It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: matafuchs
Also, they keep referring to this as an email server. Why would she have a private 'server' for emails only? If you did, you would want them to be 'hidden' and it means that if something was sent to them, it was hitting this server and THEN being sent to her e-device. The server is not the only point of access to find out what she was doing. Also, I am sure that it was also being used to store documents. That to me is worse then emails....
originally posted by: RickinVa
originally posted by: Sillyolme
Probably not for what you think.
It has already been determined that her system has never been hacked.
lets analyze your sources shall we?
well well an anonymous source...just like cough cough fox news
according to people close to a federal investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails.
oopsy you left that part out
It is possible that forensic experts could find traces of sophisticated hacking that the logs would not reflect.
The logs do not conclusively prove that the server was never successfully breached,
There is no definitive so called proof either way.... none the less, it remains extremely likely that Guccifer was able to access Hillarys server.
originally posted by: itsmethegoat
I truly do not understand why people are claiming her server wasn't hacked solely based on logs. Logs can easily be turned off/on at any given moment. If this server was set up as a personal email server with no intentions for outside use -- why would they log anything? System logs will not tell you anything about the network. Network logs are where they would see any unauthorized access. Plus, depending on the level of access the attacker has to the network/system; logs can be cleared/deleted quite easily.
For all we know this "Guccifer" didn't actually "hack" anything. The email server could have very well been a server that was easily accessible, but hidden from the public internetz. Someone stated that "Guccifer" was a taxi driver -- is it possible that someone left a connected device in a taxi cab, and instead of returning it -- he snooped around? I haven't looked much into HOW it happened, so is there any hard evidence suggesting that is was an infiltration of the server, and not just some lowly snooper?
originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: itsmethegoat
From what I read, he was just uncannily good at guessing passwords.
He did not have any exceptional hacking knowledge - just some things he picked up researching on the Internet.
From putting together things I read from various sources, it seems he just "logged in" to the accounts.
All he needed was the user name and domain, obviously the same as the email address, which he had from the Powell emails that he had already accessed in his AOL account.
Then he just needed to test the common ports and protocols, to see which only returned an invalid password error.
Then he would try various passwords to get in. (Makes one wonder how strong her password was.)
It's the most basic form of account compromise, and can hardly be called "hacking".
He did seem to have some knowledge of using proxies, which helped him evade tracking for a while.
Early articles from 2014 credit him with being the one to reveal to the public that Hillary was using her own server.