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

hunting for intelligence

[bigmo]

I'm going to be surprised if they find any.

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

[Bartles]

Do you have a problem with followers of a candidate beating up protesters? If so, you're really complaining about the wrong candidate.

Re:Should be worried about gunfire

[wyHunter]

Given that the left is filled with violence loving wing nuts, I agree with you.

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

[OzPeter]

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

You could just have easily said returned Vets have shot up over a dozen cops in the last couple of weeks.

Re:Should be worried about gunfire

[OzPeter]

My guess is that most folks who are open carrying are doing so to promote / exercise their rights and are being responsible about it.

Its not the "most" folks you have to worry about, concealed permit or not. The bell curve is a real thing as shown by idiots shooting up the wrong people all the time.

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]

You could just have easily said returned Vets have shot up over a dozen cops in the last couple of weeks.

...except for the fact that their social media pages were packed to the rafters with anti-cop racist spew (and not, say, pro-military veteran spew).

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

[OzPeter]

You could just have easily said returned Vets have shot up over a dozen cops in the last couple of weeks.

...except for the fact that their social media pages were packed to the rafters with anti-cop racist spew (and not, say, pro-military veteran spew).

And you say this knowing how poor the state of returned Vet mental health services are? Even the unhinged Vietnam vet is a well known stereotype 40 years later.

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

[Archangel Michael]

Actually, if you watch that video, it is clear that there was an ambush. Watch the video again, and ask yourself, where the guy came from that shot him. IT wasn't from a vehicle on the road, it was from 50 yards off in the forest.

Re:Should be worried about gunfire

[Archangel Michael]

McVeigh also attacked a "government" building. So, if the Parent to your post is insinuating that killing cops is equal to McVeigh rebelling against the government, then by all means he does have a point. Chances are, he views McVeigh with more disdain than the cop killers.

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:Should be worried about gunfire

[Opportunist]

Folks? Can we just sum it up as "$label is just $slur and $slander"?

It would save us so much time.

Re:Should be worried about gunfire

[Opportunist]

As if the labels had anything to do with their original meaning anymore.

Re:Should be worried about gunfire

[PopeRatzo]

Regular Americans

Nothing regular about it.

https://i.imgur.com/Pa0IOhB.jp...

Re:Should be worried about gunfire

[PopeRatzo]

None of the scum that killed police recently are Conservatives.

By "recently", you must mean, "this week".

http://www.nydailynews.com/new...

Re:Should be worried about gunfire

[PopeRatzo]

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.

I'm not advocating for violence in Cleveland, but if things really escalate, it could tie up a lot of loose ends for the rest of us.

But it would be wrong.

Re:Should be worried about gunfire

[OzPeter]

Don't confuse them with actual facts. You know, because that would destroy their snowflake bubble.

Nice ad hom there

Re:Should be worried about gunfire

[myowntrueself]

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.

Apparently people with tennis balls can overpower and kill people with guns, because while guns are going to be permitted, tennis balls are considered too dangerous.

I guess the old adage is true; never take a gun to a tennis ball fight.

Re:Should be worried about gunfire

[myowntrueself]

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

People have right to defend themselves, don't they?

Apparently guns are no use in defending yourself from people with knives, nunchuks or TENNIS BALLS.

Re:Should be worried about gunfire

[cold fjord]

None of the scum that killed police recently are Conservatives.

By "recently", you must mean, "this week".

http://www.nydailynews.com/new...

Excuse me, ... while your sleight of hand is impressive (and good for mod points), you aren't playing this straight. The article you link to doesn't list conservatives, it lists white people. That isn't the same. One deals with skin color, the other deals with ideas. There is nothing contradictory about being black and conservative:
  Clarence Thomas
  Thomas Sowell
  Herman Cain
  Larry Elder
  Sheriff David Clark
  Condoleezza Rice

Also note that there doesn't appear to be any common thread among the killers in that article as there is among the killings with connections to either Black Lives Matter or the New Black Panther Party.

Re:Should be worried about gunfire

[PopeRatzo]

The article you link to doesn't list conservatives, it lists white people.

It lists Trump voters.

Re:Should be worried about gunfire

[Archangel Michael]

It isn't just that $label is those things you say, it is. It is the lowest form of debate, used by people who cannot argue based on fact. It works. I yell $label_epithet and suddenly everyone stops listening to the other person, regardless of how correct (or not) s/he is. It ends debate, without presenting any facts.

Re:Should be worried about gunfire

[cold fjord]

It doesn't list Trump voters,it lists white people that killed police officers.

The author effectively says for all anyone knows they could be Trump voters. By the same token they could be Progressive Hillary voters. Either way I doubt he did the leg work to track down their voter registration, and he doesn't offer any evidence.

That piece is an attempt to deflect attention from Black Lives Matter and doesn't acknowledge the growing number of ties between it and cop killers. Nor does it acknowledge the open calls for, and celebration of, killings of police officers at various rallies and protests they have held.

More Black lives matter than just the politically useful ones that Black Lives Matter protests over.

If not a single policeman killed a single black individual anywhere in the United States for this entire year, that would not reduce the number of black homicide victims by one percent. When the mobs of protesters declare "Black lives matter," does that mean ALL black lives matter -- or only the less than one percent of black lives lost in conflicts with police? -- Random Thoughts - Thomas Sowell

Re:Should be worried about gunfire

[sumdumass]

What makes you think that voting for trump makes anyone conservative? That's one of the key components in the never trump camp- that trump is a liberal in disguise.

Re:Should be worried about gunfire

[PopeRatzo]

What makes you think that voting for trump makes anyone conservative?

There are virtually no real conservatives in the United States. Just reactionaries dressed up like a hate group.

Re:Should be worried about gunfire

[sumdumass]

I'll give you that just to avoid moving the goal posts into a side topic, those calling themselves conservative have defined themselves. Again, given what you know, what makes you think trump supporters fall into that group of people?

Re:Should be worried about gunfire

[PopeRatzo]

So, you're saying that Trump is No True Conservative? That these white Trump supporters who murdered police officers are not True Conservatives?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Should be worried about gunfire

[sumdumass]

You are the one bringing up no true conservative. However, that same claim- that trump is not a conservative is what is being made by the cruze, rubio, and never trump supporters. They even put a fair amount of evidence forward showing trump to be an opportunist democrat.

Do you even pay attention? Or do you grab onto preconceived notions whether there is a basis in reality or not and pile onto it with whatever you want to be true?

You've already lost

[Drunkulus]

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.

Re:You've already lost

[Tablizer]

GOP has already been totally defaced. Rumor has it that it was an inside job.

Or...

Out of the 200+ Clintonian conspiracy theories floating around, this is my favorite.

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!

Is this democracy in progress?

[magarity]

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.

Re:Is this democracy in progress?

[Penguinisto]

You do realize that fear of The Other, induced by drama- (and eyeball-) seeking media, amped further by both sides to near-historic levels, is going to produce at least one whack-job on the scene with full homicidal intent, right?

Ditto for the DNC convention, come to think of it.

Kind of amazing how many people can be so easily manipulated by a mass media that largely doesn't even realize what kind of power they have. I find it interesting that they waste it on getting ratings (and thus advertiser dollars), truth be told...

Re:Is this democracy in progress?

[Tablizer]

I don't condone such mischief, but if by chance something went wrong to foul up Trump's self-aggrandizing rants, I'd play a violin so small that Intel would beg to license its miniaturization technology.

Re:Is this democracy in progress?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

... so small that Intel would beg to license its miniaturization technology.

Of all the days to not have mod points. I like that statement much like this one I saw years ago:

... sucks harder than a black hole with daddy issues.

Damn - no mod points.

[Okian Warrior]

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.

Huh

[AlphaBro]

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.

Re:Huh

[Penguinisto]

Prolly because the RNC didn't have one of their major pols stuff all that info onto a semi-swiss-cheese Microsoft Exchange box, running OWA, and plugged directly onto the public Internet...

Re:Huh

[approachingZero]

Good point! Doesn't play into the narrative though.

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.

Re:of course they run redmond

[Penguinisto]

"...will be using Microsoft..."

Yup.

Re:of course they run redmond

[Anonymous Coward]

You are confused. Hillary is not the God Emperor; she is the Spawn of Chaos!

Re:Thanks for the confirmation

[PopeRatzo]

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

Unless you happened to be a small businessman who owned a store that, you know, sold tea. Then, you were most certainly physically harmed, because it meant your family didn't eat.

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.

No, I'm pointing out that groups like Black Lives Matter and other left-wing groups use the same techniques as the Founding Fathers. Civil disobedience is civil disobedience. And the tree of liberty has to be watered by tyrants and all that, amirite?

Re:It's a no-brainer given the nature of the left

[PopeRatzo]

The founders were radical left wingers.

That was the point I was trying to make. Radical is radical. Reactionary is reactionary.

Re:Let's play Word Association

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I would go with:
polished turd
but then I would say the same about the DNC.

Re:of course they run redmond

[Tablizer]

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.)