Campaign dismisses claim hacker accessed Clinton email server

[workinclasszero]

Campaign dismisses claim hacker accessed Clinton email server
By HANNA TRUDO and JOSH GERSTEIN 05/04/16 08:24 PM EDT

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign is dismissing claims from a Romanian hacker known as “Guccifer” that he managed to gain access to the private server where Clinton stored her emails while secretary of state.

Hacker Marcel Lehel Lazar, who was extradited to the U.S. in March to face computer crime charges, told NBC News and Fox News in jailhouse interviews that he looked at information on Clinton’s server after obtaining details about the set-up from emails Clinton exchanged with Clinton outside adviser Sidney Blumenthal. The interview is set to air Sunday.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/clinton-email-server-hacker-222824

Trump is behind this BS, no doubt.

[CruzinNCrying]

1. Really????

This coming from the campaign that sent her out there to say "Wipe, like with a cloth?". Now they are experts on if they have been hacked?

[riversedge]

2. Please post any substantive evidence you have that it was hacked.

[randome]

4. Come on! Some Romanian guy says he hacked it! ISN'T THAT ENOUGH??

There comes a point when optimism bleeds into boundless gullibility. That time is now.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[CoffeeCat]

29. Whether or not her server was hacked is pretty much a non-issue

The FBI is investigating her use of her private, unsecure email server during the for years during her SOS tenure.

Whether or not this Guccifer hacked into her server really has no bearing on whether or not Clinton did anything illegal.

The laws governing the proper handling of classified materials--are about the behavior of the person with the security clearance.

A lack of hacking doesn't mean that what she did was legal.

I think the Guccifer stuff is way overblown.

[WhiteTara]

12. Jumping right in, eh?

"Lazar ultimately did not provide documentation to support his claims, according to the NBC report. An internal FBI review of Clinton’s email records did not indicate traces of hacking, a source familiar with the situation told POLITICO.

Fox News correspondent Catherine Herridge spoke to Lazar by phone at the Alexandria, Virginia, jail where he is being held."

1) Don't believe what Fox has to say and 2) FBI says there are no traces of hacking.

[grasswire]

3. lots more detail here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511901751

[NWCorona]

5. There's so many holes in that release nt

[CruzinNCrying]

6. Evidence

A hacker who accessed Sid email says he saw Clinton's email and accessed it as well. From there, he saw many others in her computer.

The FBI, with no reason to go after Lamar as he is already serving sentence, chooses to extradite him to US. For what reason?

The FBI is exploring whether hacking took place since HillarylikeaCloth managed to set up an unsecure server under their watch.

Then, of course, there is the emails between Sid and Hillary where she is congratulating herself into getting Obama into what he later deems his biggest mistake in office. All the while Sid is talking about his business interests.

But if it makes you feel better, I can pretend I read none of that put out by the hacker who also claims to have gotten into her server. But deep down we both know that he did.

[Sparkly]

24. Her emails are in the public domain

thanks to rightwing Judicial Watch.

She didn't send classified intel.

(The same hacker says he hacked others' servers, too, by the way.)

[floppyboo]

40. the problem with the marked classified thing

as I understand it, is that if it came from a government secure site it has an imbedded header thing like a letterhead. But if you aren't on the same server, it won't necessarily show up, either when sent, and especially when responded to.

That's my shitty layman's explanation. It is in all what I remember of the reports though. Too late for me to find the link. Came from a high security tech person's blog/post.

EDIT: just remembered. This article I read was in an effort to explain why NONE of her emails during her term as SOS were marked classified. Think of that for a minute - SOS with no classified info. Then what was she hired to do?

[Sparkly]

44. Classified was sent on a secure system, not regular email. nt

[Tarc]

7. "An internal FBI review of Clinton’s email records did not indicate traces of hacking."

Lol, that's gonna leave a mark in the burgeoning Camp Sanders-Guccifer love story.

[CruzinNCrying]

8. You understand

I am sure you understand, unlike Hillarylikeacloth, that good hackers don't leave footprints.

[Scurrilous]

9. Then why is he in jail? n/t

[CruzinNCrying]

13. Have you guys even read up on this?

He is in jail because he posted evidence of his hacking. Not that they found him through hacking.

[Scurrilous]

18. So he busted himself? n/t

[randome]

19. It takes a true moron to post evidence of his hacking. Which means he can't be too smart.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[Sparkly]

26. A good hacker doesn't leave footprints, but posts them...?

Wow.

[floppyboo]

41. Have you ever thought about the sociapathic makeup of a hacker? Of course they want you to know!

This is their fame. That's how most criminals are caught.

[Tarc]

11. I know that Hollywood would like you to think that, but it's not how the real world works

Seeing how he was caught, he can't be all that good, either.

[bobbobbins01]

14. I work on servers for a living.

That is how the real world works. You're wrong.

[Tarc]

16. ITT grad?

A lone, aged Romanian is not exactly the cream of the crop. What this person has claimed does not match the actual details of the server he claims to have hacked, he has provided no evidence, and the FBI long ago said there was no intrusion.

Kepe flailing though, it is worthy

[bobbobbins01]

20. Flailing? ITT grad?

Yeah...you know what you're talking about. You don't have to be cream of the crop to know that you need to clean up the log files, they taught me that my first day at ITT.

[Tarc]

32. I guess they didn't teach you that a "log file" is not all there is to it.

Maybe they'll get to that part next year...

[bobbobbins01]

33. Please tell me what else there is...

Enlighten me.

[randome]

17. In the real world, anyone can claim anything without a spec of proof. Agree?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[bobbobbins01]

22. Well he has a history of it.

And he did hack Blumenthal(which gave him Hillary's email, which could then be back-traced to her server), so it isn't far fetched. Maybe he didn't do it, but its definitely not out of the realm of possibility.

[mythology]

42. Technically he didn't hack Blumenthal

He used social engineering to go after an AOL account. Hardly 1337 skillz.

[bobbobbins01]

43. Well thats what the majority of hacking is.

But from what I've read about his other hacks, I think he'd probably leave a trace. I suspect he did, and thats probably why he was extradited.

[Sparkly]

25. They'll make up something else.

[jmg257]

37. Yep - Clinton's IT guy Brian Pagliano said so himself!

WASHINGTON — A former aide to Hillary Clinton has turned over to the F.B.I. computer security logs from Mrs. Clinton’s private server, records that showed no evidence of foreign hacking, according to people close to a federal investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails.

Mrs. Clinton’s work-related emails as secretary of state, which have been made public as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, show that she received spam emails intended to try to lure her into clicking a malicious link. Those emails, known as “spear phishing” attempts, were traced to Russia, but it was not clear from the emails alone whether anyone clicked on those links or whether the security was compromised.

Mr. Pagliano told the agents that nothing in his security logs suggested that any intrusion occurred. Security logs keep track of, among other things, who accessed the network and when. They are not definitive, and forensic experts can sometimes spot sophisticated hacking that is not apparent in the logs, but computer security experts view logs as key documents when detecting hackers."


Of course he wasn't in charge of her server the whole time it was running, so not exactly sure what "his security logs" means.

[randome]

15. And Ed Snowden said he could access the President's email, too!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[ucrdem]

23. You can fool some of the people all of the time

[ucrdem]

21. A hacker named Guccifer who lives in Romania penetrated Hillary's server.

Right.

[Press Virginia]

27. They're still saying it's just a security review

[CoffeeCat]

28. Whether or not a crime was committed has NOTHING to do with whether or not HRC's server was hacked

(my same response to a similar post)

It doesn't matter if her private, unsecure email server was hacked. Any hacking (or lack thereof) is irrelevant to the investigation into her private server.

I get that Guccifer is in the news. However, what he did or didn't do--seems like nothing more than a salacious sidebar-story.

The FBI is investigating her use of the private email server, as it relates to the laws governing the proper handling of classified materials.

Taking classified materials into a Starbucks and leaving them unattended on a table for ten hours--would be illegal. And prosecutable. It wouldn't matter if no one sat down at that table and read the documents, or if six people sat down and read the documents. From a legal perspective, the question is--the did person mishandle classified information?

[Dem2]

30. I feel like you are exonerating Hillary

The likelihood that she had the IT knowledge to specify an illegal arrangement (to what end?) is slim to none in my view. It's possible that others (the actual experts) whom she asked to set this up for her could receive some minor punishment, but it would be unprecedented to blame "the boss" for not knowing the fine details of email server security. Those wise cracking about her "wiping with a cloth" the server are also tending to support the idea that she's no IT expert.

[CoffeeCat]

34. Hillary Clinton signed a 2009 Non-Disclosure Agreement

By signing that 2009 Non-Disclosure Agreement--she agreed to properly handle classified materials. Being tech-savvy or not tech savvy is pretty much irrelevant.

Classified materials, according to the 2009 Non-Disclosure Agreement that she signed are defined as, "Marked or unmarked". So, HRC's little suggestion that, "I never sent material that was marked classified" is bunk.

It doesn't have to be marked. And why would it be "marked" if she's originating the email?

She's playing word games.

The 2009 Non-Disclosure Agreement (Point 3) stipulates that, "I hereby agree that I will never divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it;"

Sidney Blumenthal didn't have a security clearance. So that's another violation of the NDA. She swapped hundreds of emails with him. Some that she failed to turn over to the FBI, when they asked for her server. Some of those Clinton-Blumenthal emails have been partially or totally redacted.

PDF of the NDA Clinton signed
https://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/new_sf312.pdf

[Dem2]

35. I'm not really interested in those dumb things we all sign - and ignore - when we get a job

She's playing word games?

OK?

You're playing "gotcha" on what was until recently not even a requirement. Times change - cut the older peeps some slack. My mom wouldn't have the slightest idea how to comply with these requirements and would rely on others.

So, go back to the post you replied to, I stand by that and will not ever change my view on this. I've been a high-level tech person long enough to know how much bullshit this is.

[CoffeeCat]

36. You are not a serious person

You are suggesting that Clinton be free from the NDA she signed, because your mommy wouldn't "have the slightest idea how to comply with these requirements."

Seriously.

Just spare me.

[Dem2]

39. Thanks!

That made me smile

[HooptieWagon]

31. Trump is in charge of the FBI now?

OMG Yall are freakin hysterical!

[Armstead]

38. Four to eight years of these self-inflicted wounds....Gak

This guy may or may not be bogus. Personally I don't care.

But the never ending pattern of these "rules are for the little people" infractions -- whether legal or not -- that leaves the Clintons open to these kinds of real or made up "scandals"...God, the next four years are going to be a never ending round of this crap.

And please note before trotting out the it's all the fault of the right wing.....President Obama is not susceptible to this kind of thing. The GOP right wing has tried but they never stick because Obama is basically a straightforward above -board person who doesn't continually shoot himself in the foot.