Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Did the Clinton Email Server Have an Internet-Based Printer?

krebsonsecurity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 259 posts

Re: Did the Clinton Email Server Have an Internet-Based Printer?

#101

Post by rdiddly »

themartorana wrote: post #79
untog wrote: post #65

Among the more disappointing things in all of this is that there is a rational, important conversation to be had about everyday awareness of security and government inflexibility. But there won't be, because she is Hillary Clinton and it is 2016. Supposedly she got the server set up because the NSA refused to give a politician who travels frequently a secure smartphone. She (I personally believe) was likely ignorant…

What's the rationale for not giving everyone secure smartphones? And I mean high-ranking officials, SoS certainly ranks considering how much she/he is in foreign countries with foreign leaders. Can someone in the know explain why the NSA would deny such requests?

I liked where I _thought_ you were going with that. Why not give ALL OF US secure smartphones. Indeed. Indeed.

Re: Did the Clinton Email Server Have an Internet-Based Printer?

#102

Post by mikegioia »

Jerry2 wrote: post #11

Here's some more details about the state of security of her private server [0]: > Outlook Web Access, or OWA, was running on port 80 without SSL (unencrypted) > Remote Desktop Protocol, port 3389, was exposed through the DMZ (open to anyone on the internet.) This, at the time it was being used, was open to critical vulnerabilities that would allow for remote execution of code. > VNC Remote Desktop, port 5900, was als…

This is, in my opinion, the worst part of the story. Anyone who has set up a web-server on the public net knows what happens when you leave ports accessible like this to old, well-known software. There's a good chance people would target her domain/IP looking for exploits and I'd be scared to question just how many people got access to that machine.

Re: Did the Clinton Email Server Have an Internet-Based Printer?

#103

Post by zip1234 »

x0x0 wrote: post #68
at-fates-hands wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here are the two obvious one, and another one that's well. . . more in the vein of the Clinton's being the Clinton's IMHO. http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/264655-3-federal-laws-hillar... - Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code make it unlawful to send of store classified information on personal email. - Section 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) requir…

Nothing that links to the daily caller is a serious news source. Plus the article is a pile of stupid innuendo that conflates what Hillary did with Petraeus providing contemporaneously classified documents to his journalist fuckbuddy. Further, clearly nobody in government had a contemporaneous problem with it since they saw the email address every time they communicated with Hillary Clinton. Whenever they sent her an…

I worked in Federal Government for 7 years. She knew about Records Management, had a records custodian that worked for her, and clearly used clintonemail.com in an official capacity, circumventing State Department and other Federal regulations regarding official records. Here is the official IG report: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2842429/ESP-16-03...

Re: Did the Clinton Email Server Have an Internet-Based Printer?

#104

Post by argonaut »

gormo2 wrote: post #82
argonaut wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the article lists various reasons why none of those would likely apply to her. The IG's report only shows incompetence on her part, not criminal intent.

>And the article lists various reasons why none of those would likely apply to her. I guess we have different definitions of "likely" since the only reasons given are: (1) Clinton and her aides have insisted that she didn't. They say none of her emails included material that was marked as classified at the time. (2) She says she didn't, and there's no known evidence that she did. (3) "If all she was doing was exchang…

1) That's because it's fact that none of her emails were marked as classified at the time. Not an opinion!

2) Her email exchanges are public. You would think they would have found proof of willful communication by now. They have not.

3) Requires intent, which is generally, objectively difficult to prove (see: libel laws).

Re: Did the Clinton Email Server Have an Internet-Based Printer?

#105

Post by chatmasta »

maratd wrote: post #92
untog wrote: post #65

Among the more disappointing things in all of this is that there is a rational, important conversation to be had about everyday awareness of security and government inflexibility. But there won't be, because she is Hillary Clinton and it is 2016. Supposedly she got the server set up because the NSA refused to give a politician who travels frequently a secure smartphone. She (I personally believe) was likely ignorant…

> This feels like the very definition of systematic failure and clearly needs to change. > It's all very depressing. Not at all. Because of this fiasco, every clown with political aspirations will be using an approved and encrypted system instead of rolling their own garbage.

What about the threat of the agency who secures the system simulateously compromising it in order to gain blackmail material on its user?

Re: Did the Clinton Email Server Have an Internet-Based Printer?

#106

Post by delbel »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #71
slantedview wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony of Clinton having possibly violated the same law that she has used to (wrongly) advocate for the prosecution of whistleblowers is maddening, and moreover, the fact that she will likely escape prosecution is a horrible indictment of our democracy.

She probably won't if Trump is elected. A lot of people are saying there's no way she gets indicted before the election. However, if Trump is elected, he's already said he's going to indict her and send her to prison. Therefore, I if you want to see her indicted, you're probably going to have to vote for Trump.

I have no doubt he said this, but can you recall when and or link to him stating this? Interesting

Re: Did the Clinton Email Server Have an Internet-Based Printer?

#107

Post by csours »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #71
slantedview wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony of Clinton having possibly violated the same law that she has used to (wrongly) advocate for the prosecution of whistleblowers is maddening, and moreover, the fact that she will likely escape prosecution is a horrible indictment of our democracy.

She probably won't if Trump is elected. A lot of people are saying there's no way she gets indicted before the election. However, if Trump is elected, he's already said he's going to indict her and send her to prison. Therefore, I if you want to see her indicted, you're probably going to have to vote for Trump.

At best Trump can appoint a US Attorney General who will promise to try to indict.

Re: Did the Clinton Email Server Have an Internet-Based Printer?

#108

Post by zaroth »

cm2012 wrote: post #32
zaroth wrote: post #13

The emails themselves sent from Clinton's server were unencrypted for several months, so unencrypted printing is just more of the same. There's no reasonable question anymore that laws on handling classified data were broken, the only question is will charges actually be brought?

That server was for only unclassified data though. Some stuff was later called "Classified", but many innocuous things are classified.

What do you mean "that server was for only unclassified data"? There was no other server. Clinton had a .gov account but entirely refused to use it. Meaning 100% of the email Clinton sent was sent through her insecure personal server.

Do you believe 100% of her email was entirely unclassified at the time it was sent?

As for innocuous, it's reported that her emails (unsurprisingly) included intelligence from "special access programs" which are actually classified beyond top secret.

Re: Did the Clinton Email Server Have an Internet-Based Printer?

#109

Post by AnimalMuppet »

na85 wrote: post #100
zaroth wrote: post #13

The emails themselves sent from Clinton's server were unencrypted for several months, so unencrypted printing is just more of the same. There's no reasonable question anymore that laws on handling classified data were broken, the only question is will charges actually be brought?

There are numerous more egregious cases of senior US political officials breaking the law and/or violating their constitution with no consequences. If charges are pressed in this case it'll be because of her gender.

Because of her gender? No way.

Because she's unpopular with a large segment of the population, and therefore has less political cover than some of those other people? Maybe.

Because we're getting less tolerant of "senior officials" who can ignore the rules? Hopefully that.

Re: Did the Clinton Email Server Have an Internet-Based Printer?

#110

Post by zaroth »

na85 wrote: post #100
zaroth wrote: post #13

The emails themselves sent from Clinton's server were unencrypted for several months, so unencrypted printing is just more of the same. There's no reasonable question anymore that laws on handling classified data were broken, the only question is will charges actually be brought?

There are numerous more egregious cases of senior US political officials breaking the law and/or violating their constitution with no consequences. If charges are pressed in this case it'll be because of her gender.

I would say that the "3 Felonies a Day" theory applies equally if not even more-so to someone like the Secretary of State. It's probably very hard if not impossible to actually do your job as a high ranking government official and not end up breaking a few laws.

The problem is once said law-breaking becomes widely reported and results in State Department and FBI inquiries, where do you go from there? How can they come back with a recommendation not to prosecute Clinton, but yet they vigorously prosecute people like Aaron Swartz?

However, I do disagree strongly with you that if charges are pressed it has anything to do with her gender. If it were John Kerry who had been SoS when Clinton was, operating kerryemail.com, and he was now running for President, I think we would be in exactly the same position.

Post reply on HN