Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Democrats Communications Security

Clinton Home Servers Had Ports Open (ap.org) 470

Jim Efaw writes: Hillary Clinton's home servers had more than just the e-mail ports open directly to the Internet. The Associated Press discovered, by using scanning results from 2012 "widely available online", that the clintonemail.com server also had the RDP port open; another machine on her network had the VNC port open, and another one had a web server open even though it didn't appear to be configured for a real site. Clinton previously said that her server featured "numerous safeguards," but hasn't explained what that means. Apparently, requiring a VPN wasn't one of them.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Clinton Home Servers Had Ports Open

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @05:02PM (#50720815)

    now claims the server was secured.

    either of these claims disproves the other. You cannot have secured what does not exist.

    Interesting how the debate has shifted away from the lies and denials in public of this, but into the content and construction.

    It's like any of us being caught with a machine gun illegally in our possession but turning the debate away from the law we broke having it into whether or not it was loaded and what type of ammo, as if that made any difference.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @05:11PM (#50720895)

      Neither excludes the other: A non-existing server is secure. A secure server doesn't exist.

      • by Quasimodem ( 719423 ) on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @05:17PM (#50720945)

        I approve this message.

      • by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @06:35PM (#50721737) Homepage

        More appropriately secure is a relative term. Take the US justice system it is secure for the rich because they mostly get off and it is secure for the rich because the poor mostly get convicted, so it is secure in one regard. So the mail servers were secure, they kept private questionable communiques away from investigatory eyes and should push come to shove they could be 'hmm' be edited prior to handover, so yes quite emphatically they were 'secured'. Just they way the politically corrupt would like them secured and generally not the way the informed public would like them secured (no lost communiques). Keep in mind the era and how other corporate emails from the likes of M$ and HP were being obtained by the courts and becoming part of court battles (leading to regular email auditing and deletions to ensure safer track records for court proceedings). The intent is clear, that they conspired to cheat government record keeping systems, it is also clear and that government officers were brought into the conspiracy was also clear, hence many laws were most emphatically broken and should be deserving of investigation and prosecution. Whether or not the 'remaining?' emails show secured data on the laws or criminal intent is arbitrary, the crime had already been committed in conspiring to intentionally thwart government record keeping of government communiques.

    • by AK Marc ( 707885 ) on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @05:55PM (#50721369)
      When did she deny having a server? The only quotes I can find deny that she set up one for the purpose of hiding emails. And denying that she broke any law. But I guess denying one has shoes on is proof of denial of socks.
  • by Nutria ( 679911 ) on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @05:05PM (#50720835)

    I'm preparing my suicide potion tonight... :(

    • by bobbied ( 2522392 ) on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @05:21PM (#50720999)

      Keep a stiff upper lip and don't mix the poison yet... It's way too early to be trying to read the poll numbers/tea leaves. We have a LONG time before the first vote is cast. A lot can happen in 4 months, especially given that the campaigns haven't really geared up yet.

      Now if we hit middle January and the first three primary state's polls show it's Clinton/Trump, it's going to get interesting. But I'm willing to bet, one or both of the current "front runners" will be out of the top 2, if not totally out of the race. The alternative possibilities boggle the mind though. Can you imagine a Sanders/Christy race? That'd be bloody... How about Biden/Carson? We'd die of boredom before the election...

      • My fear is that this becomes a Jeb vs Bernie race, which would all but give us Bush trifecta.

        • by tnk1 ( 899206 ) on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @05:47PM (#50721277)

          Don't worry. The Democratic party is still working hard to set up the Clinton coronation.

          As long as the boat isn't rocked too much, Clinton is our winner in this election.

          That could change if they managed to indict Clinton somehow, or Biden joined the race. I don't think Bernie, on his own, will be able to unseat Clinton.

          That said, I am not sure that Jeb would beat Bernie. On the other hand, Bernie would get exactly nothing done unless they seriously changed the make-up of Congress.

          The Republicans are in a bad state, but they'd re-unite to deal with a President Sanders. An actual socialist is probably something they hate even more than each other.

          • Getting nothing done in congress is a win for me. Having opposing legislative and executive branches ensure slowness.

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by thedonger ( 1317951 )

            As a logical, thinking human being, I would take almost anyone other than Sanders. His entire campaign is a bunch of populist promises akin to Homer Simpson when he ran for Sanitation Commissioner. And don't presume the Democrats can't find some new darling like they did with Obama.

            If Biden even has a chance at being elected president it is because everyone just wants to hear the insane shit he'll say.

            Help us Gary Johnson. You're our only hope.

          • I Agree, The idea that nominating Bernie Sanders will give away the election is what's keeping us from getting the leader that we need. He just needs to go after the minority vote. His message, voting record and debate skills will get him into the white house *if* he gets the nomination.
          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by bobbied ( 2522392 )

            I hate to break it to you, Biden is going to be in this race. You can count on it. The question I have is why the heck is he waiting to jump in?

            One possibility is that he sees it being too soon. He still thinks it is to his advantage to be high in the polls and not actually be IN the race officially. I can see this being true, because as long as he's not in the race officially, he's not a big target because he's not a threat, so he won't be taking "friendly fire" from Hillary and Sanders who will be foc

            • by Uberbah ( 647458 ) on Wednesday October 14, 2015 @01:36AM (#50723657)

              I hate to break it to you, Biden is going to be in this race.

              Why would he, at his age? At this point in his life, he gets to be the cool laid back uncle democrat (forget that whole writing the Patriot Act thing and other skeletons). People will buy him a beer, ask him to campaign around the country, pay him a hundred thousand to give a speech....dude's got it made. He's going to be a rich assed fuck for the rest of his life - not as rich as the Clinton's, or as rich as Obama will be, but the guy has it made.

              Why throw that way for a year of high-stress campaigning, and then four years of governing? No, Biden only enters the race if Hillary implodes, and the DNC needs an equally corrupt supporter of the status quo, but one that actually has a personality, to come to the rescue.

        • You really think that JEB! has any real chance of getting the nomination?

      • by rasmusbr ( 2186518 ) on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @05:46PM (#50721255)

        I'm not an American, so I'm not really that interested, but I would watch a debate between the top campaign donors for each candidate...

    • In ths spirit of Halloween Broom-Hillary vs. Trumplestilskin?
    • Trump won't happen. If he somehow kept it together enough to get a plurality of primary delegates, two or more of the other candidates would pool their own delegates to win at the convention. Trump does well in polling, but I don't think he's very popular with the party faithful, nor do I think his kind of supporter is the type who typically shows up at the ballot.

  • by subanark ( 937286 ) on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @05:07PM (#50720853)

    When it comes to building, or using, or setting up software for consumer use, it just sucks. They often have a bidding contract and hand it out to whomever pays the least.

    Hillary isn't a techie, she simply reiterates what she is told about things like this. All this shows is that politicians need additional training on the proper way to handle security and privacy. Clinton's mistake is she tried a "do it yourself" or "hire someone yourself" approach, which in some areas isn't a good idea unless you really know what you are doing.

    • by Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @05:12PM (#50720899) Journal

      I really hope that this isn't an apology for Hillary.

      The worst part are all the relatively smart people who are excusing this, simply because she has a (D) after her name. All I have to say, is if this were Jeb, he would be in jail already.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by ClickOnThis ( 137803 )

        I really hope that this isn't an apology for Hillary.

        If it's an apology, it would be for more than Hillary. Colin Powell [wsj.com] also used a private e-mail for state-department business.

        The worst part are all the relatively smart people who are excusing this, simply because she has a (D) after her name.

        Colin Powell does not have a (D) after his name.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Colin Powell used a PUBLIC email server, not a private one. Slightly different, and enough different that it matters.

          • Colin Powell used a PUBLIC email server, not a private one. Slightly different, and enough different that it matters.

            It matters in what way?

            Private and public servers both have their pros and cons. I suspect you'll just select the ones that support your side of the argument.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Colin Powell has also said he had two machines in his office, one for secure government correspondence (which is also subject to FOIA requests) and the other for his personal email account -- I believe this is vary much different then Hillary who only had a personal email account and stored all correspondence (government or not) on a largely un-secure personal server. While she "might" have successfully "wiped" this server, I am sure numerous state actors have the full monty (so to speak), and for a price..

      • by PraiseBob ( 1923958 ) on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @05:40PM (#50721193)
        All I have to say, is if this were Jeb, he would be in jail already

        Are you conveniently forgetting that Jeb did literally the exact same thing? He had a personal server, then decided what to forward for state archives and deleted the rest.
        And so did Christie
        And so did Jindal
        And so did Rubio
        And so did Huckabee
        And while they no longer candidates, so did Perry
        And so did Walker

        I'm not excusing Hillary, because she did fail to follow security protocols. But lets not pretend that she's in some rare company, and lets not pretend that state level governments operate with complete transparency and that state governors could never possibly discuss classified or secret information under any circumstances.
      • The worst part are all the relatively smart people who are excusing this, simply because she has a (D) after her name. All I have to say, is if this were Jeb, he would be in jail already.

        No, if it was Jeb there'd just be a different set of relatively smart people excusing it because of the (R) after his name. Bipartisan partisan hackery is a two-sided coin.

      • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
        That's a lie. She is being excused because she did what every (R) before her did, she didn't use the government server (if any). The law didn't require her to do so. She broke no law. She's seeing more scrutiny over this than Palin did for using Yahoo mail for official Alaska business, in violation of state law. Palin got a big pass from the (R), as well as Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell who also did not use government servers for email.

        This gets a pass from (D) because it's obviously a political w
      • All I have to say, is if this were Jeb, he would be in jail already.

        Jail is for little people. Nothing would change if it were Jeb in trouble instead.

    • Clinton's mistake is she tried a "do it yourself" or "hire someone yourself" approach

      Hillary's servers were not totally secure, but were they more or less secure than the State Dept's servers?

      Is there anyone who cares about this issue that didn't already hate Hillary for other reasons?

      • Hillary tried to "do it herself" when it was against protocol to do it any way but through government channels. Let's not forget that part.

      • were they more or less secure than the State Dept's servers?

        There is a difference, and if you can't see the difference you're the worst kind of apologist.

        The difference is, in case you're wondering, is that we'll never know the state of Hillary's server. Which is, absolutely worse. And if you're assuming the best case, the answer is still no, it wasn't, and we have proof of that already (Server housed in a Denver Apt bathroom!).

        I'm guessing, this is your version of "What difference does it matter, at this point?"

        • That's a good point. Someone else [go.com] registered clintonemail.com (along with wjcoffice.com, and presidentclinton.com) with the Clintons' home in Chappaqua, New York as the contact address. Then all they had to do was convince a bunch of people like Sidney Blumenthal [wikipedia.org] that it was her email and years later they could create a minor scandal for her, after she'd already lost in the primaries to Obama.

        • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
          Yahoo Mail has been hacked a number of times. And Palin wasn't put in jail for using a known insecure email service for official government business.

          I'm guessing, this is your version of "What difference does it matter, at this point?"

          More like, "She didn't break a law, so stop spending millions of taxpayer's dollars investigating her."

    • Clinton hired a buddy to do it. This wasn't a government server, this was her own.

    • Hill's problem was that using a PERSONAL E-mail account as part of her OFFICIAL duties as Secretary of State was NOT ALLOWED both by State Department Policy and by the records retention laws and she knew it (She reprimanded one of her Ambassadors for doing the same thing). Who knows why, but she decided the rules didn't apply to her, or she didn't care.

      If that wasn't bad enough, somehow she started sending/receiving classified information though this very same server. I'll put the classified information

  • Of course... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @05:10PM (#50720877) Journal

    ...the point is her fundamental dishonesty, disregard for the rules that apply to 'little people', and flippant mendacity when it came to being confronted on the subject.

    Of course, flagrant violation of security rules like this would get you or me thrown in prison.

    As much as the Republican presidential contest is a clown car, the Democrats have perhaps an even more difficult choice: goofy or sleazy, pick one.

    I did finally hear a good reason to vote for Trump, for once:
    http://i.imgur.com/wVkmhzL.png [imgur.com]

    • by khasim ( 1285 )

      ... disregard for the rules that apply to 'little people' ...

      That is the issue for me.

      She is supposed to be so smart yet she did not think that the Secretary of State would be handing confidential / secret / top secret information via email?

      Yes, it is a political attack by the Republicans. But that does not change the fact that her actions were stupid UNLESS they were to hide something.

      Between Trump and Clinton, I'd have to vote Clinton. But I'm still campaigning for Sanders or Lessig.

    • As much as the Republican presidential contest is a clown car, the Democrats have perhaps an even more difficult choice: goofy or sleazy, pick one.

      I'll take goofy or sleazy over the flat-out mess that is the Republican field.

      About the only thing the Republicans have going for them right now is that nobody's giving them any serious scrutiny, because everyone's pretty much in agreement that the whole thing is a complete and utter farce.

  • by Darth Muffin ( 781947 ) on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @05:13PM (#50720911) Homepage
    Why is everyone focusing on security with this whole private email server? Sure, security was a problem but that's not why she made her own email server. It was made to bypass public records laws. By having their own email server they can retain or destroy whatever they want and fulfill records requests with whatever they deem fit. The IRS was their role model :-). It's about control, not security. Her and her administration should be tried for that first.
    • Why is everyone focusing on security with this whole private email server?

      Because it was the kind of illegal that would get, for instance, me sent away for a long time.

      People go to jail for playing fast and loose with classified material. And it's not like she didn't know better. Secretary of State wasn't her first government job (yes, Senators have to deal with this stuff too), or even her first exposure to security rules (yes, the First Lady has to deal with this sort of thing too)....

  • It's called (Score:5, Funny)

    by digitalPhant0m ( 1424687 ) on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @05:14PM (#50720923)

    Transparency.

  • by TsuruchiBrian ( 2731979 ) on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @05:22PM (#50721009)

    Clinton previously said that her server featured "numerous safeguards," but hasn't explained what that means.

    Some of the numerous security technologies employed include "theater" and "through obscurity".

  • by JoeyRox ( 2711699 ) on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @05:25PM (#50721037)
    Much to the chagrin of Hillary.
    • Boo. Get off the stage.

      You could have made a joke of there being a defensive tactical snuke in her open 'port', but noo.

  • by PolygamousRanchKid ( 1290638 ) on Tuesday October 13, 2015 @05:27PM (#50721061)

    Do you work for General Motors? Reuters? John Deere? DuPont? Exxon Mobile? Pfizer? Ford? IBM? Amazon? HP? General Food? Walmart? Apple? General Electric? AT&T? Boeing? Proctologist and Gamble? UPS? Disney? Lockheed Martin? Oracle? Philip Morris? Macy's? NIke? McDonald's? Staples? Whirlpool? Goodyear Tire and Rubbers (wink, wink)? United States Steel? . . . etc., etc., etc.

    If you worked for any big company, and set up your own email server to do company business . . . your testicles would be deep fried and hung up as pinatas. For most dorks in the US, they do not understand what setting up your own email server, of dubious security and audibility. For us IT professionals, Obama issuing another "Executive Administrative" decree that retroactively declares Hilary's email server as safe . . . well, that sounds and smells like shit to me . . .

  • I looked at all the current presidential candidates websites to see how good their security/tech was:
    https://bryanquigley.com/polit... [bryanquigley.com]

    In summary:
    Epic fail - Jim Gilmore, Bobby Jindal, George Pataki
    IPv6 - Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio.
    Complicated Setups - Clinton and Christie
    CloudFlare and WordPress are popular

  • Perhaps she thought her firewall was an international border, and should be open for all.
  • Is this the best you can do to try to keep the "scandal" alive? Just because the RDP port is open doesn't mean it's actually RDP running on the port. I used to run SSH on the telnet port. And just because the IP shows as from the same server doesn't mean it is. Lots of people use DMZ's with port forwarding to isolate servers.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Is this the best you can do to try to keep the "scandal" alive? Just because the RDP port is open doesn't mean it's actually RDP running on the port.

      I do serious IT work as my job. Obviously, you don't. If one of my sysadmins left that port open, he would be fired. Yes, we run a port scanner on all our servers to make sure that they are clean . . . squeaky clean. This is just standard procedure in most serious IT shops.

      Whatever you do in yours . . . well, that will be your problem.

  • I'm sure the CIA, FBI and NSA enjoyed watching hackers behave like script kiddies in a computer store: "Woo-hoo! We hacked into Hillary's email server!! Oh, look!!! Emails that look like classified information!!!"

Dynamically binding, you realize the magic. Statically binding, you see only the hierarchy.

Working...