DNC Had Virtually No Protections for Its Electronic Systems, Donna Brazile Is a Bald-Faced Liar

a reply to: seasonal

This is untrue:

After the phishing incident, the jpodesta account went all out and used the password, p@sswØrd.

What is being referred to is a temporary PW that was set for a new account. The email ID in question is 22335 and it was sent by Eryn Sepp on 2015-02-19. It has nothing to do with the DNC or the Clinton campaign or even Podesta's Gmail. The account being referenced was at CAP (Center for American Progress).

Do you have a source for this?

They didn’t even have an SSL certificate

I read the NYT article that was linked as a source and it wasn't even the correct NYT article. The article that should have been linked was this one.

John Podesta didn't use two-factor authentication for his Gmail account (or his Twitter account for that matter). John Podesta also left his phone in a cab. John Podesta also fell for a phishing email (apparently w/the assistance of a typo from somebody else). That much appears to be true.

The rest of this blog's bulls# is either outright false or unsourced opinion. The fact that you consider it a source worthy of linking only shows that you'll take as an authoritative source, pretty much anything posted to the web that agrees with your preconceived notions.

The language being used is that the hack was so sophisticated that it could only come from the top echelons of the Russian government. Any idiot could have hacked them.

There's nothing inherently complex about phishing in general. I was barely in my teens and phishing university accounts 25 years ago before the term phishing was even a thing. Some phishing campaigns are much more sophisticated than others but that's neither here nor there — the principal claim (buried amongst falsehoods and conflation) seems to be that because simple phishing attacks are easy and users fell for phishing emails, that the hackers "could have been anybody!"

Except none of that has anything to do with who was actually responsible. Attributing the hacks of the DNC to state-sponsored actors has to do with the sophistication (and identification) of the implants that were recovered from the compromised systems, the complexity of the C2 infrastructure (which was observed in action), etc.

a reply to: theantediluvian

No main stream media yet. Let them catch up.

a reply to: theantediluvian

The fact they are letting Brazile continue to speak for them tells me all I need to know.

Her obvious ignorance as to what she is speaking about is glaring, but the very fact that she is even allowed to still speak for them leaves no doubt in my mind they are corrupt and continuing to cover it up.

My guess is Brazile knows a lot of dirt and this is a "if I go down you do too" type of mentality going on here. That is the only reason I can think of for her to still be in this position.

It is very baffling that HRC could be sooooo careless despite the rhetoric of when she ran as a Senator, the smartest woman in the world, The smartest woman anyone had ever met destined to be more revered than Mother Teresa. This must be a vast right wing conspiracy to make her look like an idiot!
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

originally posted by: Bedlam
Bu..bu..bu..but the left is all super intelligent and stuff! THIS CAN'T BE TRUE! LIAR!! LIAR!! This is fake news! You must be a Rooskie!

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Or they have a lot of dirt on her, and she will do what they say or else.

Or she is a useful idiot, and loves being the go to person. The DNC will take full advantage of that.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Donna Brazille will cease to be the interim chairperson soon (in late February likely). She already announced that she would not seek to become the DNC chairperson.

Her obvious ignorance as to what she is speaking about is flaring, but the very fact that she is even allowed to still speak for them leaves no doubt in my mind they are corrupt and continuing to cover it up.

Based on what I heard in the video, I'm not sure what you're talking about. What I got from her statement was that after they'd been hacked, they took the steps they should have originally and got serious about security. She's clearly talking about things that happened after President Obama purportedly "warned" Putin in September. The OP framed it this way:

Of course the DNC chair disagrees with the story (1:30 video), and she says that they had excellent security and the bestest of everything. Who is lying?

This implies that the Brazile was saying that they had the best security in place when the hacks occurred. That's not what she was saying. What she was saying was that they now have excellent security (which may or may not be true but isn't the sort of statement I'd be making all things considered) and that they still have attempted hacks occurring. That may or may not be true. As we both know, anything on the Internet is constantly being scanned from a host of IPs, domestic and foreign. She could be referring to that in which case, that's not much evidence of anything beyond the run-of-the-mill. She could be referring to an ongoing phishing campaign which could point to deliberate ongoing attempts.

At any rate, clearly the DNC needs a house cleaning and I don't think many would disagree with that. Personally, I'd like to see the Democrats take this opportunity to push out the old guard and reinvogorate themselves with new blood, new ideas and a updated platform. In some ways, they also need to get back to previous strengths. The sort of popular support among young voters that Bernie had should be a wake up call. The flipping of Rust Belt strongholds should also be a wake up call. However, winning the popular vote by a healthy margin should also be seen as a sign that for all they're faults, the Democratic party could easily turn things around with the right leadership. Specifically, I'd like to see somebody actually address the long term trends in employment. I'd also like to see the Dems remove firearms from their platform entirely, take the high road in terms of privacy and expanded advocacy for protecting other fundamental rights — real liberalism — but that's a whole different discussion.

a reply to: seasonal

MSM is going to catch up to what? Are you arguing that your blog (can we call it "fake news" since they took the step of calling it the Independent Sentinel and you seem to think it's a source of news?) source is bulls#?

If that's the case, then explain how this is false:

What is being referred to is a temporary PW that was set for a new account. The email ID in question is 22335 and it was sent by Eryn Sepp on 2015-02-19. It has nothing to do with the DNC or the Clinton campaign or even Podesta's Gmail. The account being referenced was at CAP (Center for American Progress).

and this is true:

After the phishing incident, the jpodesta account went all out and used the password, p@sswØrd. That doesn’t sound un-hackable.

I'd really like to know where this information about the lack of an SSL cert is coming from too. I suspect, the writer's ass.

a reply to: seasonal

Re-arranging decks chairs on the Titanic I see.

I have to ask.. Do they really think people believe the BS excuses they come up with in an effort to blame everyone else for their failure?

Apparently the only thing left for the DNC to do is pass out the special cool aid with the funny taste.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Pyle

As an IT professional, I can't help but think that rather than worrying about how to punish a hacker, some effort into NOT BEING HACKED AGAIN might be the best way to go forward. But I'm not a leftie, so obviously nowhere near intelligent enough to make suggestions on this level.

I retired as one back in 2006....having said that, you must know that Russia, China, Israel, etc., have already hacked into every part of trumps life and businesses....they can at any time, reveal that info depending on the policies that could affect them.....and, if you do not think that has happened, you are NOT an "IT professional"

originally posted by: seasonal
Of course the DNC chair disagrees with the story (1:30 video), and she says that they had excellent security and the bestest of everything. Who is lying?

So in addition to Podesta the brilliant falling for a phishing attack he also misplaced his phone. Huma and HRC leaving their smart phones on a bed in a Chinese Hotel in China, we also now know that the DNC had almost no protections for their electronic systems.
And Podesta the brilliant didn't sign up for the 2-factor authentication on his Gmail account. HRC added to the fun by losing 12 electronic devices and of course the basement unsecured served that HRC thought was super groovy to keep classified docs on.

In addition to John Podesta falling for a phishing attack and misplacing his phone, and Huma and Hillary leaving their smartphones on a bed in a Chinese hotel in China, we now know that the D.N.C. had virtually no protections for its electronic systems, and Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, John D. Podesta, had failed to sign up for the “two-factor authentication” on his Gmail account.

Let’s not forget that Hillary couldn’t keep an electronic device – she lost more than a dozen devices – and she kept an unsecured personal server in her basement and in a bathroom closet, with copies of secure data given to lawyers, showing up on Anthony Weiner’s laptop and printed out by a maid.

Any one could have hacked the DNC, with flimsy passwords and processes to secure their hardware and emails, it's little wonder that they were hacked.

Even my meaningless email accounts have two-factor ID and are safer than theirs were. Anyone could have hacked them. After the phishing incident, the jpodesta account went all out and used the password, p@sswØrd. That doesn’t sound un-hackable.

They didn’t even have an SSL certificate.

The language being used is that the hack was so sophisticated that it could only come from the top echelons of the Russian government. Any idiot could have hacked them.

The CEO of Alphabet [Google, gmail] Eric Schultz was working for the Hillary campaign!

www.independentsentinel.com...

BOLD FACED LIAR. NOT BALD. WTF DOES THAT EVEN MEAN. UGH.

Bold;
showing an ability to take risks; confident and courageous.
Bald
having a scalp wholly or partly lacking hair.

a reply to: SRPrime

source

bald–faced
adjective ˈbȯl(d)-ˈfāst
Definition of bald–faced for English Language Learners

: easy to see and understand as being bad

: showing no guilt or shame : not hiding bad behavior

Both are accepted uses and the difference comes down to time of century and world location.

a reply to: SRPrime

Bold faced, wouldn't that mean a lair that is bold or sure of their lie with a bold look?

Bald faced, hairless faced? No idea, and web search brings many adds for bald cures.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: seasonal

Re-arranging decks chairs on the Titanic I see.

I have to ask.. Do they really think people believe the BS excuses they come up with in an effort to blame everyone else for their failure?

Apparently the only thing left for the DNC to do is pass out the special cool aid with the funny taste.

give it a rest, sparky....is she suppose to come out EVERY DAY and say that it was her fault?...Trump paid out 25,000,000 dollars in restitution after losing a lawsuit to students that TRUSTED him when they paid "tuition" to his fake trump university.....I guess they drank the cool aid, too....they trusted trump just like you are trusting trump....

a reply to: jimmyx

I believe the lawsuit was settled.

And she did loose, so yes there is no harm to her admitting that everyday, 2 times a day. But if she does it 2 times on Monday she can skip Tuesday. That would be fine.

Whether the techs were Russian or not is really not important since I think in the end it will come out that a insider Bern supporting DNC member got it all going once they saw what was going on with the fix for Hillary. Also, if it was the Russians I would bet they tried to hack both parties but only got into the liberal's servers.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Pyle

As an IT professional, I can't help but think that rather than worrying about how to punish a hacker, some effort into NOT BEING HACKED AGAIN might be the best way to go forward. But I'm not a leftie, so obviously nowhere near intelligent enough to make suggestions on this level.

I retired as one back in 2006....having said that, you must know that Russia, China, Israel, etc., have already hacked into every part of trumps life and businesses....they can at any time, reveal that info depending on the policies that could affect them.....and, if you do not think that has happened, you are NOT an "IT professional"

Exactly. Everyone gets hacked, there really are servers in a building in Utah filled with individual folders of each of us with out online profile that can be pulled up at any time, so your cyber activities are always captured. And everything is forever, so no time frame to escape the truth. Weather it's allowed or not, it happens and will continue and the hacking of other countries by us is also a reality. As long as you operate knowing all that is more than likely the case, you can live with minimal regrets. Just behave.

a reply to: network dude
Are you one of "I'm not doing anything so go ahead and search my-fill in the blank-"?

a reply to: seasonal

I'd prefer not to be, but knowing the reality of things, you have to live like that, or you will make silly mistakes like googling how to kill your wife, just before she falls down the stairs, like your last two wives did. (I don't know if Peterson used the google, but you get the point)

a reply to: network dude

I see your point, I will not give in.

But being smart is a way to avoid extra trouble.

a reply to: jimmyx

Well considering Brazile keeps trying to blame the Russians I would actually welcome her to come out and say she lied and the Russians didnt hack her emails, let alone weaponize them as she claims.

The democrats got caught lying. plain and simple.

It is their own fault and no one else.