity have these small groups, but that the left does it on a large scale and very frequently, and particularly in attempts to shut down their opponent's political speech rights at the events of those opponents. You can find abortion critics blocking clinics and animal rights people blocking labs. You can find the very rare abortion clinic bomber, and the equally rare eco-terrorist.
You can easily find leftists invading right-wing political events and blocking access to them, and trashing their web sites, and defacing their posters, etc, but you cannot easily find anywhere near the same level of bad behavior by the right against the left.
Those very few anti-abortion protesters have not been invading Hillary or Bernie campaign rallys, trying to shut them up or keep Hillary or Bernie supporters from speaking; you cannot even find a single example of that. They have not been trying to block access to Democrat political rallies to prevent Democrats from engaging in political speech. They have been targeting facilities where humans are killed. You may well say that those being killed are not human, though no human has ever given birth to a non-human, and you may well say that the unborn are not human yet, though the point at which an unborne person is considered viable keeps changing. None of this however changes the FACT that the suppressors of free political speech are always on the left at any significant event.
That was the point I was trying to make. Radical is radical. Reactionary is reactionary.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Why cyberattacks but not trucks mowing it down? When will you get your fucking lies straight?
Who do you know that would say "oh yea this RNC needs to get cyber attacked. ohhh yessss esssss yessssss"
Only spies lies.
The American founders were"liberals" in the classical definition, which was: favoring the individual over the force of the government, particularly hereditary monarchies and/or warloards. That's not "left" or "right" and it's not modern "liberal", that's "classical liberal". The British loyalists were "classical conservatives", who are traditionally those in support of whatever system is in place, THAT is not "left" or "right" and it's not modern "conservative". Classical conservatives and liberals alike had nothing to do with things like gay marriage, transgenderism, etc. They were entirely divided along the arguments of individual power and rights versus the powers and rights of the crown.
Today's modern liberals are leftists. That's not an insult, particularly if you agree with leftism, it's just the part of the spectrum they are on. They are the ideological descendents of the 1960s left. They are NOT against the big government over the individual; they are cheerleaders for massive government that is involved in everything. They support redistributionist economics and using the government to force it. They are NOT for free speech; they are the ones demanding all the speech codes and safe spaces. Thomas Jefferson, FDR and JFK would not recognize this. FDR and JFK were pre-1960s left, supporting labor unions (though NOT for government employees), progressive taxation (FDR more than JFK) but they were also for very strong national defense and traditional morals in government. FDR actually led the nation in public Christian prayers a number of times. The fact that FDR was very supportive of the British Royals does NOT make him a classical or modern conservative, any more than his not supporting gay marriage makes him not a classical liberal.
Today's modern conservatives are severely divided. Two very different groups were united in 1980 under the Reagan-Bush ticket, and international matters have held them together for a long time, but they are splintering. Many are the ideological descendents of Reagan. Many are the idological descendents of George W Bush. The Reaganites are determined to protect the nation's sovereignty and the rule of law, are willing to moderate trade in the interests of national security and the middle class workers, are not for the massive nanny state, are not for big government bailing out big busineeses, and so on. The Bushites are globalists who are perfectly happy with international entanglements, happy to ignore the laws and do nothing about the border, happy to have "free trade" no matter the national security risks and damage to the workers, and they are happy with massive government as long as they get to run it. These are deep splits, but neither group are supporters of the royals in England ruling the US (see the problem with using classical British political definitions within the US?)
By classical definitions, nearly all Americans of our entire history and in all parties would be "liberal". Republicans like Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower and Ted Cruise and Rand Paul would all be "liberals" as were Democrats from the slave owners like Jefferson to Kennedy. The classical conservatives (the American Torries) split three ways. Some went back to England. Some went to Canada. The remainder gradually becale classical liberals.
Incidentally, this is not just some internet post "thing". Serious polysci people recognize all this and explicitly use the term "classical liberal" for exactly this reason. As always, serious reading in place of watching reality TV, and playing video games is your friend.
By "recently", you must mean, "this week".
http://www.nydailynews.com/new...
Shaun King, the racially confused white "black" guy with a personal agenda as your source? He is the darling of the far far left "Daily Kos" and plays fast and loose with data to make it fit his personal crusade to prove that he is just as black as any real black guy. His stories are just propaganda.
In an effort to research a discussion point in another venue last week, I linked to a command and imperative filled screed from a Shaun King story on the Daily Kos stating that black on black crime is NOT a real phenomenon. Shaun King smugly linked to a Tim Wise study that seemed to confirm that assertion. I clicked over to the Tim Wise study and immediately found the discrepancy in the stated premises of his data set. Tim Wise's analysis disregarded FBI aggregate data and analyzed data from killings with ONLY a SINGLE perp on either side, white or black, involved in the killing. The glaring error of this is obvious to anyone. Most of the black on black and black on white homicides are from GANG killings or groups of two or more teen perps bent on homicidal mayhem. It is the "safety in numbers" egotism that infects and reinforces racial and violent crime on the street. His data set therefore eliminated all those multiple attacker occurrences, which are the bulk of the killings. Small wonder that he could arrive at the conclusion he did with that myopic view!
So far the "regular" Dept. office email server was hacked. No evidence so far H's was.
(Although, I suspect it has been, just not detected yet. Just about everything else with generic security and gov't related was.)
Table-ized A.I.