Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

Showing Original Post only (View all)


(2,398 posts)
Wed May 4, 2016, 10:26 PM May 2016

About Guccifer's new hacking claim [View all]

As some of you may know, I've put together a Clinton email scandal timeline, at thompsontimeline.com. I'd like to point out some facts that relate to Guccifer's new hacking claim.

I don't know if what Guccifer says is true or not. I'm sure hard evidence will come out one way or another in time. But for Clinton supporters who are touting reporting like this:

"An internal FBI review of Clinton’s email records did not indicate traces of hacking, a source familiar with the situation told POLITICO."

Keep in mind that the security logs provided to the FBI were given by Bryan Pagliano, who managed Clinton's server while Clinton was secretary of state. In February 2013, his job at the State Department ended the same time Clinton left office. One month prior to that, Clinton was already looking for someone new to manage the server, so it appears he stopped managing the server around that time.

Guccifer hacked into Sid Blumenthal's emails on March 15, 2013, and found out about Clinton's emails and her clintonemail.com server that way.

It's not clear when Pagliano stopped managing her server - it could be that nobody was managing it for a few months. But by June 2013, the Colorado company Platte River Networks took over managing the server and Pagliano was definitely out of the picture. Then this happened:

June 2013 to October 2013: During this time, it appears that Clinton's private server is wide open to hacking attempts. On May 31, 2013, maintenance of the server was taken over by a small Colorado-based company called Platte River Networks, and the server is sent to a data center in New Jersey. Platte River Networks then pays to use threat monitoring software called CloudJacket SMB made by a company named SECNAP. SECNAP claims the software can foil "even the most determined hackers." However, the new software doesn't begin working until October, apparently leaving the server vulnerable. It is known that the server is repeatedly attacked by hackers in the months from October 2013 on, but it is unknown if any attacks occur when the software is not yet installed. Justin Harvey, chief security officer of a cybersecurity company, will later comment that Clinton "essentially circumvented millions of dollars' worth of cybersecurity investment that the federal government puts within the State Department. ... She wouldn't have had the infrastructure to detect or respond to cyber attacks from a nation-state. Those attacks are incredibly sophisticated, and very hard to detect and contain. And if you have a private server, it's very likely that you would be compromised." (The Associated Press, 10/7/2015)

Then the software was finally installed and this happened:

October 2013 to February 2014: Clinton's private email server is the subject of repeated attempted cyber attacks, originating from China, South Korea, and Germany. The attempts are foiled due to threat monitoring software installed in October. However, from June to October 2013, her server is not protected by this software, and there is no way of knowing if there were successful attacks during that time. A 2014 email from an employee of SECNAP, the company that makes the threat monitoring software, describes four attacks. But investigators will later find evidence of a fifth attack from around this time. Three are linked to China, one to South Korea, and one to Germany. It is not known if foreign governments are involved or how sophisticated the attacks are. Clinton had ended her term as secretary of state in February 2013, but more than 60,000 of her emails remained on her server. (The Associated Press, 10/7/2015)

So the claim that there was no evidence of hacking attempts clearly only refers to the time Bryan Pagliano was managing the server. Afterwards, with the domain name broadcast to the world through the Guccifer hack story (which was reported at the time in Gawker, the Russian Times, and other media outlets), incredibly, Clinton did not shut down her server or take her emails from her time as secretary of state off it. She did change emails, but to a different account on the same server (it went from hdr22@clintonemail.com to hrod17@clintonemail.com).

Whether Guccifer got into her server then, I don't know. But it defies belief that nobody did, when the server was wide open to hacking attempts not long after the Guccifer hack revealed clintonemail.com was where Clinton stored all her emails. If the Russians, Chinese, and other foreign government didn't scoop up all her emails then, they were totally incompetent.

So this claim about Clinton's server logs showing no hacker attempts is a red herring, and is only partially true at best. Even if you disregard the fact that any talented hacking attempt leaves no traces in the logs, it doesn't matter much if there were no hacker attempts from 2009 to 2013 because there was such opportunity from 2013 onwards, and all of Clinton's emails were still there! This is why the former heads of the NSA, CIA, DIA, Defense Department, and so on have said that it's assumed foreign countries did get her emails, because they were such a wide open and vulnerable target.

118 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
About Guccifer's new hacking claim [View all] paulthompson May 2016 OP
Thanks, Paul. K&R. nt antigop May 2016 #1
You need at least a 3-tier server construct with multiple firewalls to semi-secure the backend. TheBlackAdder May 2016 #65
thanks for the review, Paul. grasswire May 2016 #2
a big thank you, Paul! bbgrunt May 2016 #3
Thank you!!! K&R!!!! haikugal May 2016 #4
Good info Bob41213 May 2016 #5
For what it is worth, before Guccifer came over, he said in an interview he shared the emails Samantha May 2016 #6
Where did you hear that? paulthompson May 2016 #18
This is not the article but is something else I read earlier I found very interesting Samantha May 2016 #40
Postscript: "Breaking: Hillary Clinton Put Spies' Lives At Risk" from Observer/News and Politics" Samantha May 2016 #45
Key words: emulatorloo May 2016 #53
key words. the content. it is out there. check Sunday for his interview on nbc. she really screwed roguevalley May 2016 #70
Do you want to make this an OP? grasswire May 2016 #92
This is one of the most explosive things I have read on this subject Samantha May 2016 #103
I have had some loss of sleep lately, too. grasswire May 2016 #104
and I will try to back you up Samantha May 2016 #105
Samantha, I went at it sort of obliquely. grasswire May 2016 #106
You did good, kid. I already posted an entry and I am fired up and ready to go Samantha May 2016 #107
Paul, this article mentions that Guccifer shared emails with Russia 2cannan May 2016 #48
I read that, too. Wish 840high May 2016 #20
The technical ignorance of the Hillbots is astounding. BillZBubb May 2016 #7
Indeed In_The_Wind May 2016 #57
AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service Reter May 2016 #117
This is worse than I understood before. JudyM May 2016 #8
Failure to turn over classified info when she left State violated her security agreement and leveymg May 2016 #11
Not just classified info - she was supposed to turn over all her emails, as I recall. JudyM May 2016 #12
That's the Federal Records Act. A lesser charge. leveymg May 2016 #15
Ah, ok, thanks, leveymg. JudyM May 2016 #17
You're welcome. ;-) leveymg May 2016 #19
She asked other COLGATE4 May 2016 #14
Thank you. 840high May 2016 #21
You do know that she did not fail to do any such thing right? synergie May 2016 #41
Much of the most highly classified material was abstracted from classified documents originating leveymg May 2016 #46
may i ask for your source please? synergie May 2016 #49
Of course, here's an excerpt of the CBS News report. It was also reported in NYT leveymg May 2016 #50
Can we stop with the retroactive claim Bob41213 May 2016 #69
Classification is a red herring. Fawke Em May 2016 #75
Yes. It's even more serious than I believed. HooptieWagon May 2016 #32
June to October 2013 vulnerability! Rosa Luxemburg May 2016 #9
State Dept didn't know about it. HooptieWagon May 2016 #27
how could anyone endorse this individual for the presidency? she also took it upon herself amborin May 2016 #37
Not only were some of the deleted emails work-related,... HooptieWagon May 2016 #43
so some random computer company had access to classified information? Rosa Luxemburg May 2016 #110
They weren't exactly random, but apparently yes. HooptieWagon May 2016 #111
I don't think people know Rosa Luxemburg May 2016 #109
OMG Rosa Luxemburg May 2016 #108
Do you know if the Clinton Foundation used the same server? I remember Land of Enchantment May 2016 #10
There was a previous server used for Foundation work. HooptieWagon May 2016 #28
Yep paulthompson May 2016 #33
Hold on...you're saying that the... tex-wyo-dem May 2016 #36
Yep paulthompson May 2016 #39
That's information about the housing of the server at the Foundation I never saw before, Paul. leveymg May 2016 #47
Wow...thanks for the new info. tex-wyo-dem May 2016 #55
note: I believe the address was clintonmail, not clintonemail. grasswire May 2016 #93
This is all so desperate. nolawarlock May 2016 #13
On the internet BlindTiresias May 2016 #25
You're going to be real sick of it soon. Fawke Em May 2016 #82
We shall see. nt nolawarlock May 2016 #99
Paul Thompson, I am so glad that you are here CoffeeCat May 2016 #16
Thanks! paulthompson May 2016 #31
+1 After meeting Paul in NYC in 2003 and studying his 9/11 timeline GreatGazoo May 2016 #81
THANK YOU Fairgo May 2016 #22
Wouldn't the official servers be in every bit as much danger? n/t eridani May 2016 #23
Your question was preemptively answered in the OP. w4rma May 2016 #24
Indeed paulthompson May 2016 #30
Good analysis. HooptieWagon May 2016 #26
It was like an open orchid on the internet Oilwellian May 2016 #29
thanks for this excellent work! amborin May 2016 #34
this does not look good for billary hopemountain May 2016 #35
But we KNOW that hundreds of thousands of State Department .gov emails were hacked. pnwmom May 2016 #38
What "separate secure system" did Clinton end up using? jmg257 May 2016 #61
Ugh. Fawke Em May 2016 #87
Frankly Nancy Regan's astrologer has more credibility. ucrdem May 2016 #42
you need to put your support for her aside and really roguevalley May 2016 #72
No worries, I'll just reread the Starr report and change the names. nt ucrdem May 2016 #74
Ostrich Fawke Em May 2016 #88
Nancy Reagan's astrologer also wasn't an asstroll. cui bono May 2016 #101
Thank you! I read thru the timeline you put together - the 'short' one Dems to Win May 2016 #44
This is pure fantasy. Do you know anything about computer security? YouDig May 2016 #51
No, it was wide open to attack. Fawke Em May 2016 #97
No one claims Bryan Pagliano gave the FBI the server's security logs FreakinDJ May 2016 #52
What's this then? SO the logs were NOT turned over? Confused... jmg257 May 2016 #59
"people close to a federal investigation" - wiped the server FreakinDJ May 2016 #62
Yes - It is all VERY strange...note this tap-dancing statement: jmg257 May 2016 #71
so much bull bigtree May 2016 #54
Way too kind. This crap belongs over at Rim Job's pathetic COLGATE4 May 2016 #56
I'm amazed that some don't think this is important. polly7 May 2016 #68
The president she was supposedly "disloyal" to disagrees with you. YouDig May 2016 #78
What the fuck is he supposed to say??? polly7 May 2016 #79
Exactly what he thinks, which is that she was a great SoS. YouDig May 2016 #80
A great SoS ........... yeah, the ME and NA show just how good she was. nt. polly7 May 2016 #83
Take it up with Obama. I agree with him. YouDig May 2016 #85
Good for you. polly7 May 2016 #89
keep it up. the fbi will settle the question roguevalley May 2016 #73
LOL. They're good at stings but the Clintons are way too smart for their tricks. nt ucrdem May 2016 #76
so much bull bigtree Jul 2016 #118
Successful hacks do not show up in logs lagomorph777 May 2016 #58
The investigation is a partisan sham. This story is ridiculous but the VRWC is shameless. nt ucrdem May 2016 #60
Can you tell me which part of this investigation is a partisan sham? riderinthestorm May 2016 #64
All of it, and yes the FBI is partisan: ucrdem May 2016 #67
don't let the Clinton operatives here hijack the thread grasswire May 2016 #94
Something simple to consider: Fawke Em May 2016 #63
People tend not to think simple. mmonk May 2016 #66
I can go into my google settings right now and see the IP of EVERY computer Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #77
The statement from her camp is this: Fawke Em May 2016 #90
I was addressing the poster's claim of someone logging into her account via Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #91
Well, I found this. Fawke Em May 2016 #96
But you weren't talking about the FBI, and my response was not about the FBI. Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #98
gotta parse every Clinton word grasswire May 2016 #95
Somehow sites do know when you are using a proxy server. cui bono May 2016 #100
For a period of time in 2013, there doesn't appear to be any security logs. HooptieWagon May 2016 #112
And if you only accessed it by your smartphone? Barack_America May 2016 #113
They would all have the same MAC address. nt Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #114
Thanks. Then, if Guccifer is to be believed.... Barack_America May 2016 #115
Not true. If she didn't have a static IP on her phone, Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #116
Yes, the logs would show it, because they show the client IP address. YouDig May 2016 #84
Aren't the Clinton's, like most of America's high-rollers, considered above the law though? nt NorthCarolina May 2016 #86
I'm pretty sure she believes she's above EVERYHING & EVERYONE... Yurovsky May 2016 #102
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»About Guccifer's new hack...»Reply #0