"The report... points to repeated hacking attempts that she failed to report." WTF?

[cherokeeprogressive]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/25/hillary-clinton-failed-report-several-hacking-atte/

"Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a secret email to conduct official business broke a number of department policies, an inspector general concluded in a report sent to Capitol Hill Wednesday that also suggests she used the account to try to hide her communications from the public.

The 83-page report, obtained by The Washington Times, is devastating in its evaluation of Mrs. Clinton’s behavior, saying it can find no record of her getting approval from either security or legal staffers for her unique arrangement. The report also undercuts many of her campaign’s explanations for her use of the system, dismisses comparisons to her predecessors’ email use, and points to repeated hacking attempts that she failed to report.

After one of the 2011 hack attempts Mrs. Clinton’s tech staffer shut the server down for a few minutes, hoping that would solve the situation, but quickly warned top aides not to send Mrs. Clinton “anything sensitive” after the attempted breach, according to the report, which was obtained by The Washington Times.

After another suspicious attempt Mrs. Clinton said she was scared to open email — but failed to report the matter.

“Notification is required when a user suspects compromise of, among other things, a personally owned device containing personally identifiable information,” the investigators said. “However, OIG found no evidence that the Secretary or her staff reported these incidents to computer security personnel or anyone else within the Department.”

Doesn't quite square with the security logs we've seen trotted out time after time.

[AzDar]

1. Jesus wept.

[cherokeeprogressive]

2. Meanwhile, at Castle Bansalot...

"Hillary's server was never hacked. The State Department was."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1107144407#post3

[TwilightZone]

7. Not to be pendantic, but hacking attempts and "hacked" aren't even remotely the same thing.

Hacking attempts happen billions of times a day worldwide. The vast majority of them are unsuccessful.

"Hacked" assumes that one was successful. Perhaps you can show where in this article from the right-wing Moonie Times that there is proof of a hack.

[lagomorph777]

9. "OIG found no evidence that the Secretary or her staff reported these incidents"

That itself is a violation of security regulations, and in itself it prevents the ability to ever know whether the attempt was successful, or to address the gap that allowed the attempt.

[TwilightZone]

11. Nice job evading the point. If you don't have any clue what you're talking about...

just admit it.

[lagomorph777]

13. WTF? I directly addressed your point

You said there's no evidence the hack was successful, and I pointed out the reason for that is that the attempt was covered up instead of reported to those who could assess the potential damage, therefore the opportunity to collect evidence was lost.

[cherokeeprogressive]

16. If I'm reading you correctly, the "security logs" we've seen posted about a thousand times do NOT

make a note of hacking "attempts", but only report successful hacks? That doesn't sound like a very well designed system to me.

And I get you don't like the messenger, but I'm not in the business of vetting news agencies. I don't doubt this information will show up elsewhere though... possibly in a news agency you approve of even, like Blue Nation Review?

[TheBlackAdder]

25. A good intrusion leaves no footprints, none at all.

.


It's the dumbasses who get detected or don't clean up afterwards.


.

[Fawke Em]

43. Has it somehow escaped you that a hacker who was already in jail

was extradited to the United States three years after the fact and given a plea deal?

We knew about the phishing attempts - and those would be in the logs - but professional state hackers know how to get in without leaving a trace.

http://null-byte.wonderhowto.com/how-to/hack-like-pro-cover-your-tracks-leave-no-trace-behind-target-system-0148123/

[Fawke Em]

29. .

[Land of Enchantment]

45. + 1,000 Thank you. I see the same comments

all over the place--nothing new or original....They have run out of excuses for her.

[k8conant]

52. So apt.

[MaeScott]

58. I got BINGO! Lololol!

[drokhole]

59. Masterfully done...

Some squares for the General Edition:

"I don't see what the problem is."

"You can't prove their money influenced her."

"It's called investments." (see: astonishing 1-year rate of return on cattle future trading w/ "help" from top Tyson lawyer James Blair)

(mockingly) "Oh yeah, everything is the Clinton's fault!"

"OMG! It's the end of the world!" (or some variation thereof)

"I just don't care."

"Math."

[vintx]

66. OMG

[snagglepuss]

3. Just staggering. nt

[trudyco]

4. I'm so frickin overwhelmed with the lies and obfuscation...

I just keep thinking "how would Trump phrase this? Is Crooked Hillary good enough? seems like you need more but at the 4th grade level"
Lying liar and her lies.
Liar liar pantsuits on fire.

DiFi is the master of understatement.

[truedelphi]

44. I think the Nixon family holds the copyright to Dick's phrase of

"I am not a crook," so every time Hill tries to state it, she would owe them some money!

[NWCorona]

5. Yup! The sad thing is most of this information was already public

But it's only now getting play.

[Bob41213]

8. Oh fuck god no....

STICK A FORK IN HER...

No wonder Pagliano cut a deal....

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Hillary's CYA staff is working overtime.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. OK, now this is getting serious

It is pretty damn hard to spin away knowing about hacking attempts on her personal account that she failed to alert on as required, and then continuing to use a personal account for all matters of State.

And this is the first time I have posted anything negative anywhere regarding Clinton and her emails.

[cali]

36. Yes. This demonstrates a serious absence of due diligence- to put it kindly

[ProfessorPlum]

14. The Washington Times is not a credible source for reporting

I'm no fan of Clinton's, but this is not a reliable source.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. No, but they seem to be getting this stuff directly from the report

I've only glanced at some of the other reporting on this and have already seen report excerpts detailing this issue.

[seafan]

19. From the report: Pagliano shut down her private server: "Someone was trying to hack us."

This is also being reported in the NYT today.

NYT, May 25, 2016:

Security and records management officials told the inspector general’s office that “Secretary Clinton never demonstrated to them that her private server or mobile device met minimum information security requirements,” the report said.

The report also disclosed an attempt to hack into Mrs. Clinton’s server in January 2011.

It said a “nondepartmental adviser” to Bill Clinton — apparently Bryan Pagliano, who installed the private server — informed the department that he had shut down the system because “someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in, I didn’t want to let them have a chance.”

The attack continued later that day, prompting another official to write to two of Mrs. Clinton’s top aides, Cheryl Mills and Jake Sullivan, to warn them not to send Mrs. Clinton “anything sensitive.” She explained that she would “explain more in person.”

And this, from the same NYT piece:

5 Key Points From the Report

Hillary Clinton should have asked for approval to use a private email address and server for official business. Had she done so, the State Department would have said no.

She should have surrendered all of her emails before leaving the administration. Not doing so violated department policies that comply with the Federal Records Act.

When her deputy suggested putting her on a State Department account, she expressed concern about her personal emails being exposed.

In January 2011, the Clintons' IT consultant temporarily shut down its private server because, he wrote, he believed "someone was trying to hack us."

The State Department began disciplinary proceedings against Scott Gration, then the American ambassador to Kenya, for refusing to stop using his personal email for official business.

Hillary Clinton during a campaign event at the University of California, Riverside, on Tuesday. Credit Monica Almeida/The New York Times


There is nowhere to hide.

[dana_b]

21. There - a reputable source (to SOME people)

And it says the same thing as the Washington Times.

She was hacked, screwed up and never reported it. Tsk, tsk..

[cherokeeprogressive]

23. My favorite part...

"In January 2011, the Clintons' IT consultant temporarily shut down its private server because, he wrote, he believed "someone was trying to hack us."

He believed?

[truedelphi]

28. And also, it is worth noting that the Washington Post has become worthless

After all, Jeff Bezos, its owner, needs to make anyone who will have ultimate power very happy, ever since he basically bought out the US Postal Service. (And he didn't pay for that buyout, we smaller users of Post Office's shipping services now are forced to pay for that buyout!)

Anyway, The Washington Times is doing some very good reporting on this situation with the emails. Kudos to them.

[Fawke Em]

49. Does her IT guy know that simply shutting down a server does not stop the hacks?

I mean, it might temporarily, but that just shows the hacker he's got the right server.

[vintx]

67. Wasn't he a poli-sci major?

Maybe he only set it up and she later hired an actual IT person to run it...

[jeff47]

17. It's quoting the IG's report.

Is the Inspector General for the State Department also not a credible source? Or are we supposed to ignore the parts of the report that are quoted in any shitty newspapers?

[scscholar]

35. When they only pick quotes that support their bias...

then yes.

[jeff47]

39. Then supply quotes that show their bias.

Surely you'd have plenty to dismantle that shitty paper.

[Demsrule86]

20. It is bull shite like all the other

crap posted here...two weeks and it ends.

[truedelphi]

30. Ah Party Loyalists. Jefferson tried to warn us about

The corruption that loyalists will put up with, just to keep things in place where the loyalists feel most comfortable.

Big problem this year for loyalists of both parties: the corruption has so devastated the middle class, that they can no longer put up with it.

[cali]

38. You have perfected denial to the point of comedy

[tazkcmo]

61. Really has.

The other day the poster summed her/his attitude up nicely: "Don't tell me, I don't want to know." It's very scary to know there are people out there that are so frightened by the truth they actively avoid it.

[Fawke Em]

51. Square No. 12

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2052632

[tazkcmo]

60. It may end on DU

But this will last through November. Good pick.

[appal_jack]

65. It will last as long as Hillary is in the public eye.

If she is the losing candidate, it will last until November, and then we will have president-elect Trump.

If by some long shot, she wins the election despite multiple, new scandals sticking to her like white on rice, it will continue at least through January / inauguration.

And if the Democrats don't take both the House and Senate with comfortable majorities (and the House districts are so gerrymandered, this is virtually impossible) then the Congressional investigations begin. I would predict impeachment hearings before the end of 2017.

Why does any one consider her a viable candidate again?

-app

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. You can go ahead and find the actual report

and read it yourself. The WAPO has a copy

[Fawke Em]

53. Yup

Here it is: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2842486-ESP-16-03-Final.html#document/p2

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. And here, in easy to download form

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2842486/ESP-16-03-Final.pdf

[Demsrule86]

18. You do understand that this is right wing Bull shite right?

Enjoy yourselves for Bernie's last two weeks as a candidate.

[cali]

40. You don't understand that this is from the findings of the state department

And has jackshit to do with Bernie.

Incredible

[tazkcmo]

62. You are really endangering yourself

If the level of total denial you exhibit here is the same level in your daily life you are in great danger. The traffic light is red even if you need it be green.

[HooptieWagon]

63. The Inspector General is Rightwing?

Did Obama know that when he appointed him?

[vintx]

22. The denial in this thread

is something else

It's eventually got to sink in. I guess some will avert their eyes till the bitter end

[truedelphi]

31. Very reminiscent of 1972 to

August 1974!

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Yup, and my recollection is from history books

[truedelphi]

54. I lived through that period of time.

Summer of 1973, and the small Chicago insurance firm I worked for kept getting oodles of applications from staff at the WH who wanted Golden Parachute protection for themselves.

We were a small group of six underwriters, and any time we got such and application, we would openly discuss it with each other.

And then we'd veto it and send off a letter saying, "Forget it. No Parachutes for anyone close to Nixon."

We thought we were very brave and daring doing this.

The media was sweeping everything relating to Watergate under the rug. But all of us had this sense that sooner or later Tricky Dick's Admin was going to crumble totally.

The media was so shrill in its defense of Nixon and so overpowering that I couldn't believe that Nixon would resign.

One after another of his aides and top people got indicted and served jail time. And then there were Congressional hearings about Nixon himself.

Then mid-August 1974, he was to have a speech about the situation. I couldn't stand to hear him one more time announce how he was not a crook. Went off to the shores of Lake Michigan to kick stones into the lake.

Then at about the time when Dick should be half way through his speech, I heard this roar. The kind of roar from all the students in the dorms and small apartments around Loyola Univ Chicago. A thunderous roar - like the
Sox or Cubs had won the Series!

And I knew that moment that there was going to be a helicopter on the WH lawn the next day.

####

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. COOL

Now back to the report

I tihnk it is time to also put the time line up. We have been maintaining one for the day it becomes important.

[arcane1]

47. And much of that denial is completely manufactured, to serve a narrative n/t

[Wilms]

24. @

[truedelphi]

33. And the Ambassador in Kenya got in trouble for some of the same things -

Even though he handles far less crucial emails and far less of them in terms of email numbers.

[arcane1]

27. Reporting the hacking might lead to increased scrutiny. Clintons HATE increased scrutiny n/t

[truedelphi]

41. I hadn't thought of that.

To deal with being hacked, she would have had to open up her email history to some IT expert she couldn't count on to keep quiet about what he or she would read.

The Laureate Institute caper would come out in the open. And that openness might stop some of the money being sent from State to Laureate and then on to Bill Clinton!

Then you have her whole correspondence with Sid Blumenthal - which had been forbidden by Obama. But Blumenthal stayed in the loop, with Hillary not revealing she had disobeyed the President's directive to her on Blumenthal until the email scandal revealed the matter.

Also, if Benghazi was part of a secret operation, perhaps one reason the place got stormed is that hackers there in Libya were able to determine through their hacking Clinton's email that the place was:

1) not officially an open and acknowledged project

2) not at all secure, in part because it was supposed to be secret.

If either or both of the points above are true, her decision to have this private email account could be directly responsible for the American deaths and the deaths of every one else at Benghazi.

[WhiteTara]

42. You're using Washington Times

the Moonie paper? I thought that we used reputable sources here at DU

[truedelphi]

48. Almost same reporting and same story coming out of the NYT's.

It is a good bit of decent reporting by Washington Times. Who knew? Maybe the head of the Moonies realizes he might have more readership if he has decent reporting.

And the Washington Post has been dead in the water as anything but a Washington Political Fluff Piece Generator, as its new owner Jeff Rebezos doesn't want to anger anyone in Congress or the WH with whom he might need a "favor." (I'm not sure that someone of Rebezos stature gets favors - I am sure there is monetary quid pro quo or some legal advantage, as for instance, when he got the Dem majority Congress to allow him to now own the US Post office, Spring 2007.)

[cherokeeprogressive]

50. "Reputable sources" LOL. That's the most subjective phrase I've read here in a long time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/politics/state-department-hillary-clinton-emails.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region%AEion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

Hillary supporters would hate their own mothers if they said something critical of Hillary Clinton.

[B Calm]

46. drip, drip, drip! She needs to resign from the race so the Democratic party can save face!

[AzDar]

55. Anyone with an ounce of integrity would drop-out...

[Scuba]

64. Hillary won't, proving she has less than an ounce of integrity.

[amborin]

68. Wow! What a mess! K&R

[MisterP]

69. we knew this in October! OCTOBER!

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-email-server-hacked-china-south-korea-germany-214546

[nc4bo]

70. Kick. nt

[pdsimdars]

71. And remember when she looked right into the camera, right into all her supporter's eyes

and said she was never hacked?