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.

Comments

Should be worried about gunfire

[gurps_npc]

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

Re:Should be worried about gunfire

[Archangel Michael]

Yeah, because people with OPEN carry shoot others all the time for no reason. Meanwhile, anti-cop racist assholes have killed and shot over a dozen cops in the last couple weeks, and you're scared about Trump supporters? Yeah, Liberalism has no bias at all. SMH

Re:Should be worried about gunfire

[Nkwe]

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

I would be more worried about those unlawfully carrying than those who are legally open carrying or those who are legally carrying concealed (with a permit). My guess is that most folks who are open carrying are doing so to promote / exercise their rights and are being responsible about it. The last thing folks emphasizing their rights want to do is perform an action (shoot someone in this case) that has the effect of generating negative public opinion.

Re:Should be worried about gunfire

[Fire_Wraith]

I'm not sure why you seem to think that a volatile high stress situation like this, with lots of firearms thrown into the mix, somehow isn't a situation where someone is likely to get shot, one way or another. The GP even noted that it could occur on either side. I'd hate to be a cop in that mix, or a protester, nevermind some poor jerk just trying to go to my regular job.

I'm just glad I'm not anywhere near there, but it sure must suck to be those people.

Re:Should be worried about gunfire

[fiannaFailMan]

anti-cop racist assholes have killed and shot over a dozen cops in the last couple weeks,

Or as conservatives would call it, "exercising Second Amendment rights to resist a tyrannical government." Well? That's what insurrectionist gun lobbyists and militias want, isn't it? If using force of arms to resist a tyrannical government doesn't involve pointing guns at people and shooting them, what does it involve?

Or is it different when Cliven Bundy types point their rifles at federal agents or illegally occupy federal buildings? Or in the case of the Timothy McVeigh types, blow them to kingdom come?

Yeah, conservatism has no bias at all. SMH.

Re:Should be worried about gunfire

[Penguinisto]

Or is it different when Cliven Bundy types point their rifles at federal agents or illegally occupy federal buildings?

...small difference: Bundy didn;t ambush or snipe at the aforementioned agents. Dallas? Not so much.

 

Or in the case of the Timothy McVeigh types...

McVeigh was executed to the relief and morbid delight of both sides of the aisle, if memory serves.

Re:Should be worried about gunfire

[quantaman]

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

I would be more worried about those unlawfully carrying than those who are legally open carrying or those who are legally carrying concealed (with a permit). My guess is that most folks who are open carrying are doing so to promote / exercise their rights and are being responsible about it. The last thing folks emphasizing their rights want to do is perform an action (shoot someone in this case) that has the effect of generating negative public opinion.

A big subtext of open carry is they think they look really cool, authoritative, and intimidating with their big guns. On their own you can just kind of ignore them and let them do their thing, but they're walking into a scenario where there's a lot of people on both sides who are brimming for a fight and trying to show they won't back down.

All you need is a few open carry folks who really want to show they're in charge, some protesters who want to call their bluff, and things escalating into violence. It might not happen, but there's an unusual number of bad factors at work.

Re:Should be worried about gunfire

[Anonymous Coward]

... anti-cop racist assholes have killed and shot over a dozen cops ...

Hey, hang on: Your usual whine is 'eveel gubbermint' and 'I can do whatever I want' but now you're bleeding for them? You didn't worry about all those homosexuals who got shot last month: I'm guessing they didn't fit into your 'capitalism first' brand of gun-toting libertarian-ism.

It's easy to say the poor, the jobless, the ex-convicts, the mentally ill are less important, have fewer rights. That creates a different class structure in society; possibly a more egalitarian society than one created by wealth and power, or a monarchy, or apartheid/segregation, but an excuse to oppress the minority people the same.

There's a few flaws in that 'fuck you, I got mine' attitude:
  - People in power help the other people in power. Since someone always leads, this problem is built-in to every government.
  - The people with the wealth make the rules. Since someone always controls production, this problem is built-in to every economy.
  - The more neighbours we have, the more stuff we own, means we have less space and opportunity to 'do whatever I want'. This problem is built-in to 'equality'.
  - Government can't simultaneously be hands-free and 'give' everyone a job. Besides, giving everyone a job is either capitalist slavery or communist forced-labour.

It's all about checks and balances: When the rich can spend their wealth attacking the middle-class, they're too rich. When the powerful can excuse themselves from laws they make, they're too powerful. When private-sector profits become the goal of government services, the government is not serving the people. The question becomes: How do us poor and powerless people hold the rich and powerful to account?

Re:of course they run redmond

[CajunArson]

If an incompetently configured Microsoft Exchange server is good enough for God-Emperor Hillary then it is good enough for you, peasant!

Re:Huh

[DigiShaman]

GOP is done, and has been for awhile - as a party. From the ashes will be Trump and whatever falls after. Probably after the damage there will be a Libertarian movement from the ashes of both the GOP and DNC types - small government with urban liberal independent views and a mix of rural "don't tread of me" folk. Either way, first you must deal with the massive multi-billon dollar onslaught that Zuckerberg and Soros will be throwing. THEY ARE GOING FOR BROKE to ensure Clinton wins. They must, to SURVIVE!!! This is where it gets real fucking dangerous. You all haven't seen nothing -yet- from these two spawns of Satan.